User talk:Gojomo

Hi.

Signpost

Hi, just a little heads-up that I did a write-up of your Thunkpedia talk for this week's edition of the Wikipedia Signpost, quickly gleaned from the YouTube recording and the slides. Hope it's accurate; you're welcome to leave a remark on the talk page if otherwise. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, thanks for message. The general sanctions notification isn't necessarily to do with this specific article, it's being applied to all blockchain and cryptocurrency articles due to the deluge of cryptospam we have been subjected to. It's basically to make it easier for admins to block editors transgressing in this area. I posted the link so that you are aware that this is a problematic area. If you do decide to go ahead, do so as a draft. In view of your comments, I looked at your version of the article before other editors posted. Comments below relate to that version.

it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. None of your text after the lead paragraph had any references at all, and of the references you did give, apart from the Wired article, all were sourced to the company itself, their press releases or Twitter, not independent third-party sources
The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

significant coverage in
independent,
multiple,
reliable,
secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. With only one proper ref, which doesn't support most of the supposed facts in your article, there is nothing in what you wrote to show how this meets the linked notability criteria. The only actual verifiable fact apart from the largely irrelevant design section is the $232 million offering, but as you will see, one verifiable fact sourced to only one real reference doesn't meet the notability criteria.

it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. We get of to a great start with the unattributed quote the world’s first 'self-amending' cryptocurrency prior to any actual facts, Other examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: the largest for such an offering to that date... generic and self-amending crypto-ledger which can instantiate any blockchain based ledger... Most importantly... Its proof-of-stake approach is novel... It has therefore been called "liquid" proof-of-stake by some... a powerful functional... an unambiguous syntax and semantics... a good candidate— just cryptospam.
You have declared a conflict of interest when editing this article, thank you for that. Since you work directly or indirectly for the organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Having made the declaration, of course, doesn't mean you can write what you like, it just means that you aren't blocked for not doing so.

Given that it's mostly unsourced spam, I'm not prepared to restore the text. I note that you also made this edit to your talk page removing speedy deletion notifications, a warning about removing SD tags, and a previous general sanction warning from MER-C, which does not, of course, invalidate that warning. You are entitled to do pretty much what you like with your talk page, but that edit does not inspire confidence. The previous SD nominator asked that the article be protected from future recreation, which I declined this time, but this is effectively your last chance, should you decide to proceed. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(re: general sanction) But that sanction suggests actions against editors, doesn't it? I didn't see anything in it suggesting blanket-deletions to articles with some good info about notable subjects. --Gojomo (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(re: inadequate sources) Restore the history and we'll be able to discuss what sources I used. IIRC, it was a Wired cover story and a Bloomberg news report that I chose (out of dozens of other major-media alternatives). Not any of the flaky sources you're inaccurately and unfairly implying. --Gojomo (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(re: notability) Restore the history and you'll see all the text I wrote was clearly sourced from more than one major media organization, and easily meeting the 4 (or is it 5?) components. --Gojomo (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(re: examples of promotional tone) I wrote none of this text. (Have your negative experiences with other crypto topics turned off a normal competency in reading the history?) Take it up with the person who wrote it, applying editor sanctions there if necessary. I moved this text to a separate 'Design' section *because* it was problematic – to quarantine it from the well-sourced intro – in the hopes it could get fixed up there. (IMO, although this text-by-someone-else is not in a proper encyclopedic tone, and insufficiently sourced, it's more-or-less true, so I was hoping it could be cured not wiped. But its defects don't justify wiping other nearby true/sourced/NPOV/notable reference info.) --Gojomo (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(re: conflict-of-interest) I neither work for nor on behalf of the organization. I own a tiny amount of their units and added the declaration in an abundance of caution. My edits stand on their own. --Gojomo (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(re: "it's mostly unsourced spam") Then delete what you see as spam (or move it to the article talk for fix-up), and leave the meat. --Gojomo (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(re: accusation of removing notices from my talk page) That's not me, so you've made an derogatory false accusation here. Could you be more careful in the future? --Gojomo (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(re: recreation-protection & 'last chance') Who asked, and where did they ask, do you have a link? The topic easily meets notability guidelines given extensive media coverage. If there was something wrong with the stub I created, describe that – don't make it about me with a "your last chance" threat based on misattributed text/actions, hidden histories, & secret administrative standards. --Gojomo (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More

Firstly, note that it is unacceptable to modify other editor's comments. You should not intersperse your commentary into my remarks, if you want to comment on individual statements, copy them into your response. I realise you may not have been aware of this, but it upsets people.

