User talk:Hocus00

Welcome!
Hello, HocusPocus00, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\talk 05:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency/blockchain standard notice

 * You appear to be in violation of these 1RR guidelines in relation to Cryptocurrency, adding the list of altcoins here. Please dont keep doing it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The reversions were made more than 24 hours apart, in compliance with the policy. HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly editing the same text outside of time limits can also get you a block. Trust me, I know from experience ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not know this, thanks. I considered the repetitive deletions of the text disruptive editing to the article and my edits valid pursuant to WP:STATUSQUO. After there was a dispute, I suggested we take it to the talk page where it is at now. If you have the Wiki policy handy where it discusses editing the same text multiple times outside the time limits worthy of a block, would you mind sharing? Want to make sure I'm following everything correctly. Thanks. HocusPocus00 (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:GS/Crypto you can still be blocked even if you dont violate a rule I found out recently. I was no where near violation of 3RR for another article, and got blocked anyhow. Just be aware. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. HocusPocus00 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have previously warned you of this, yet you did it again today here re-adding text already disputed and under discussion here Talk:Vitalik_Buterin. Note this discussion is very similar in the user's goal to add cryptocurrency rankings by market cap discussed here Talk:Cryptocurrency. I find the rankings UNDUE and difficult for us editors to manage over time (as rankings change). This issue here is that the user is not following GS Crypto and continues to re-add content after it is in dispute, maybe not fully understanding GS, (or maybe I am confused about GS as well). Certainly I am not comfortable to revert and remove the text again.  or  please have a look. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The edits I made were supported by two RS's (Bloomberg and Fortune), written in a NPOV and deleted by you without discussion first on the talk page. How am I in violation of GS Crypto? Also the discussion you're referencing was on a separate article (cryptocurrency), not Vitalik Buterin. HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to note that user has a very similar history elsewhere on Wikipedia of deleting cited edits, bullying folks when they restore them and has been topic banned for this conduct. It appears he is repeating this again. See Special:Permalink/985504979. It appears s/he is now targeting well sourced edits related to alternate cryptocurrencies (anything beside Bitcoin) from what I can tell. HocusPocus00 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And s/he has deleted many other unresolved warnings on their talk page. I'm not trying to pile on here, but come on. These disruptive edits need to stop. And somehow, I'm the one who's getting warned here. Hilarious. HocusPocus00 (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Did I delete citations on this article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You deleted cited information added to the Vitalik Buterin article about Ethereum, the blockchain he founded. You are creating some sort of strawman argument here (which others have commented that you do in the past). The issue isn't that you are deleting citations. It's that you are deleting information from the Vitalik Buterin and cryptocurrency articles and are gradually whitewashing them so that information about alternative cryptocurrencies isn't presented because you don't think it is "needed", despite the edits being notable and supported by WP:RS. What is potentially more egregious is that you delete the edits under false edit summaries such as WP:PROMO, when it's clear that the information being added isn't an opinion or advertisement. HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

New section
Hi, I started writing a draft of **DevCon (Ethereum conference)**. Since I work for the Ethereum Foundation, it would be a conflict of interest. I thought you might be interested in taking this over. The current draft is in my Sandbox User:Offcode/sandbox. Offcode (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is good work, but I do not think it would survive as a separate article under WP:N and would likely be deleted. I think it would be better served added as a blurb in the Ethereum article. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Here's the idea. I start a new page on the Ethereum Foundation (it's already in bold on the Ethereum page). It would focus on the community aspect including the Devcon event. I'd leave the Ethereum page as is, it focuses more on the protocol. What you think of this setup? Offcode (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I could help with this, but again I'm not sure it would survive as an article by itself. As you can see on the Uniswap page, you would need to argue why it is notable and needs its own page as opposed to being merged with Ethereum. You will also need to find some reliable sources speaking about the EF as typical information sourced from crypto news sites have been deleted as unreliable-- see WP:RSP for a general list of a reliable sources. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Uniswap
Hello HocusPocus00,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Uniswap for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hatchens (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've responded and contested it. Thanks. HocusPocus00 (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ok! Sure. let others chip in. - Hatchens (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Uniswap for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Uniswap 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/Uniswap 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. Hatchens (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Your edit to Uniswap 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 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&mdash;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 Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Any copyright issues were unintentional. I've reworded the article and I hope it is suitable now. Thanks. HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The current version looks okay from a copyright point of view. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Big Four Source
Is it clear as to why EY wasn't useable? I had a similar experience with trying to use a Deloitte source. (Namely on the Ouroboros (protocol) wiki page) Bob (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, other than cryptocurrency articles are treated differently. HocusPocus00 (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I find it really bizarre. I am relatively new to wiki but my experience thus far has been akin to admins beating me with a stick rather than helping + admins trying to slow down progress every chance possible (at least on these crypto pages). For instance with the Cardano page it is a real shame they upped protection levels - instead of accepting there will occasionally be mistakes they prefer a complete lockdown/ preventing / slowing down progress... Bob (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! HocusPocus00 (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

EW
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  regarding the Ethereum article discussed Talk:Ethereum and insertion of unsourced content. You have been noticed above that blockchain articles are subject of sanctions and you acknowledged your awareness of sanctions here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Please post the edit that shows an edit war. Hocus00 (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

contributor sources
Hi, I removed your addition of contributor WP:UGC sources from the Ethereum article. This is becoming a problem, multiple editors have advised you that we are not using contributor sources on blockchain articles. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Does this apply to WP:HUFFPOST articles? Hocus00 (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that this is a contributor article now. This was my mistake. Thanks. Hocus00 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chainlink (cryptocurrency)


The article Chainlink (cryptocurrency) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Notability not established, no reputable in-depth sources referenced. Bloomberg and Forbes will write about almost any cryptocurrency, it doesn't mean it is reputable."

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. Ysangkok (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Chainlink (cryptocurrency) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chainlink (cryptocurrency) 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/Chainlink (cryptocurrency) 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. Ysangkok (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

re-adding disputed content
I suggest you self-revert the addition and follow WP:BOLD. You can get a topic ban for this FYI and you have already been warned on your talk page. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll follow proper Wiki policy instead, thanks. Please review WP:PRESERVE, WP:CANTFIX and WP:CAUTIOUS and take it to the article Talk page instead of my personal talk page to discuss further if needed. Hocus00 (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Chainlink new request
Hey Hocus00, I just wanted to let you know I posted another request over at the Chainlink talk page. I'm happy to go over any additional feedback you may have, and thanks again for your help with the Technology section! A at Chainlink (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2021 (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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

February 2024
Hello, I'm Grayfell. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Solana (blockchain platform) have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:1RR
As previously explained to you at, the article Solana (blockchain platform) is under a one-revert rule. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that you (Hocus00) appear to have only performed a single revert. However, further reversion would absolutely violate 1RR. I have independently restored Grayfell's version, as I agree that the modifications you made were too promotional. See WP:NPOV for help identifying how you can neutrally write about subjects you might feel passionately about. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I stand corrected. The article's talk page would be the place to discuss any specific changes. Grayfell (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Please Review the Conflict of Interest rules
It appears that many of your posts are in violation of the COI rules Conflict of interest. Can you please review these rules and make sure they are followed? 47.205.109.33 (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)