User talk:DaxMoon

DaxMoon, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DaxMoon! 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 experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

COI

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:DaxMoon. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=DaxMoon|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Also read the following regarding writing an article

you must provide 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 organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls

A list of websites at the end does not constitute in-line references since we have no idea what fact each is supporting, and

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.

you must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews. The tone is pure company-generated spam, with missin statements, quotes from "Will and Amir" and stuff like

as they started to build out their vision... their own unique implementation... The team strongly believes... team’s belief that passion, persistence, and a strong sense of ethics allow them to best serve their community... They are actively seeking additional talented and passionate individuals to join their team.

there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
you must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t work for the organization in any way nor am I acting on their behalf. I simply believe they are notable and want to improve Wikipedia. I think their particular take on decentralized finance and the tech to process trades they’re working on is fascinating. You’re treating a sandbox page with the scrutiny intended for submitted articles. We have pages for titcoin and auroracoin but a major crypto like 0x gets banished from existence with nary a thought. I completely agree some of it sounds far too promotional. This is because most of the available informational on the 0xproject is promotional. I was going to edit it so it was encyclopedic. Do you really think someone purely trying to promote a crypto would add a somewhat damning criticism section with an in depth critique from professors at Cornell and written about in Forbes? A critique that could potentially tank the entire company? As I already stated, I was simply dumping info in the sandbox so I’d have a variety of info I’d be working with in one place. The level of scrutiny with which you are lording over a sandbox... it’s as if I already submitted it as an article. And you deleted it without even discussing it with me first... And when it was kindly pointed out you became all the more intractable. Assuming bad faith on my part every step of the way. Biting the head off a newcomer. I find this sort of behavior to be extremely detrimental to the idea of an encyclopedia anyone can edit and I hope you will reflect upon how you addressed this matter. I will start an ANI or whatever the next proper step is when I have time.DaxMoon (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of not responding to a COI request because you don't have one, although I can see the logic of that, it's higher risk than you think. I, and other admins, routinely block editors who don't respond to a COI request and then continue to edit the contentious article, particularly since that's often the only subject they have written about, which wasn't the case here.

I'll restore the sandbox for you you to clean up, but a couple of comments first. The bit you had actually started formatting used external links instead of in-line references, see the guidance in my posting above. Your quote must have an in-line reference for attribution. I'm dubious anyway about quoting what the company says, since it's obviously not an independent third-party source, so it looks promotional.

I appreciate that you might not use them, but some of the sources listed are not appropriate, they include PR sites, Techcrunch and Medium. Sources like Forbes and Bloomberg should also be used with caution, since often they are just repeating what the company says. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viewmont Viking, just to keep you in the loop on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you Jimfbleak. I appreciate the guidance. I may shoot you a message when I’ve cleaned it up a bit if that’s ok. DaxMoon (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Informational notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Grayfell (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous edit at Tether (cryptocurrency)

Regarding this edit, the cited source includes this exact quote:

This information is intended solely to assist the management of Tether Limited (“management”), and solely for management’s use, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used or relied upon by any other party.

This is in the first page of the PDF. Do not remove citations from direct quotes, as this introduces WP:COPYVIO and WP:V issues. Further, your edit broke the quotation template.

As the article is under community sanctions, you should revert this edit yourself. Grayfell (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad User:Grayfell. I removed the wrong source. That wasn't the one I intended to remove. Never even looked at that one. I'll revert. Thanks for the heads up. DaxMoon (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary: Thanks for the heads up on the 1 revert rule. I'm going to use mine here. I brought up the precise policies that clearly require those edits and by reverting you restored content that is clearly violative of wiki policy. One shouldn't have to bring up every edit on the talk page when a major wikipedia policy unambiguously requires extensive editing for clear POV violations This edit summary Shows a couple of serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia and how edit warring is defined.

First, the talk page is the place to discuss what are and are not "clear POV violations". It is not "clear" just because you say it is "clear". You are not more qualified to decide this than the multiple experienced editors who have discussed this over the past few years.

Second, repeatedly restoring your preferred changes to the article is also edit warring. The use of the "revert" button is irrelevant. WP:1RR is a bright line rule, but that is not the only way to edit war. Wikipedia is based on WP:CONSENSUS. This means that yes, you do have to bring up edits which are contested. These edits have obviously been contested, so as I have repeatedly explained, the burden is on you to gain consensus for these changes. Grayfell (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Childish personal insults are the wrong way to approach this. As I've tried to explain to you multiple times, the burden is on you to gain consensus for your preferred version, per WP:BRD etc. If you think you can start a neutrally worded RFC, and you think that would improve the article, go for it. Grayfell (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell you're right of course. I apologize. However, I believe consensus weighs in favor of making those edits.DaxMoon (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. The article's talk page would be a much better place to make your case about changes to the article. I do not see any clear consensus in favor of changing the article yet. Grayfell (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

/sandbox

Kin (Cryptocurrency)

