User talk:MER-C/archives/42

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Cryptocurrency Related Special Measures, and Forward Steps
Hello! I saw you posted a warning about cryptocurrency related articles on my page. I was hoping you would take a look at my comments/questions located on my talk page so I can move forward in the correct manner and not step on anybody's toes. Userbrn (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

AFC rejections
Hey, when you can, could you do something about these drafts? (redlink intentional) They're categorized in red categories, which I'm trying to get rid of. Thanks! spiderjerky (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The categories will become blue within the next couple of weeks. Just let them be. MER-C 14:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Question
Hi! I just asked before about how I can search for a page using the name and date of creation. Special:Recentchanges, Special:Log/create didn't seem to help because of their limitations. I guess database queries will be my last resort. I just have no idea about the table and columns structure to make a proper query. I initially wrote that SQL statement.

SELECT * FROM dummy_table WHERE page_name like '%Obama' AND creation_date = 'June 2017';

Would you please correct it for me using the right names of columns and table to achieve what I want? Thanks. Sillva1 (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The MediaWiki database schema is documented at mw:Manual:Database layout. MER-C 12:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe I'm good to go with my query, except I can't find the column that defines the creation date of the page. It's not in the "page" table. Sillva1 (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Join the revision table and require rev_parent_id = 0. MER-C 13:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the column that connects both of them so I can join the two tables? Sillva1 (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahem. MER-C 14:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I still didn't specify a column where I would insert the date. Specifying rev_parent_id = 0 alone doesn't refer to any specific date. Sillva1 (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not here to read the documentation for you. MER-C 10:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I was able to link the two tables correctly and used the parameters needed. I still have one thing that I can't figure out. How can I specify only the year and the month? The timestamp needs everything including seconds. Is there a function to do so? Thanks. Sillva1 (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Choose your days and times carefully. 20171201000000 < timestamp < 20180101000000 means everything created in December 2017 (UTC). MER-C 14:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible meat or sock on AFD Rick Chrls
On the AFC for Rick Chrls (diver), User:ProfessorGuy a newly created account, their first edit on Wikipedia was a keep vote on the AFD. I know previous sock(s) were blocked on the AFD, so just a heads up. JC7V -constructive zone  18:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be premature to block for sock/meatpuppetry based on that one edit, even though it's suspicious. Certainly one to keep an eye on. MER-C 18:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

GNT
Hi, please elaborate why have you reverted my edit for GNT disambiguation?

best, Piotr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tworec (talk • contribs) 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't allow red links on disambiguation pages unless the topic is plausibly notable. This one isn't, and is considered spam: Articles for deletion/Golem (software). MER-C 10:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Alltheniko on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
Dear MER-C,

the site Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard is linking to one of my articles: Alltheniko (the other ones are still drafts...). As a writer, I know there is no COI. I wonder how it got there?! Could you perhaps explain the background? Thank you very much in advance.

With kind regards, --DMF-Muster (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I identify these articles via a set of heuristics based on the new pages feed. They are significantly more likely to have undisclosed conflicts of interest, created by sockpuppets for PR purposes in return for undisclosed payments, are promotional and/or fail notability criteria than a random grab-bag of new pages. The heuristics aren't perfect and there are, of course, false positives. I only take into account edits on the English Wikipedia -- the situation would definitely warrant investigation (as a user with 16 edits creating a fully-formed article about a band) if it weren't for your editing history on other Wikipedias. MER-C 10:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hedera Hashgraph (Hashgraph Article)
Hello MER-C

Any particular reasons why the page is now semi protected?

I had some suspicions that the Wikipedia community doesn't take too kindly to blockchain tech, makes it hard to educate visitors to your site when everything gets 'filtered'.

Should I be submitting all the edits to you directly instead since I can no longer add anything?

P.S.: Creating a username is not an option, this is a work computer and not using a private login at work. Unfortunately your recent change discriminated contributors like myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.127.94 (talk • contribs)


 * I'd propose adding stuff on the talk page. All content on Wikipedia should be supported by reliable sources, and must not promote the subject. We're sick of poorly sourced, promotional content being added to blockchain and cryptocurrency related topics and this is how we stop it. And if you mean "write vague, grand prognostications on how blockchain will change the world" by "educate", then no thanks. Wikipedia takes a wait and see approach; we're an encyclopedia and aren't in the hype business. MER-C 09:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * And there lies most of the problem, what Wikipedia says as unreliable source is often more of an opinion than factual. The inventor of the technology as a Ph.D., his expertise in this field alone has more merit than a dozen editors on Wikipedia. It is a sad day when Wikipedia doesn't accept the word of man with a doctorate. As for the "hype business", your statement simply has no weight, not after I have seen tons of article with poor citations and credibility under the same category, yet Hashgraph is one of the topic that has been mutilated the most.


 * This should be no surprise by now, but many created their own wiki to cover crypto currency as they feel Wikipedia can no longer be trusted for fair account creation. Put aside "fanboys", they are some legitimate edits that users wants to do but can't make, yet other topics/languages on Wikipedia has gotten away with much worse. The community is supposed to be fair, yet some projects are being discriminated.


 * In the end, my argument has no weight either because this article will get done from the mere traffic of requests. I would rather contribute now than having to wait later. Just to give you a scope of how many businesses has established grounds around this technology is at least 1,000 developers, 40k telegram users, 19 vested blue chips company. At some point, there will be looking for answers and when many realizes Wikipedia has almost nothing, edits will be spamming left and right.


