User talk:Mucimucimuc

January 2021
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Your recent addition and reversion on Decentralized finance cites only self-published and unreliable sources. David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact I've inserted a link to the Japan Patent's Office, it really couldn't be more as much as reliable and INDEPENDANT source than that. Your actions are damaging and heavily biased. If you continue with this same kind of biased and aggressive action,I'll have to ask the Wiki community to take provisions.


 * If you think you have a case, then by all means go for it. But you appear to have stupendously misunderstood our sourcing rules, and are violating them in a topic area under general sanctions - particularly when 100% of your edits are promotional content for Reggie Middleton and Veritaseum - David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you that knowledgable on the SEC vs Middleton case and the dynamics behind it? Why delete all sections displaying a line of Defense Response of the SEC case? Why leave the last essay as of fraud? Do you know that a one-sided story is sign of BIASED information? Is the JPO patent promotional? Was the link to the official patent registration number promotional? Are you aware SEC accused Veritaseum of having false promises of patents?

Is the content promotional when the editors have always kept visible the SEC accusation of fraud?(probably not ,because that's the policy of impartial information channels). Like with all un-biased information, both sides of a coin must be published. Yet you have decided to make it stupendously one sided.


 * You need to find coverage in independent third-party reliable sources. This is Wikipedia policy - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Explain to me how the Japan Patent Office is not an independent source? You are not answering my question.


 * I suggest you do the reading that I've already linked you - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mucimucimuc. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Mucimucimuc. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

NO,I'm not paid to do this!