October 2021

Your edit to Rudyard Kipling has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. I could see how the the language I used in one of my edits was too similar to language from one of the referenced materials. I disagree that every edit needed to be x'd and eradicated. Would you please review my edits and provide an explanation? Thank you. DaxMoon (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you did just that. For my own pedagogical purposes could you explain why you believe the content I added from https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/punjab/rudyard-kipling-gave-10-for-dyer-fund-756595 violated copyright laws? I would've thought the content was satisfactorily altered. Thanks you. DaxMoon (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source says:

Kim Wagner, senior lecturer in British Imperial History at Queen Mary University of London, now says that Dyer was eulogised as the ‘Saviour of Punjab’ in the Anglo-Indian press in India in early 1920, but that had nothing to do with Kipling, and when the ‘Morning Post’ fund was launched, it was under the heading ‘The Man Who Saved India’. However, he says Kipling had nothing to do with organising this fund. He did contribute to the fund on July 17, 1920.

Your edit:

However, Kim Wagner, senior lecturer in British Imperial History at Queen Mary University of London, says Dyer was eulogised as the ‘Saviour of Punjab’ in the Anglo-Indian press in India in early 1920, but that had nothing to do with Kipling, and when The Morning Post fund was launched, it was under the heading ‘The Man Who Saved India’. Wagner says Kipling had nothing to do with organising this fund and while he did contribute to the fund on July 17, 1920

Well I'll be. Thanks Diannaa! DaxMoon (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

question

You reverted my edit here saying removal of valid content. I hadn't removed anything in that edit; instead I was reverting the removal myself. Was this an accident? --Ferien (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ferien. Indeed it was an accident! My apologies. I'm a newbie to recent changes. I'll revert my revert unless you already have. DaxMoon (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for your contributions and best of luck recent change patrolling :) --Ferien (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate edit request and split discussion

Hi, I closed your recent edit request at Talk:List of cryptocurrencies because it was a duplicate of the one above and it looked like you hadn't responded to the objection on that one, then I spotted your response on Radish's talk page. I have moved the discussion back to the article talk page so that anyone interested can read it. If no-one else responds in a day or so please reopen the first edit request (change answered=yes to answered=no) and leave a comment under it summarizing what has happened, so that whoever next goes through the requested edits queue can see that there is no further dispute. Hope that doesn't seem too hopelessly bureaucratic! User:GKFX^talk 18:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:GKFX. I think I follow. Thanks for the explanation! DaxMoon (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

0x (decentralized exchange infrastructure) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 0x (decentralized exchange infrastructure), has been moved to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) because as an obvious WP:COI contribution, it needs to come through WP:AFC per WP:COIEDIT. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Usedtobecool. When I first started a sandbox for the 0x article, before I had a chance to say anything, an admin deleted the page based on an unequivocal WP:COI accusation, without any detail or explanation. Fortunately, Jimfbleak restored the page after I had a chance to address the COI accusation. Once again, the page has been deleted based on an unequivocal COI accusation, without any detail or explanation, before I have chance to respond. Please provide the basis for your accusation that this article is "an obvious WP:COI contribution". DaxMoon (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the history, DaxMoon, but articles don't get deleted because of COI. It was deleted as spam. COI was suspected because it was spam. Whether you have a COI or not, you have produced an article that looks a lot like a COI contribution. I did not delete it. I moved it to Draft:0x (decentralized exchange infrastructure) per WP:DRAFTIFY. You can work on it there and bring it up to standards.

I am not convinced you don't have a COI. With David Gerard, that makes three of us who have come to think there's some sort of COI at play here. And there's ColonelCrypto who's even more single-mindedly focused on this article. Even if you don't, they surely have a COI.

Full disclosure: draftification is not binding. In the absence of a COI (and even without but only technically), you are free to move it back to mainspace. But you will have to do so at your own risk; if an admin finds your denial unconvincing, they could sanction you. There is no set threshold of evidence that is required.

The article is generally poor. It is promotional, and references don't verify the content. So, I would suggest, regardless of the COI issue, that you could benefit from using the WP:AFC process. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was dumping a lot of material, including articles critical of 0x, in the sandbox to have it handy for when I edited later thinking it would be ok seeing as it's a sandbox. Spam/COI technicalities aside, who is the third alleging a COI? Does Wikipedia not have a Confrontation Clause? Notable no-coiner David Gerard (kidding), also alleged a COI without any detail or explanation. And without having a chance to confront the accusations, these conspiratorial allegations are enlarged to engulf ColonelCrypto. The colonel included a new section under the criticism section shortly before we took it to the mainspace. Look at the next article we did for our crypto article creation project Kin. I struggle to see how either the 0x page or the Kin page violate WP:NPOV. But if you think they do, rather than casting vague degradations that the articles are poor and promotional why don't you provide specifics so we may better the page? Why does it matter how many people join in on vague accusations without any detail or explanation? Especially when, over and over, I've requested detail and explanation so I can respond. Please provide an explanation of your COI accusations and I'll be happy to address them. DaxMoon (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The number matters because Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. It does not matter whether you are told why anyone thinks you have a COI (WP:OPAQUE). Even if you are never told a single detail, if the few people who ever look at the issue generally agree that you have one, you'll be required to proceed as if you do. Obviously, I am not going to spend my time compiling a list of all the issues the article has when you have rejected the opportunity to work in precisely that framework (WP:AFC). Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi DaxMoon! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Related project to Wikipedia:WikiProject NPOV, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, you can create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Kin (cryptocurrency). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. David Gerard (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David Gerard. Sorry about that. I was kidding. I saw some article where you were derided the title "no-coiner" and was amused. No-coiner is a terrible taunt. I'll be civiler and less cavalier moving forward. DaxMoon (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. CoinDesk is specifically listed at WP:RSP as generally unreliable. It should not be used in Wikipedia articles as a source. You were warned of this previously and have persisted in edit-warring it in. David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the crypto general sanctions allow an admin to topic-ban you from the area. Your editing in crypto articles has been severely questioned by multiple editors already. Please improve it - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