 * As for my personal interest, I believe this technology has potential and education is important in this space. However, I am not so sure Wikipedia is the place people can get their education anymore. On a side note, when people talk about crypto currency, the capital invested needs to also be mentioned since capital is what backs the project against Sybil attacks. Lower market capital projects have a limited digital cryptographic security.66.46.127.94 (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to add to this, apart from that if we want to clean up existing articles we should stop the influx of poorly sourced, promotional content first. MER-C 18:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The page Rayan Tarraf
Hi, I Just saw your request for deletion of the page Rayan Tarraf. Please guide me to what is wrong as I'm still new to this. DubaiScripter (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What, if any, affiliation do you have to the subject of this page? MER-C 09:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

My Ban after modification of the XRP Ledger Page
Hello,

You just banned me after my reverse editing of the Ripple (Payment protocol) / XRP Ledger (payment protocol). I would like to appeal that decision. Here is why :

First, here is what the person that reversed my editing said on the talk page( Talk:XRP_Ledger_(payment_protocol):

" I've reverted Benwhale1's recent page move from Ripple (payment protocol) to XRP Ledger (payment protocol). As a Google search reveals 12.80 million results for ripple payment and 4.53 million for xrp ledger, "XRP Ledger" could not possibly be the common name for this payment protocol.

I've also reverted Benwhale1's addition of spam links (here and here). — Newslinger talk 03:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC) "

Now, here is my answer to this, on the talk page :

"As an answer to revert of my edit :

- as seen on the developer website, which is the reference/main source for all people looking for information to use and build software on top of the open-source XRP ledger : XRP Ledger is the name. Most people don't know that Ripple protocol is the former name XRP Ledger Overview

- using google search ( that you didn't provide any link to ) and comparing "XRP Ledger" with "Ripple payment " isn't a proof of anything because : " ripple payment " search results includes also the result related to ripple, the company, which provides payment softwares and solution.

Hence, among those 12.80 million results, it is impossible to know which one are related to the XRP Ledger /Ripple Protocol as an open source platform and which are related to Ripple, the company, and its software and business news. Most news related to Ripple software such as xRapid, xCurrent and others will include keywords " ripple " and " payment". As it can be seen among the first pages of result on Google, most of the link are business news related to Ripple the company, and its customer using software such as xCurrent and xRapid : these news are not directly about the open source XRP Ledger

- Finally, I will add that a look at google trends shows that much more searches are done for " XRP Ledger " than " Ripple payment " either if you look at the last 12 months or the last 5 years. source : Google trends : "XRP ledger " ; " Ripple payment"

'''So as you can see :

- my edit is backed by multiple sources and a detailed reasoning

- his edit his backed by only one thing which is google search, using terms of search that are too broad and that can be unrelated to the topic

'''The fact that the XRP Ledger is named " XRP Ledger " and not Ripple Protocol is not a debate. It's the new name, that can be seen on the github source of the Ledger code : " Decentralized cryptocurrency blockchain daemon implementing the XRP Ledger in C++". XRP Ledger Github. It can also be shown from google trends results with, and on the main website used as a reference for devs building software on top of the XRP ledger XRP Ledger Dev Portal'''

I can provide more information, but destroying my work on the page and banning me while I justified everything I did with sources is just not fair. XRP and the XRP Ledger is open source and based around a community where absolutetly no one refers to it in other way than " XRP Ledger ". '''

About the links you categorized as " spam ", they are not autopromotion nore spam (i'm not related to these websites in any way ): the XRP Community Blog " By the XRP Community, for the #XRPCommunity" " brings together multiple bloggers from the XRP community in a collaborative effort on one platform, and the " XRP fudd bingo " is a website made by one of biggest contributor to the XRP community : WietseWind : he created multiple tools : ledger.exposed that allows to explore all XRP wallet, XRP fudd bingo that explains some misconceptions about the XRP ledger, and also the XRP tip bot, used by hundred of people to send XRP tips on twitter, discord and reddit.

'''So these are not " spam " links : these are actual tools helping growing the XRP ecosystem, supported by many and also done without any financial retribution. How can I talk about the XRP community if I cannot explain or quote the main initiatives made inside it by its members ?''' Benwhale1 (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You are topic banned for:
 * Reverting the move back to the original title. It doesn't matter whether you are right or not. You are expected to get consensus before you move it back.
 * Restoring the paragraph "However, the community around XRP has been growing at a steady rate..." and "Other initiatives by community members...", which are promotional of Ripple, are probably original research and contained zero reliable sources. You were explicitly told and are expected to back all your edits with reliable sourcing.
 * Our verifiability policy states you were (not are, since you are topic banned) only allowed to add information about Ripple and its community if it has been published by reputable media outlets with a reputation for fact-checking. You are sanctioned (in part) for violating this policy. MER-C 17:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

1. What does it mean ? What's the exact moment I know I can revert back and " have consensus " ? As far as I know, I gave a complete answer in the talk section of the XRP ledger article, with multiple sources and elements to the person that reverted the title. He didn't answer back. What am i supposed to do ? Why doesn't he get warned for reverting my title without any other facts than " I typed this on google so this is a proof " ?

2. I should have added statistics such as social media stats, reddit stats or reliable articles on the growth of the community and I'm sorry for not having done that, that is my mistake.

3. Promotional of Ripple : what do you mean ? Ripple the company ? the cryptocurrency ? the ledger ? Please be more specific. I will repeat my question : how am I supposed to talk about the XRP community if I can't talk about the people and the services created by members of this community ? A community is built by its members. Benwhale1 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you weren't topic banned, you would create a discussion, outline your argument, list it on Requested moves, get outside opinion. Someone will come along and action the request if you get agreement in a week's time. As to why you, and only you, were sanctioned: see WP:BRD. By reverting the revert, you started the edit war.
 * Promotional of what? It doesn't matter. As for talking about the XRP/Ripple community: you don't, unless it is covered by reliable sources. End of story.
 * I strongly recommend you edit other areas of the encyclopedia before appealing your topic ban, so that you can learn about our policies and practices. If you continue to edit blockchain or cryptocurrency related pages you will be blocked. MER-C 20:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Baffled idiot
Hi, MER-C. I don't understand your instructions for how to use your User:MER-C/payattention.js script, I'm baffled. (Protect? Unprotect? Huh?) Could you tell me what to do in words of one syllable, please? Bishonen &#124; talk 12:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC).
 * You need to add  (copy it verbatim) to the user's common.js (User:USERNAME/common.js). Protection works like any other wiki page -- you need to do apply full protection to stop the user from removing the script. See the history of User:PedroAnimanga/common.js. To remove the script, remove the same line or delete the page. You have an alternate account for testing, no? MER-C 13:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Who, me? (Blush.) I see TheSandDoctor's addition of the script, but isn't something supposed to show up on the user's talk? I don't see anything. It doesn't matter for this user, as he has continued to ignore all warnings + ANI, so I've indeffed him. It's for future occasions that I'd like to use it. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC).
 * The script is supposed to add an alert box at every edit screen except when editing the user's own talk page. The new interfaceeditor permission may prevent you from using this trick, but we'll see. MER-C 14:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. I really do have to test it with Bishzilla, then. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC).
 * And it worked! Thank you! Bishonen &#124; talk 14:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC).

