User talk:Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup

November 2020
Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it.-- VViking Talk Edits 14:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. -- VViking Talk Edits 14:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you.-- VViking Talk Edits 14:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. Removing the text of the COI inquiry does not make the inquiry go away. David Gerard (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Vandalising my user page really isn't going to help your case here - David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I haven't received a dime from anyone. But you may have been bought: you deny the facts too much, why do you need it? This is not vandalism, but accusing you of lack of not impartiality. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The question includes whether you are a holder of TRON, or of tokens on TRON, which I note you have not answered. TRON is your sole topic of editing - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Questions include are YOU a holder of cryptocurrencies?--Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not. Are you a holder of TRON, or of tokens on TRON? - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you prove you don't own cryptocurrency? Will you continue to accuse me off-topic, or will you start looking for a refutation of my words about Tron and Samsung? If you were more attentive to the articles, and not just read the headlines, you would have noticed that I was editing the article about the cartoon. By the way, I'm not happy with your speculations based on the yellow press: you accuse Tron of the Ponzi scheme, but absolutely you forget that Tron is an operating system. Justin Sun created Tron, Bill Gates created Windows. Do you think Bill Gays is guilty of other people's malware installed on Windows? Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Gerard's question is quite fair, due to the conflict of interest guidelines. I am also curious, do you have a financial interest in Tron? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As you may not have noticed, I also have a question for Gerard: why does he refuse to check and publish facts about the partnership between Samsung Huawei and Tron (I gave links to primary sources, gave a link to a videoconference, gave links to secondary sources, if you do not believe the Samsung developer site, go to any store in your city and examine new lines of devices, you will find Tron there - they have been on sale for a year already, ), and instead asks me about the ownership of cryptocurrencies, although he knows that this cannot be confirmed in any way? In case you haven't noticed again, I also accuse your Gerard of willful bias (he said that he does not have cryptocurrency, but did he prove it?). The article contains a clear negative and misinterprets a lot of facts. For example, it is written that Justin canceled dinner, but he did not cancel it, but moved the date. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Gerard's removal of content was appropriate; it is not reliably sourced to independent, secondary sources. I've elaborated on this on the talk. On the other hand, given your narrow editing interest and insertion of promotional material sourced to press releases, removing negative material, and removing questions about your editing here, you can probably understand why some may be concerned and wish to inquire on the nature of your editing.
 * The sentence on dinner is best discussed on talk, however it is reliably sources (to The New York Times) as having caused the price to fall by 20%. "Cancel" could be replaced with "postponed", and some rewording to fit what the source discusses better, but the content is otherwise appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm talking about. I am trying to ensure that the wording corresponds to the truth, and does not distort it. Regarding a reliable secondary source - I threw off a lot of sources, but not one was approved, is this one suitable? https://decrypt.co/10845/samsung-galaxy-phones-to-support-tron-via-blockchain-keystore-app There are many sources, name which you trust and I will most likely find an article there, but the point is that I am accused of press releases, although more than a year has passed since the start of sales. this news has long lost its value, almost all new devices are released from Tron. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If you edit without answering the question - which you are visibly evading - you will be blocked - David Gerard (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) you can't ignore David Gerard (talk) he is a Administrators, because you're a WP:SPA he wants to ensure that their is no WP:COI with your own edits. Regards -- Devoke water  (talk)  19:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * David Gerard accuses me of things that cannot be proved or disproved. If I say "no", he asks for proof that I simply cannot show. If I say yes, it will be the reason for my blocking. According to the constitution, I cannot oppose myself. He himself did not provide evidence that he does not have cryptocurrency. And it is he who insists on the negative connotation in the article, I insist on a neutral, honest article.The fact that he is an Administrator is not a presumption of innocence. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He can’t be ignored. Regards -- Devoke water  (talk)  21:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I added an appeal to it in the message.Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must: David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
 * State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
 * Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

discussion
Your answer to 2 is your motivation, not your source of interest. There are six million plus articles here, what drew you to that one? Strong and passionate interest in a single topic is often a red flag of paid editing. What other topics might you edit about? Someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * People edit articles that interest them. I am interested in the topic of blockchains in general (methods of storing, processing information, ways of their development). I know that I am right and I am fighting to defend my innocence. This is the principle, do you understand? User David Gerard looks biased, which goes against the rules. He doesn't even hide it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/In_focus He explicitly states that he hates cryptocurrencies. How can a person with such an opinion be allowed to administer articles about Blockchains and cryptocurrencies? I am not going to tell stories, I demand a neutral article containing reliable information (please note, not positive - that you will perceive it as my financial interest, but neutral - that corresponds to the rules of Wikipedia), as well as the removal of David Gerard from the administration of the topic, to which he has a prejudiced opinion. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My information is reliable, and he has no other way to block the information than to accuse me of receiving money. Let's check my information. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that you came upon this specific article by chance due to a personal interest in the general topic. It's out of my hands now, and up to the next admin, but I would only support unblocking if you agreed to refrain from editing about cryptocurrency for at least 6 months. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that I stumbled upon this article by accident. I've read articles on blockchains. I saw inaccuracies in the article, misrepresentation of facts (even the information taken from the attached verified sources is modified and incorrect). The article is misleading people. The administrator does not go to the discussion, immediately accuses me of receiving bribes and blocks me(this is very suspicious). I require independent verification. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What surprises me more is that the article is negative towards the fully functional Tron blockchain, but contains PR for fundraising for the Chia blockchain owned by Bram Cohen, which is still in development. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Note that the editor's block on blockchain/cryptocurrency editing, broadly construed, is separate from the apparent undisclosed paid editing block - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You haven't checked anything. If you checked my edits, you would be convinced that I am correct. The only thing you have learned is the history of my requests being denied. You are apparently not interested in the veracity of the information. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I require a thorough check
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)