David and I were in the midst of a discussion/disagreement when he blocked me. Per WP:UNINVOLVED, I don't think this was appropriate.

Regarding the advertising/self-promoting allegation. I addressed this issue a while ago with User:Jimfbleak. No one has ever provided any specifics or an explanation for the allegations even though I have continually asked. I am happy to address any questions or concerns relating to these issues. Also, I don't see how the edits I've made could be construed as advertising or self-promotional. They are factual and referenced. Further, I have added content and references criticizing the subjects I am alleged to be promoting. If I've made edits that sound promotional or self-promoting I'd appreciate it if someone would show me the specific edits. I enjoy editing Wikipedia and I'm happy to learn.

While the topic of my discussion/disagreement is not mentioned as a reason for the block I will take that matter up on the reliable sources talk page. It would be best if there were a definitive policy for that issue anyways. Thank you. DaxMoon (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=David and I were in the midst of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard#November_2021 discussion/disagreement] when he blocked me. Per [[WP:UNINVOLVED]], I don't think this was appropriate. 

Regarding the advertising/self-promoting allegation. I addressed this issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#Sandbox_deletion a while ago] with [[User:Jimfbleak]]. No one has ever provided any specifics or an explanation for the allegations even though I have continually asked. I am happy to address any questions or concerns relating to these issues. Also, I don't see how the edits I've made could be construed as advertising or self-promotional. They are factual and referenced. Further, I have added content and references criticizing the subjects I am alleged to be promoting. If I've made edits that sound promotional or self-promoting I'd appreciate it if someone would show me the specific edits. I enjoy editing Wikipedia and I'm happy to learn. 

While the topic of my discussion/disagreement is not mentioned as a reason for the block I will take that matter up on the reliable sources talk page. It would be best if there were a definitive policy for that issue anyways. Thank you. [[User:DaxMoon|DaxMoon]] ([[User talk:DaxMoon#top|talk]]) 20:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=David and I were in the midst of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard#November_2021 discussion/disagreement] when he blocked me. Per [[WP:UNINVOLVED]], I don't think this was appropriate. 

Regarding the advertising/self-promoting allegation. I addressed this issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#Sandbox_deletion a while ago] with [[User:Jimfbleak]]. No one has ever provided any specifics or an explanation for the allegations even though I have continually asked. I am happy to address any questions or concerns relating to these issues. Also, I don't see how the edits I've made could be construed as advertising or self-promotional. They are factual and referenced. Further, I have added content and references criticizing the subjects I am alleged to be promoting. If I've made edits that sound promotional or self-promoting I'd appreciate it if someone would show me the specific edits. I enjoy editing Wikipedia and I'm happy to learn. 

While the topic of my discussion/disagreement is not mentioned as a reason for the block I will take that matter up on the reliable sources talk page. It would be best if there were a definitive policy for that issue anyways. Thank you. [[User:DaxMoon|DaxMoon]] ([[User talk:DaxMoon#top|talk]]) 20:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=David and I were in the midst of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard#November_2021 discussion/disagreement] when he blocked me. Per [[WP:UNINVOLVED]], I don't think this was appropriate. 

Regarding the advertising/self-promoting allegation. I addressed this issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#Sandbox_deletion a while ago] with [[User:Jimfbleak]]. No one has ever provided any specifics or an explanation for the allegations even though I have continually asked. I am happy to address any questions or concerns relating to these issues. Also, I don't see how the edits I've made could be construed as advertising or self-promotional. They are factual and referenced. Further, I have added content and references criticizing the subjects I am alleged to be promoting. If I've made edits that sound promotional or self-promoting I'd appreciate it if someone would show me the specific edits. I enjoy editing Wikipedia and I'm happy to learn. 

While the topic of my discussion/disagreement is not mentioned as a reason for the block I will take that matter up on the reliable sources talk page. It would be best if there were a definitive policy for that issue anyways. Thank you. [[User:DaxMoon|DaxMoon]] ([[User talk:DaxMoon#top|talk]]) 20:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}