Deceptive editing at Draft:DJ Spaxx
Two weeks ago, you moved DJ Spaxx to draft following some sock puppet investigations and advertising issues. Today it popped up in the NPP queue again, following the most facepalmy series of fig leaf edits possible - I have no idea what the editor thought he was putting over on reviewers, but it clearly wasn't too well thought out. I have moved it back to draft, and at this juncture I guess I would suggest deleting the draft, as it is likely to attract the same kind of attention in the future. (Also probably socking out Bdgeb, but that's really beyond my bailiwick :). Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's another sock. I rechecked all the remaining drafts and found two others. See Sockpuppet investigations/Pptt226. MER-C 16:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the used copyvio images for deletion on Commons. Apparently User:Tituvf736 and User:Sadfe08 are additional Commons-only accounts used for the image uploading. GermanJoe (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've noted these accounts at the SPI (one is registered here). MER-C 16:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Page re-do
Hi I gather from the editing comments you deleted a page I was working on. I was hoping you might be able to give me some feedback on this page now I have re-written it and copied it below. I have not published it in this form. I have the permission of the subject and there is no defamatory or controversial material included. Thank you in advance for your input. Spt.08Spt.08 (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know following the suggestions from another editor I have published the re-written page in Draft talk:Margaret Baker-Genovesi with some further edits. Thanks again. Spt.08 (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Close paraphrasing before proceeding further. MER-C 16:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI about your use of the block tool
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong. I obviously know nothing about spambots and how to detect them. So, let’s consider that part of it conceded. I still disagree with your approach to non-spambots but apparently it’s been decided that the discussion is over. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If I could add just one little thing: It would be more clear to persons not intimately familiar with the detection of spambots if you would use “spambot” in your block summary instead of “spammer” Just a thought. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi MER-C. In that discussion, I got involved ill-advisedly, mistakenly believing that I had a handle on part of the issue. Fram made me realize my error.  Tony says I was insulting.  For that I apologise.  I consider you, and he, to be doing an excellent job at the coalface countering spam.  In that fight, there can be issues of subtle policy and philosophy that I find interesting, possible collateral damage for example.  I think these issues are important to air, but sometimes my posts appear conflate the persons behaviour with the underlying issues that I raise.  I want to assure that I intend no disrespect, and apologise for where it may appear evident.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No problems. MER-C 14:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Question on Payment21 Page deletion
Hi, I understand the sanctions taken against the users who posted the entry about Payment21 in June 2018. These users got blocked and/or banned for valid reasons, and as a result, no form of appeal seems to be possible, even though the actual content of the article, that was affected by blocking these users, has not been reviewed with regards to its worthiness for publication. To what extent are other Wikipedia-admins allowed to publish a new article about this officially licensed Swiss-based payment gateway? I have analyzed a number of crypto-related entries on Wikipedia and realize that many of such crypto-currency-entries meet fewer inclusion requirements than this site. IMHO, it is indeed a genuine site and appears to be noteworthy in comparison to others. So I would like to check with the community whether or not Wikipedia needs an article about Payment21. Currently, I hesitate to move forward because of your earlier actions. Let me know if you are in the position to discuss this matter. Your guidance would be highly appreciated. Thanks for your consideration.

WhatAboutKrypto (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The short answer is no.
 * The long answer is that if you can find multiple reliable sources that cover Payment21 in substance and entirely on its own merit (i.e. no PR, reprinted press releases or marketing stunts such as an interview of the founder), back its content entirely by reliable sources and not promote Payment21 then we're willing to consider it. See the inclusion guidelines for companies. Cryptocurrency enthusiast sites are not reliable sources and routine matters such as staff turnover or fundraising do not constitute substantial coverage. I consider this to be unlikely.
 * I must also alert you to the special measures that are in place for this topic because of rampant abuse of Wikipedia as a promotional medium. MER-C 19:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * I have checked and identified 45 sources related to Payment21. 19 look good, the other 26 are in context but not really worthwhile as it relates to PR. Overall, the sources support the case multiple times, however, it is kind of repetitive info.


 * Find the list of the 19 credible sources linked below. All of the good sources are either official or the publication has been handled by an independent journalist or editor (hence, no advertising). My finding proves there have been separate articles written about Payment21. Some journalistic work utilizes quotes from various announcements but this information appears to be consistent. I have ordered the credible links by authenticity, the first one being the most trustworthy source (IMHO):


