User talk:ArcticSnowWind

Blockchain/cryptocurrencies standard notice
Let me know if you have any questions and happy editing. JBchrch  talk  21:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Issues with Cryptocurrencies in Europe
Hi, and thank you for your contributions. I am watching the article Cryptocurrencies in Europe and I just thought that there are two issues you might want to be aware of. First, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: it is important to curate the information that we add to article and to choose what is most relevant to the article at hand, and that is especially the case with articles such as this one, which are broad in scope. Second, there is broad consensus on the project that crypto-centric publications are not reliable, so you shouldn't use those in order to source claims about what you are writing about. Let me know if you have any question. Best. JBchrch  talk  21:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I also note that you are adding a number of informations that are factually incorrect. Please make sure that everything you write is strictly sourced and does not involve guessing or approximation of your end. Thanks. JBchrch  talk  21:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Cryptocurrencies in Europe moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Cryptocurrencies in Europe, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. 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. JBchrch  talk  21:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi! It's sad to see how frankly bad articles are not deleted and they have been staying on Wikipedia for many years, and this article, although far from ideal, but not unambiguously crappy, was immediately deleted. But thank you for your comments. I am just getting started with editing Wikipedia, it was not entirely obvious to me that the link on the official document is an unreliable source. Probably, there is this in the rules, but I missed this moment somewhere.--ArcticSnowWind (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I also see that much of the information has been removed from the text. At once I will warn that I do not represent interests of the listed companies which I specified in the text. When listing companies, I just wanted to show the situation. I have a direct interest only in renewing the article. I plan to replace existing sources with reliable secondary resources.--ArcticSnowWind (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message ArcticSnowWind. Rest assured that I have not deleted the article, but that it has just been moved to what we call the "draftspace" so you can continue to work on it and get external feedback once you are done. And I agree with you about all the crap we have in here—but what can a guy do, except working one article at the time? Also, I am certainly not accusing or suspecting you of conflit of interest, and I have no reason to believe that this would your case. It's just that the sources you used were considered unreliable, unfortunately. Let me know if you have any question. Happy to be of use. JBchrch   talk  19:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you for your honest answer. I tried to replace the references to official documents with secondary sources, but after searching, I realized that there was no special coverage of the releases of the documents in mass media. Wikipedia's rules state that primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.. I think that the websites of the official institutions of the European Union and all the official documents in the context of this particular article are quite reliable sources of information. What can I do with this article for removing it to main space from draft? Can I just use a template that this article need a completion and remove it from draft? thanks for your attention and help. --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk)  12:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Sphilbrick okay, thanks for your efforts, I really appreciate this. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I will look soon ArcticSnowWind (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kuvera.in, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CTO. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Lowercase Capital
 * added links pointing to Medium, Tala, Stripe, Docker and Lumi

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Linking
Hi, please read MOS:OVERLINK. Countries and well-known cities should not be linked. --FMSky (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RLJ Companies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CVC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great Southern Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GSL.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikilinks
What is the point of edits like this one? A paper cited someone named Maria Borge, which you linked to as Borgen (TV series). Why?

This edit linked Web3 Foundation to the much more prestigious World Wide Web Foundation. In many ways this is worse than adding nonsensical links to random TV shows, since this link creates a false impression about the legitimacy of a cryptocurrency.

Please check wikilinks and make sure they actually make sense. If you've made other edits like this in the past, please go back and fix them yourself. Grayfell (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Proof-of-time


The article Proof-of-time has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No indication of encyclopedic significance has been provided. Both cited source are unreliable. The book is WP:SPS Amazon spam while the 'Tech Times' article is from an outlet with a history of undisclosed native advertising and no indication of strong editorial oversight."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Grayfell (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Proof-of-time for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Proof-of-time is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Proof-of-time until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Grayfell (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Grayfell I just wanted to source some articles. what was promotional? some bad blogs? I just put them by mistake. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You have showed-up on my watchlist multiple times for having added spammy content or bland filler. Please stop adding junk promotional sources. If it was a mistake, stop making that mistake.
 * Additionally, another editor previously asked you to review MOS:OVERLINK and I later asked you to explain why you were adding disruptive random wikilinks above, at . Not only did you ignore both of us, it appears you have continued to add bad wikilinks, such as this redundant disambiguation link you added to Blender.io. Please stop adding overlinks, and when you do add wikilinks, make sure they actually go to pages which will be relevant and useful to readers.
 * Grayfell (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Numbers
Note: It is acceptable to write out numbers larger than ten in words on Wikipedia according to MOS:NUM. As long as it's only one or two words this is fine. You have been changing accepted written numbers to numerals across the project and this could be considered disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 20:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You are totally right! I misunderstood the rule. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)