User talk:Moontime777

July 2021
Hello, I'm Longhair. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User:Moontime777 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. Longhair\talk 23:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hi Moontime777! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Longhair\talk 00:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Moontime777/sandbox


The page User:Moontime777/sandbox has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Girth Summit  (blether) 18:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi - the language you were using in that draft was entirely promotional, and entirely unacceptable, even for a draft. If you want to edit articles here, you need to stick to neutral, factual language, drawing information exclusively from what the sources you use have to say. You should also not be using second person pronouns like 'you' and 'your' - those are not features of encyclopedic writing. Don't try to persuade the reader of anything - simply present facts, neutrally and without adornment. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Girl Summit,

I was talking with admin Longhair about this on his user page. I'm going to recreate this page with leaving you and your behind.

May i ?

Kind regards, Moontime777

Hi,

I edited it, please check. This project is not mine, it gained already a lot attention from mainstream media. I have no motivational reasons to promote it. I am my self not a investor in it.

I create this page because they help dogs, that's why i want people to be aware of it when they google and want information about it.
 * Hi - so, the problem your experiencing is that the language you are using in your sandbox is so promotional that it is triggering automatic filters designed to prevent people uploading adverts. That's how I came across it, and I expect that's what drew 's attention as well.
 * The current version of your draft is still far too promotional. I believe you when you say that you don't work for them or have investments with them - as a dog owner myself (my whippet is snoring by my side as I type), I can understand someone wanting to promote something that is intended to help rescue dogs. My problem is that we just don't write articles like that.
 * I hope you won't be offended if I tell you that I assume English is not your first language? Your writing is not entirely grammatical (I have no idea what "with leaving you and your behind" was intended to mean, but I assume you didn't intend to be offensive when you referred to my behind?!), so I am guessing that getting the nuances of formal, neutral writing might be difficult for you. I will run through some of the issues I see when I look at your current version:
 * Baby Doge Coin is a cryptocurrency which can be volatile. The first bit ("Baby Doge Coin is a cryptocurrency") is fine. The second bit ("which can be volatile.") is a subjective opinion, which should be attributed to the author. A better approach would be to write "Baby Doge Coin is a cryptocurrency. Name Nameson, writing in The Newspaper, described its performance as "volatile".
 * Baby Doge is decentralized and on a mission to bring crypto to the average person while also helping save dogs in need. So, this is problematic in several ways. First off, 'on a mission' is very informal language, but more importantly, Baby Doge is a cryptocurrency - the people behind it can be on a mission, but the currency itself is entirely inanimate, we can't ascribe motivations to it. Even more importantly than that, however, is that I don't see any credible sources actually talking about it in those terms - we don't repeat what organisations say about themselves or their products, we summarise what reliable sources say about them. The closest thing we could possibly say about this would be something along the lines of "The white paper released by Baby Doge Coin's creators defines one of their goals as the rescuing of dogs in need." Or something like that.
 * Baby Doge is created after Doge Coin with a faster block speeds and cheaper gas fees since it is built on Binance Smart Chain (BSC). I literally don't know what any of that means. What does it mean to be 'created after Doge Coin' - 'after' just means that it happened later. Do you mean it was based on Doge Coin? What are faster block speeds? What are gas fees? Jargon like that needs explaining.
 * Baby Doge learned a few tricks and lessons from the meme father, Doge Coin. Again - I have no idea what any of this means. 'Learned new tricks' is informal figurative language, and besides, a cryptocurrency cannot learn tricks, it is inanimate. What is a meme father?
 * A new crypto birthed by members of the Doge Coin online community. This sentence has no verb in it - it's a noun phrase, it can't stand on its own. 'Birthed by' is also another example of informal figurative language which we don't use.
 * Baby Doge seeks to follow the father by showing new improved transaction speeds & tokenomics. Same again - as a cryptocurrency, Baby Doge doesn't seek to do anything (although its creators might seek to do something). 'Follow the father' is figurative language again, we shouldn't be using it. We don't use ampersands (&) in normal prose. Are we saying that its transaction speeds and tokenomics (whatever they are) are faster than those of Dogecoin, or the same as them (since they are following the father they are presumably copying them?)? I just don't know what actual facts I'm meant to take away from this sentence.
 * It is a cryptocurrency which is hyper-deflationary with an integrated smart staking system built in to reward, so more baby doge coins are being automatically added to the user digital wallet each transaction. As well as being entirely impenetrable jargon, this is also massively promotional, and I think it runs counter to what the sources are saying. As I read the sources, they say that users are charged for each transaction they make; so, rather than having coins added to their wallet each transaction, they are taken away.
 * Baby Doge Coin use tokenomics. It should be 'uses', rather than 'use', since you are using 'Baby Doge Coin' as a (singular) mass noun. Otherwise, this sentence would be OK if there was a cited source.
 * Elon Musk tweeted about Baby Doge Coin. This is trivia: what Elon Musk chooses to tweet about is not relevant to our articles except in exceptional cases.
 * My main problem, however, is that you seem to be trying to make Baby Doge Coin sound like a good thing. I can understand that - as I say, anything that helps rescue dogs is a good thing in my book - but then I look at what the sources used in the article are saying. Nasdaq source: "If you're looking for a good cryptocurrency investment, Baby Doge Coin isn't it." CNBC source: "Though it's not clear whether Musk's support is serious..." and "As the SEC warned in 2017, "it is never a good idea to make an investment decision just because someone famous says a product or service is a good investment."" These sources are very clearly warning their readers that investing in this currency is a bit of a gamble - but you're not putting any of that across in your article, you're picking only the bits that make it sound like Baby Doge Coin is a good thing. This is what I meant when I said that your editing seemed promotional - it just isn't how we write articles.
 * I won't delete the sandbox this time, in case you want to continue working on it, but I do need to be clear - nothing like the content that's currently in there will be accepted into article space. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Girl Summit,