 * https://www.finma.ch/en/finma-public/authorised-institutions-individuals-and-products/#query=Moving%20Media
 * https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/meet-people-pushing-regulated-taxable-cryptocurrency-1613246
 * http://thetokenwire.com/bitfinex-moving-the-worlds-fifth-largest-crypto-exchange-to-switzerland/
 * https://www.novis.eu/en/news/first-european-life-insurance-company-jumping-into-the-digital-currency-age
 * http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/payment21-and-aci-worldwide-enable-anti-money-laundering-compliant-bitcoin-payments-globally-1001856697
 * https://cointelegraph.com/news/switzerland-awards-first-amlkyc-licence-to-bitcoin-company
 * https://www.finews.ch/news/finanzplatz/29293-payment-21-bitcoin-finma-lizenz
 * http://www.bobsguide.com/guide/news/2017/Feb/15/aml-compliant-bitcoin-cashier-system-wins-constantinus-award/
 * https://www.constantinus.net/award/de/wall-of-fame/wall-of-fame-detail.html?id=3973
 * http://www.paymenteye.com/2017/02/27/case-study-benefits-of-bitcoin-payouts-for-the-gaming-industry/
 * https://www.thepaypers.com/cryptocurrencies-bitcoin-virtual-currencies/payment21-teams-up-with-coinfirm-to-integrate-blockchain-analysis-solutions/772235-39
 * https://cryptovalley.swiss/member-directory/?search_user=Moving+Media+GmbH
 * https://calvinayre.com/2017/03/30/bitcoin/beckys-affiliated-highly-regulated-operators-can-enjoy-bitcoin-solutions-pablo-magro-video/
 * http://www.computerworld.ch/news/it-branche/artikel/st-galler-firma-erhaelt-finma-lizenz-fuer-bitcoin-kassasystem-73302/\
 * https://mining-cryptocurrency.ru/payment21-licenziya-finma/
 * https://github.com/payment21
 * https://www.moneyhouse.ch/en/company/moving-media-gmbh-1065426779
 * https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/payment21
 * http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=308431767


 * Comparing Payment21 with other crypto companies, I am inclined to say that most of the online references are reliable. Since the company is officially licensed by the Financial Market Authority, which appears to be a rare quality in the cryptocurrency industry indeed, I suggest considering unflagging them. Alternatively, I could write a new article based on the credible sources only, however, do you think such an article makes sense for the Wikipedia community?


 * P.S. If there are any articles in the list i have provided above that do not meet Wikipedia's requirement, please kindly point them out so I can remove them.


 * WhatAboutKrypto (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at your top five with an eye to establishing notability:
 * Not a secondary source, not in-depth coverage.
 * Not intellectually independent (company's claims presented as-is, without challenge or critical analysis).
 * Not a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking, not in-depth coverage.
 * Press release.
 * Press release.
 * Of your 19, it is highly likely that none of them demonstrate notability and a large portion of them are not reliable sources. Again, please read and understand Identifying reliable sources. MER-C 15:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello,


 * In light of the last message you sent I have taken some time to look critically at the organization and I believe that it meets the requirement set by Wikipedia. Having said that, I will like to bring to your attention the regulatory status of this organization by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (finma.ch). As a matter of fact, getting listed in this official government database requires a sophisticated and rigorous licensing procedure with certified third-party auditors and specialized lawyers. I trust that someone in the Wikipedia community possesses the expertise to realize the relevance of this statement. Looking at this objectively and with an eye to establishing credibility especially in the cryptocurrency sphere, I think you will agree with me that the regulatory status of this company is more significant than the legal position of many of the cryptocurrency companies listed on Wikipedia. I have reviewed a list of over 10 such organizations and I have to admit that in comparison, Moving Media/Payment21 should be considered in a class of its own in this regard. Feel free to verify their regulatory status as an officially licensed financial intermediary yourself. This government website is the source showing the details, also included is a link to the Wikipedia article created for this organization for verification purposes.


 * https://www.finma.ch/en/finma-public/authorised-institutions-individuals-and-products/#query=Moving%20Media


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Financial_Market_Supervisory_Authority


 * The link above is, in fact, a secondary source based on an in-depth analysis of the company. It is intellectually independent based on a substantial challenge of facts and critical analysis. A government website representing a Financial Market Authority is considered to be the most reliable source among experts. Also, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority has one of the best reputations among the member states of the Financial Task Force (FATF.org). IMHO I think helps to establish credibility.


 * Furthermore, I have done extra research into the articles I posted previously and have been able to establish that a number of these articles do meet the requirement as stipulated by Wikipedia with a view to establishing notability. I have noted that some of the articles written about the company were written without bias by independent journalists and published by reputable and credible publications. please find below a list of these articles and publications including independently verifiable sources and accompanying Wikipedia articles.


 * 1.) Ian Allison, (March 23, 2017) „Meet the people pushing regulated taxable cryptocurrency“ International Business Times
 * https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/meet-people-pushing-regulated-taxable-cryptocurrency-1613246


 * Wikipedia Article on International Business Times:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Business_Times


 * (2.) William Suberg, (October 19, 2017) “Switzerland Awards First AML/KYC Licence To Bitcoin Company” Cointelegraph
 * https://cointelegraph.com/news/switzerland-awards-first-amlkyc-licence-to-bitcoin-company


 * Wikipedia Article on CoinTelegraph:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelegraph


 * (3.) “List of directly supervised financial intermediaries (DSFIs)”. FINMA.
 * https://www.finma.ch/en/~/media/finma/dokumente/bewilligungstraeger/xlsx/dufi.xlsx?la=en


 * Wikipedia Article on Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Financial_Market_Supervisory_Authority


 * (4.) “Payment21 and ACI Worldwide Enable Anti-Money Laundering-Compliant Bitcoin Payments Globally”. Business Insider.
 * https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/payment21-and-aci-worldwide-enable-anti-money-laundering-compliant-bitcoin-payments-globally-1001856697


 * Wikipedia Article on Business Insider:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Insider


 * (5.) “Member Directory - Crypto Valley Association”. Crypto Valley Association.
 * https://cryptovalley.swiss/member-directory/


 * Wikipedia Article on Crypto Valley Association:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug#cite_ref-dwf20160701_19-0


 * (6.) Brenna Hughes Neghaiwi, (Sep 8, 2016) “Low tax Zug aims to become Switzerland’s ‘Crypto Valley’”. Reuters.
 * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-fintech-cryptovalley/low-tax-zug-aims-to-become-switzerlands-crypto-valley-idUSKCN11E0L9


 * Wikipedia Article on Reuters:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters


 * (7.) “AML-Compliant Bitcoin Cashier System Wins Constantinus Award”. Constantinus Award/ Professional Association for Management Consultancy And Information Technology (UBIT), Austrian Economic Chamber.
 * https://www.constantinus.net/de/wall-of-fame/wall-of-fame-detail.html?id=3973


 * Wikipedia Article on Austrian Economic Chamber:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Economic_Chamber


 * Question: would it be considered worthwhile to publish an article on Payment21 based on the information provided, and do you think it will be appreciated by the Wikipedia community?


