User talk:Rt665j4

Rt665j4, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Rt665j4! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! 78.26 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Block chain (database). Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. -- intgr [talk] 17:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Block chain (database). It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- intgr [talk] 07:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rt665j4. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rt665j4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

These edits to the page are well-founded and supported by footnotes. The primary reason that the existing editors are reverting these edits is because of the word "permissionless" in the first paragraph - they believe, and are willing to go to considerable lengths to promote, the idea that a block chain database must be based on the principles of being "permissionless," i.e., where nobody is in charge. This view is false. The footnotes in the current version of the article (specifically FN10-16, inclusive) reference the technologies which I was attempting to add in the "external links" section, which had been in the article for a number of months until they were removed by the currently active editors of this article. Furthermore, their inclusion was supported by links to Microsoft's website which is, in a fast-moving space such as blockchain, considerable authoritative weight in terms of reflecting the state of the art. Many of the Wikipedia articles linked to in the "Altchain" section of the article are clearly vanity articles with little by way of objective third party validation that was provided in respect of the external links. The block should be removed and the edits should be reinstated.

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not address the reason for your block whatsoever, specifically your abuse of multiple accounts. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rt665j4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Multiple accounts are allowed; abuse of multiple accounts is disallowed. I do not usually edit Wikipedia; I believe I made one edit under the previous account but my computer autofilled a login I didn't know I had (this account) so I used that exclusively going forward. Given that the edits were legitimate and well-sourced, and that the bulk of them came from this account, there is neither sockpuppetry proper nor is there abusive editing. Furthermore, a review of the successive edits will show that, on each successive edit, the appropriate formatting for external links was followed (chiefly, adding external links at the bottom of a list, and then adding a separate "external links" section when this was proposed by other editors). Having made these successive modifications in order to satisfy the other editors' specific comments, one of them then resorted to calling the edits "spam" as a last resort.

The fact is, each edit responded to specific formatting comments from the other editors. Including the text was amply justified and supported by reliable third party sources. Accordingly I think the block should be lifted so the substance of the proposed changes can be properly discussed on the appropriate talk page.

Decline reason:

Indeed, only abusive use of multiple accounts in prohinited. And your use was definitely abusive, as you edited the same articles at the same time. Especially aggravating is that this sockpuppetry was for promotion of a commercial product. Max Semenik (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.