I've already mentioned the paid editor issue on my talk page. I accept that it's not the best term, but you do have a declared financial interest, of unknown size, so I think it's reasonable to discourage you from writing on this topic
I thought I'd made it clear that the general sanctions warning is just that, and is posted on most new articles that are subject to those sanctions. As you say, it's not a reason for deletion as such, nor was it in my deletion summary
I accept that the comment on your talk page deletion was incorrect, I was mislead by the similar name
I don't think I claimed that you wrote all the promotional text, I was responding to your claim that it was a neutral, well-sourced article, which it clearly isn't
I think the "last chance" comment is not unreasonable. If articles keep getting deleted, it's normal practice to protect the name space so that they can't be tendentiously recreated without admin intervention. Jytdog said when nominating for deletion This is a recreation of a page that was previously speedied; please salt You can't see that because it's on the deleted page, but in any case I don't personally salt deleted titles until the third attempt.
I think you overstate the secrecy here. You can see every edit that I, on any other editor makes. The only thing you can't see is deleted articles, which is the whole point of deletion.

I've had a second look, and I'll recreate as a draft and de-spam the text, but you will still need to fix the other issues. I'll do that later today Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restored at Draft:Tezos, I've removed the entirely unsourced and promotional "Design section" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the interspersed replies. I would never change your words, but I thought I had seen such a reply-style here before. Also, I had just seen you change the reply-level of my comment on your talk page, leading me to believe an editor might choose their own preferences for clarity on their own talk page. I also wanted my refutations of multiple specific inaccuracies about what was in my articles edits, or the sources used by my edits, or my prior Talk page edits, to appear as close as possible to your bullets. But I apologize for not following the local convention.

* You absolutely called text that had not been added by me "your text". You claimed your assessment was of "your version of the article before other editors posted". Neither of these were true, even though you had access to the deleted history, and I had to work from memory. Also, I never claimed "that it was a neutral, well-sourced article". You can look back at my initial post-speedy-deletion comments on your talk page – which I was writing blind without access to the latest version of the article. I allowed for the possibility it may have developed problems, but I asserted that the initial contributions I had made months earlier were of high quality.

* There are surely legitimate reasons to hide history for many deletions – such as copyrighted or defamatory material – but none of those were alleged here. In any case, the 'secrecy' of which I was concerned was using hidden evidence to make negative implications about the quality of my edits that I had no power to refute. And, hints of other sword-of-damocles ("your last chance") remedies being discussed somewhere unspecified that I can't even see.

All that said, I thank you for the draft-restoration & cleanup. You've removed exactly the other-editor material I thought was iffy, too – indeed it's anon-editor material that had [[1]] my original sourced text. (I considered deleting it myself, but prefer giving people/text a chance to improve their work, and didn't want to start anything like an adversarial revert battle.)

As it stands, the draft looks fine to me, except that the spam-notice at the top is now out-of-date, since it was referring to problematic text now gone. What other issues do you see that would need fixing before it becomes a non-draft article? --Gojomo (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I said "your version of the article before other editors posted", I was picking up on your claim that the junk had been added after you had edited, I didn't think I was implying that you were the only editor at that point, although I can see why you think that I may have been. The history of an extant article is always fully available, except for copyrighted or defamatory material which have been hidden by an admin. That doesn't apply here. It's obvious that the history of a deleted article can't be seen, otherwise it's not been deleted in any real sense. I can see why that makes it harder to contest, but there is no logical way around that, and in practice many articles, like this, are eventually restored in some form.

The issue is still the referencing. If you look at the current notability definition, the sources should be independent. One of you refs is to the Tezos foundation itself, another seems to be based on a Tezos press release and quotes Ryan Jesperson. Although there is some commentary, I don't know if whether Coindesk would be considered a reliable source. You should try to find independent third-party references, particularly to replave the foundation link. If nobody else has mentioned the fact sourced there, it's difficult to see why it's significant Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of general sanctions on cryptocurrencies and blockchain

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detail

Following on from the above, you may want to read Jytdog's very clear explanation here of why this area is subject to general sanctions and why involved editors are notified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]