 * WhatAboutKrypto (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the advice you've been shown, rather than ignoring us and spewing nonsense to advertise your product. It's insulting that you come to our website and then stupidly try to convince us, as if we can't judge for ourselves. Your appeal to authority is a cognitive bias and therefore, invalid. If we, the Wikipedia community, wanted to have an article about your cryptocurrency, we'd've already written it. We don't. My recommendation to you is to wait five or ten years and then revisit it. Encyclopedias are trailing indicators of notoriety and are not supposed to cover the latest, greatest details. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 12:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And if you don't, I will ask someone to topic ban you. MER-C 13:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Spam section
Could you please remove my site from spam section? I didn't know that I broke some rules. I'll never do this again. In addition, I fixed some dead links with archived and newer versions. Petermelville (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If so, no action will be taken. However, I've encountered far too many lies from spammers in the past and for that reason we do not remove past reports. MER-C 13:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's OK. You can delete this section if you want. Petermelville (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Cardano Development Additions Rejected
Hello, I added more information about Cardano's slated development, but my additions were reverted and I don't understand why. All the information I added is true and I included third party sources for all of it. Why were my additions reverted and how can I avoid this in the future, both with cryptocurrency-related subjects and others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSamuel11 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You did not supply a single reliable source to back any of the content, and the content was promotional. Cryptocurrency enthusiast websites are not reliable sources because they do not have a reputation for fact-checking. MER-C 10:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that. I could certainly use Cardano's website itself given that I merely mean to include information about planned development. Can you confirm this would also not be reliable sourcing given it is not third-party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSamuel11 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct. We're not interested in what a business has to say about themselves. Reliable sources must be intellectually independent -- this also excludes reprinted press releases, churnalism and articles where the claims of the company are repeated without question. MER-C 15:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Secondly, how was the content I added "promotional." I merely included described what the Cardano team has laid out as the future development of their project, and I qualified every statement as "planned/slated/etc." How is this not useful, relevant, objective information about Cardano's "Development" that would be of interest to anyone using Wikipedia to learn about Cardano?SamSamuel11 (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Roadmaps are promotional -- the intended purpose is to generate hype through that plan. Many ICO roadmaps are unfeasible (technically, legally, and/or economically), unrealistic, grandiose, fraudulent, a poor fit for the market or propose products that are unfit for purpose. They should not be added them without independent commentary from reliable sources. MER-C 16:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I disagree, but alright.--SamSamuel11 (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency & Blockchain
Hi Mer-C,

Hope you have been having a great day. I would like to enquire about general sanctions with regards to Cryptocurrency and blockchain. My question is with regards to the article I have written on HelloGold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:HelloGold. I find the article worthy and interesting to explore as it gives Muslims assurance in trading due to the platform being Shariah compliant. I also understand the general sanctions on cryptocurrency due to it being too abundant and hard to edit. I would like some advice as I am thinking of resubmitting my article complying with Wikipedia standard.

I would like to enquire if the sanctions are mostly on cryptocurrency or all blockchain technology. I would also like your advice on how to create articles that complies with Wikipedia and not being subject to general sanctions.

I look forward to hearing from you and thank you so much for the guidance when my article was sanctioned.

Best Regards, Shabeer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabeer92 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Any content related to blockchain technology or cryptocurrencies (both broadly construed) is under sanctions. You are required to supply reliable sourcing -- it must be intellectually independent and secondary sources -- to back any blockchain or cryptocurrency related content you add.
 * You must not edit Wikipedia for advertising, marketing, public relations or other promotional purposes. Do you have a conflict of interest regarding HelloGold? If so, you must disclose this in accordance with Wikipedia policy and, where applicable, securities law. MER-C 14:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

CathyUK
Hello MER-C, can you please take a look at a newly registered user who recreated Michael Belkin (Professor) previously created by  you blokced and the use of edit summary is exactly same. Thank you. GSS (talk |c|em ) 12:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 11 more socks found, Sockpuppet investigations/Ws95684. MER-C 20:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