I understand also if example a big company; like; Coca Cola created a page like this with same '"promotional" writing would be suspisious and also asked to edit it.

I am with you... don't want promotional stuff here.. only good and changing world articles!

Anyway... My friend also own a whippet they are really cute, give a hug from me!

Thank you for taking the time to leave a feedback. I'm not offended by you at all. It is true that English is not my first language, I read English books and also write a lot of English online. Anyway, English is a difficult language that you can't quickly master. I'm doing my best, you directed me to the right way!

I changed all the things you recommended me. Removed some also which were not important for a wikipedia user to read.

Please have a look, thanks in advance! :) Hopefully all is okay now.

Kind regards, moontime777


 * Well, it's looking better, but there are still issues:
 * See WP:EL - you need to lose the external link to Reddit, and you can't name someone as the creator unless reliable sources (which Reddit is not) also name them.
 * Baby Doge Coin was born June 1st 2021 with the goal of being a decentralized meme project with a purpose. It wasn't born, that's figurative language again, we'd normally say that something like that was launched. "with a purpose" is also problematic - that's promotional language, and it suggests that other equivalent products don't have a purpose (they all presumably have a purpose of some sort, even if that's just to make a lot of money).
 * Baby Doge is a fun meme... - who says that it's fun? That's subjective, and promotional.
 * ...with a serious mission to rescue dogs in need, bring crypto adoption to the main stream with new concepts such as rewards, NFTS, decentralized exchanges. - serious mission is subjective, and it's not clear from the sources that that is really their mission - is it an actual mission, or is it a marketing plan? We need secondary sources discussing this in detail before we can make any claim like that. It's also highly promotional.
 * Note also that you don't need to keep putting the citations in each time you refer to a source. Take a look at WP:REFNAME.
 * Girth Summit  (blether) 12:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Girl Summit!

I'm back again.

I edited the issues which you mentioned today! As you stated that the source need to be reference the creator or Baby Doge, in none of the news articles "Christian Campisi" is named. I changed it as unknown user from Dogecoin community.

When the news come with the name of the creator im going to add it as reliable source.

Have a look at my article.

Thank you for your effort, you gave me really good advice with this traject!

Hopefully all sorted out now ^^

Kind regards, Moontime777

Have you been busy? @Girth Summit

I don't want to disturb you. But already had some time to check, and appove it.

Thanks! Moontime777 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of BabyDogeCoin


A tag has been placed on BabyDogeCoin, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)