POTD colsize
FYI, when you do the POTD templates, you can't leave the  parameter blank, as you did in Template:POTD/2018-09-06. When you do that, the image gets put in as full size in the column version, although when I look at POTD column it's supposed to default to 300, but maybe I did that wrong. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 17:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The instructions state that the colsize parameter is optional. Maybe they're wrong? MER-C 19:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe I meant "optional" in the sense of "if you don't use it, don't include it". — howcheng  {chat} 22:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Community Health Metrics Kit consultation
The Community Health Metrics Kit is a new project to measure more aspects of our communities. If you are interested in metrics, statistics, and measurement of editing and contributing, please join us on Meta to discuss how and what the new project should measure! Please share this with anyone else you think may be interested in this work. This message is also available in other languages. For the Community health initiative, Cheers, SPoore (WMF), Trust &#38; Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Humorous Observation
Your main page states you don't engage in paid editing but your WIKIOPOLY board explicitly states to "Collect $200 salary as you pass" which sort of sends a mixed signal...and after 17 hours awake I find that hilariously funny for some reason :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Informal RFC
Hi. Thanks for leaving the 1RR template on my page. Can you review those and tell me if I'm in gross violation of any (POV and/or edit warring) policies? I would appreciate an opinion of someone uninvolved. Fireice (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just an update I decided to ask for WP:THIRD. I would appreciate your input Fireice (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not being online yesterday. The consensus at ANI was to topic ban you, which I have now enacted. MER-C 08:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's ok. Can you please (genuine question, please feel free to humour me if it eases the tension) explain what I was tbanned for? Was it the two edits I made before Jytdog posted a warning on my talk? Fireice (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not following the conflict of interest guideline (particularly WP:COITALK -- while you are not paid, the idea is the same), tendentious editing and ignoring my GS notification. You've been here for 11 years, you should know better. MER-C 14:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, it has been 10 years, but I don't think it will be much longer. I need to collect some thoughts for a goodbye at VP Fireice (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hateful Agony and GNG
Hi MER-C, I'm sorry bothering you with a topic which might fit better somewhere else... (but you are the only user so far I shared a conversation with.) On DE:WP there's an article about the Thrash-Metal-Band de:Hateful Agony. I'm wondering if these guys meet the GNG criteria. An early Demo was released by At War Records (a.o. Judas Iscariot, Lugubre and Tsjuder), a compilation by Alucard Records (a.o. Suicidal Angels) and their last two records by a label with no "blue bands" on EN:WP (but one (Desecrator from Australia) touring Europe with Airbourne, and another one (Traitor) being "Newcomer of the Year" 2015 at Rock Hard (magazine)). Furthermore Hateful Agony were touring Europe twice: nine European countries in 2016 with Canadian band Aggression (releases on Banzai and Great White North Records) and 2018 five European countries with English band Virus. What do you think? Thx in advance. --DMF-Muster (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We have a specific notability guideline for bands. The big question is, can you find reliable, reputable sources that have covered this band on its own merit, or demonstrate one one of the criteria with reliable sourcing you should be fine. MER-C 19:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Datsgroup
You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. MER-C 16:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please remove sanction
Why did you place a sanction on my account? I have not made any reverts to blockchain/bitcoin pages, I have not vandalized any pages, and every single one of my edits was carefully sourced. The only thing that I have done is make multiple edits to some pages in 24 hour periods so I don't lose my work due to my browser timing out, and so that it is easier for others to revert my work (if they dislike it) layer by layer as my contributions are usually significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reriksenus (talk • contribs) 02:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: 7:15 PM PDT

Dude, none of my contributions are COI, none are paid, none know the author/subject personally. Heck, I even got a few thank-yous from another admin in the topic. Most of the articles that I've been improving were made at year(s) ago, and all of them by someone else. Are you talking about DragonChain? Because a lot has happened and the article needed a lot of improvement to catch up to the present. Also, I had a lot of trouble with a particular reference and thought the error would resolve itself if I submitted the draft; I had to change my reference name= from CamelCase to lowercase to get it to work. I wanted to put their logo into the page because it didn't have one like the other cryptocurrencies but now I'm afraid to. Please consider what I have said and remove the sanction so I can get back to my hobby unfettered. I was actually enjoying this but now I just feel upset. Reriksenus (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not been sanctioned. The notice I placed informs you that all blockchain and cryptocurrency related content are subject to special enforcement provisions that allow admins to place blocks or topic bans without further warning if editorial or behavioral policy is breached. This is the message you will receive if you are sanctioned.


 * You will be topic banned if you insert promotional content, or content that is not backed by reliable sources. Cryptocurrency enthusiast websites, Github and Medium are not reliable sources. This is mostly unacceptable, except the stuff sourced to ZDNet. MER-C 08:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

BIP LING
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because Bip Ling is not selling any products, nor has been working for the last 4 years, search google news for reference. She is the first blogger in history to be a successful Model, Actress, Designer and DJ. Which has to be on Wikipedia for historic records.

I am not a family member of Ling, nor her, so I am confused to why you are requesting to delete the page?

See here for all articles about Ling [snip]

Thank You,

Ghosh — Preceding unsigned comment added by M dghosh (talk • contribs) 21:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your article was promotional of the person in the same way a CV is. MER-C 17:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrookeCook
Hi MER-C, According to this, which is now closed, these should be blocked. This user: User:CezarPiotrowski is on the list, and is not blocked. Is it normal for some to be left off, or forgotten, or the process still moving. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks blocked to me. MER-C 15:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleting an article draft
Hello, Could you please specify the reasons for deletig article draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:B2Broker,_a_liqudity_and_technology_provider#References ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronos Waters (talk • contribs) 12:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See here, here and here. Do not repost any draft on this subject otherwise you will be sanctioned under the special enforcement procedures that apply to blockchain/cryptocurrency related content. There is zero tolerance for promotional content in this topic area. MER-C 13:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Delete of Page:GSENetwork
Hi MER-C,

I am aware that Wikipedia has a strict code on what should (not) be published on this website. Can I retrieve the deleted article so that I can improve it? I wish to write a page that complies with Wikipedia rules.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardsonyoung (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a conflict of interest regarding this topic? MER-C 08:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!
GABgab 00:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Unblock issue
I'm in discussion with User:Mcostanzo21 at OTRS. The editor has stated that attempts to file an unblock request results in being immediately logged out. I looked at the block log to see if the account had accidentally been prohibited from editing their talk page but I don't see this. But I ask you to double check because I'm not sure what advice to give the editor.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's just a routine block for a second-person spam page. It's probably a browser (extension) problem. MER-C 18:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , Thanks S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent deleted contribution
Hi MER-C. I see that you deleted my contribution (LEAPWORK_Automation_Platform) with the G11 as reason. Can you please tell me what qualified the article for this deletion? As I understand it, it is OK (and relevant) to publish articles about companies and products - even though there is a relation between the article and the contributor - as long as this is stated with a public declaration on the user page of the contributor (which I did), and as long as “Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.” (WP:PROMOTION, 5). I believe this was also the case. Please help me understand what's up and down here :)

Vinkel100 (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it is OK (and relevant) to publish articles about companies and products - even though there is a relation between the article and the contributor
 * Absolutely not. You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. As you are affiliated with the company, merely providing information is advertising. We cover topics on their own merit, as determined by other independent people and our volunteer editors. Furthermore, your article was essentially a product brochure. MER-C 15:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick reply. The article was not meant as promotion for us (and was actually a technical description of product compatibility and features). My primary purpose was to add our tool to the list of GUI testing tools (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_GUI_testing_tools) where many other tools already are represented. When I first added our tool to the list, I created an external link, which was reverted and I was told had to be an internal link to a wikipedia article. - Which is the actual reason for why I created the article that you deleted. I understand your role and your points and I will leave it to others without any COI. Vinkel100 (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

COI block?
Did you intend to block ? From what I'm seeing, they got both 1-year and indef block templates, and not actually blocked...? (Unless my gadgets are telling me completely wrong, which is entirely possible.) &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. Thanks for reminding me to do so. MER-C 14:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

My page was deleted.
Hello,

My page was deleted and I really need that content back for my class assignment. Can you please provide my content back to me?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bv.rcbc (talk • contribs)
 * See User:Bv.rcbc/sandbox. Please don't move it into article space, otherwise it will be deleted again by someone else. MER-C 20:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Tron, TRX
I have added a to Draft:Tron, TRX, a page you moved from Tron, TRX, and posted a  on page creator's talk page, cf. WP:DRAFTIFY. The script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js is a godsend for draftification cases like this, highly recommended. Sam Sailor 09:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Tron
Hi there, you last moved this article to draft. Any thoughts about this. I believe the article should really follow the AfC process. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And back into draft it goes, with some salt as well. The creator has been warned about the blockchain sanctions. There has been two other attempts to recreate the article in the last month, both under different titles: Draft:Tron, TRX and Draft:Tron.network. I might have to consider using the title blacklist. MER-C 11:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Topic Banned
Hi MER-C. I have only ever edited one cryptocurrency page, the Skycoin page, and almost all of the links were added while the page was in draft, before it was approved for creation, so I think this ban is rather unfair. If the sources were clearly unreliable then they would not have been approved in the first place. Peak Debt (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the page should be deleted or not, are unacceptable. chepicap.com, like all cryptocurrency enthusiast websites, is clearly not a reliable source. Yes, I made a mistake and this topic ban was unfair - I was too lenient and should have topic banned you months ago. MER-C 21:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi MER-C, I was guided by all the other approved cryptocurrency pages on Wikipedia, and used similar sources. Are you also going to ban the administrator who first approved the page with those references? Surely a warning should come before a ban? Peak Debt (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Page deletion
Dear MER-C, I'm just wondering why our page for our company SnowPak was deleted? We worked hard to have it listed on Wikipedia and not have it be promotional.

Any advice you can give on how we can get it back up would be greatly appreciated!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SnowPak

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.188.80 (talk • contribs)
 * See here. MER-C 08:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

a Request to Lift ECP of Huobi Wikipedia Page
Hi MER-C,

Sorry for my unskilled addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. Would you mind lifting the ECP of Huobi wikipage? I promise that I'll never do anything wrong on this page.

Looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely, Xqminand08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xqminand08 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are prohibited from editing that page anyway, so your request is moot. MER-C 08:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Sanction blocks
Hi MER-C, please can you point out to me where SouthernWolf95 was notified of (and where it was logged) active crypto sanctions before your block, as I appear to be unable to find it? From this edit, it looks like you notified and blocked them at the same time, effectively without any warning or notice whatsoever? I ask because WP:DS specifically says "Discretionary sanctions may not be imposed unless an editor has been made aware they are in effect", and I'm not seeing prior notification which would make them aware? Cheers! stwalkerster (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GS/Crypto says I can block for edit warring without warning or notification. Community imposed general sanctions aren't a facsimile of ArbCom discretionary sanctions, and this is one of the places where it differs. Bear in mind that the insertion of poorly sourced, promotional content regarding cryptocurrencies is exactly why these sanctions were imposed. MER-C 21:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, cheers - I thought I was missing something, and yes, I've managed to mix up DS and GS. It probably doesn't help that the GS template wording is very similar to the DS template wording in that it also says sanctions won't be applied until after notification, and WP:GS/Crypto refers to it as both a GS and a DS in the same paragraph - perhaps I'm too tired to make sense of this tonight. Thanks for keeping me on the ball! stwalkerster (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Censoring my sandbox? Re: Special enforcement measures apply to blockchain and cryptocurrency related content
A warning was posted on my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eburnside) related to content I was dabbling with in my sandbox. I haven't published anything yet outside my sandbox. While I appreciate the notice and will behave accordingly, is it really a sandbox or is it not? Am I not allowed to learn the markup without censure? Recommend whatever bot you're running be adjusted to ignore sandboxes.

Cheers Eburnside (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not running a bot. There is strictly zero tolerance for poorly sourced, promotional content or undisclosed conflicts of interest in this topic area. You are required to supply reliable sources when you add cryptocurrency content to articles (cryptocurrency enthusiast websites, self-published media and the company's own website are not reliable sources). The content in your sandbox is unacceptable as part of an article and you will be sanctioned if you add it to an article as-is. (And yes, there are things that you are not allowed to put in your sandbox. Advertising is one of them.) MER-C 20:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, that was harsh
I'm sorry if you mistook the content I tried to add on Cardano as promotional material, as I later re-read the passage and realized that it did sound promotional. I attempted to try to write out a bit and source it to as many references I can find. I wanted to make it clear that the team behind it was three separate organizations and write out what was unique about it – the Ouroboros algorithm. I would like to request an appeal for my ban as I would like to provide more things on the media side for cryptocurrencies (.svg logos and interface screenshots) and expanding on infoboxes rather than applying major content changes. I apologize for the inconvenience I have caused. omegshi147 • talk 04:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to consider this appeal, pending satisfactory answers to these questions:


 * 1) Why were general sanctions put in place for this topic area?
 * 2) What constitutes a reliable source in this topic, and why?
 * 3) Why is it promotional and a bad idea to repeat the claims of blockchain projects without question?
 * 4) Have you declared all your non-trivial holdings of cryptocurrencies?
 * 5) What are the real world consequences of allowing promotional content on cryptocurrencies be added, or stay on Wikipedia? For the one who adds the information? For the general public?


 * From the above, do you now understand the rationale behind your topic ban, and why there is zero tolerance for promotion in this area? MER-C 20:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Meixliv
Should be blocked for creating Dagcoin without mentioning that it is a ponzi. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Editor behavior matches covert advertising as well. Done. MER-C 19:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Bytecoin Cryptocurrency page deletion
Hi MER-C, I just wanted to bring our conversation away from the Bytecoin deletion page and over here instead. As you can tell by my amateur mistakes (i.e. Golem page creation with inadequate sourcing, CCN links), I'm quite new to Wikipedia editing and I pretty much exclusively revolve around cryptocurrencies.

I would very much like to contribute to everything as a whole, and I appreciate how hard you crack down on shill attempts. I was wondering if there's anything you could see me working on that would be more beneficial than my current strategy of finding articles and editing pages as I go along. Let me know. Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I advise you to stay clear of cryptocurrencies and any other real life controversial topic while you learn the ropes. There is zero tolerance for promotional content in this topic for the reason you describe. As for what you can do - Category:Wikipedia backlog contains literally millions of maintenance tasks sorted by what needs to be done. Some of the easiest include categorization, adding infoboxes, adding coordinates, fixing/adding citations and external links (as long as you stick to reputable media outlets) and adding images (if you can find them on Wikimedia Commons). Some of the subcategories are a little large, but you can pop incategory:"CATEGORY NAME‎" example into the search box to find stuff you're interested in. Hope this helps. MER-C 17:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi MER-C. Since we last spoke I looked at that page but didn't find much that I was good at, so I've just avoided things like the main cryptocurrency pages. However, I've been working on the Decentralized Exchange page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_exchange) and was wondering if you could help me out. A user came and added a bunch of stuff about hardware wallets and an exchange called Switchero, but didn't provide any sources. Can I revert it, or should I bring it up on their talk page first? Thanks! Dr-Bracket (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That edit is absolutely terrible. Revert away (but only once per 24 hours). I'll hand out a sanctions notice to the account involved. MER-C 16:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Wright of Derby
Wrote this. "I no longer live near Derby but I am very familiar with this painting and it is dark, dark and dark again hence the dramatic effect of the lit faces (chiaroscuro indeed and a master - if the photo doesn't show this it has failed).Look at his other paintings, once he got the trick he kept it.The museum lecture photo doesn't help.It looks overlit. Wright himself would, I am sure, have chosen this present version. Subjective support from me then" Superb photo. Sorry it wasn't promoted Notafly (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth a renomination after the holiday season is over. MER-C 17:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It certainly is Notafly (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ron Kitchens Page Deletion
Hi MER-C,

I would like to discuss the page clearing of the Ron Kitchens living biography entry. I would be more than willing to consider incorporating any feedback you have on the page, however, to my knowledge the page adheres to the living biography standards.

I am re-posting this page today.

Thanks for any feedback you have!

SMFTDunham (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And it's been deleted again because it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. If you repost it, your editing privileges will be terminated for advertising. MER-C 05:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe I understand the exact reasoning for the page deletion and threat of terminating editing privileges, your insights would be greatly appreciated as it seems you have a strong opinion on this topic. SMFTDunham (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC) SMFTDunham
 * User was blocked for covert advertising. MER-C 12:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Savory & Moore
Hello MERC-C. Recently you deleted Draft:Savory & Moore after I requested the article be speedy deleted via G5. Today, the article was re-created by an editor who has disclosed a connection to the subject. I have returned the article to the draftspace and requested it be sent through AfC, but am noting that the article seems to be identical to the one that was recently deleted; this implies the COI editor and re-creator just conducted a copy-paste move, and as such the content at Draft:Savory & Moore remains the work of a blocked undisclosed paid editor. Does this qualify the article for another G5, or should AfC be used to determine the draft's fate? Thanks.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't delete it unless the new user is explicitly a sockpuppet (which is not outside the realm of possibility). MER-C 13:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I suspected it might be, but couldn't find a smoking gun. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Credit should also go to Armbrust for realising the majority of the article had been replaced with the likely copyvio. MER-C 13:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

paid contribs
Hi, the end of this article refers to paid contributions in forbes. I am sure you knew, but it is interesting alas. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I read through it, and it seems these are for the Forbes contributors, not the actual editorial staff itself. In particular, Harold Stark was questioned but his now removed article shows that he was not on the actual editorial team (there's no archive, but notice the /sites/ before his name). As per the Perennial Sources, the contributors were already deemed as untrustworthy. Good find though Dr-Bracket (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to topic ban anyone not adhering to Wikipedia's sourcing standards. Note: see also . MER-C 13:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?
Hi. Notice any similarity between User:Gladtohelpothers and blocked spam account User:Newwwtoojee, formerly known as User:Jex exchange before global rename? 82.132.215.198 (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Same subject, but the current draft is not the absolute garbage created by the other account. It's interesting, but not enough by itself to prove sockpuppetry. The sanctions warning is enough: if they move it into mainspace I'll consider them for a topic ban. MER-C 11:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources in the comparison table for Decentralized Exchange
I want to add a new section to the table I created in the Decentralized exchange page called "Supportable assets" as per what I outlined on the talk page, and while the information is out there and exists, it's all self-sourcing. The Comparison of Virtual Private Network Services page here shows a very similar chart and it too is self-sourcing (and a controversial subject), so I feel like what I have written so far in the talk page might be might be fine but I just wanted to run it by you first and see what you think. Dr-Bracket (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wouldn't recommend it. Many of these "Comparison of X" lists are crap, and they attract spam. MER-C 13:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)