Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies

Nostr article needs reviewing
! helper. Can I get someone to please review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nostr Many edits have been made since the last review, thanks.

Puppet of Abbas888
Hello, I'm not sure it is the right place to report a case but I think is a puppet of  blocked under this rule because Abbas888 wrote to Meenakhan112 sandbox and created similar content after  Abbas888 was blocked (spammed links to mconvert.net website about exchange rates and crypto currencies). Regards Mascarponette (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'd try WP:SPI first. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ok thanks Mascarponette (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please remove me from this list
Respectfully, please remove me from this list. I pointed out that I should not be on this list per the explicit policy statement on Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions provided as justification by Primefac. TonyBallioni has overridden that purported policy by fiat. Take care, KMeyer (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No. The one way GS differ from AC/DS is that there is no filter tag. You were made aware with the correct template. There is a diff of it. If you continue wikulawyering over some policy that you think exists but doesn’t, you’re very likely to end up blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Putting aside the policy, please delete me from this list. KMeyer (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. The entire point of this list is that 1) these templates don’t tag so we have to have them as a record. If they did tag, we wouldn’t need this list, and 2) to keep a record of who is aware. Reason 1 is why your request to be removed based on a different policy is wrong and reason 2 is why no one is agreeing to remove you. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I blanked this particular talk section that I previously created because I believed it to be fully resolved. I’m not sure why David considered that disruptive and reverted it. This is the talk page, not the main database.  Maybe he was just confused? In any event is there any disagreement with blanking this section? And if so, why? Do we expect it to have any continued utility to anyone? Certainly not useful to me. Take care, KMeyer (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , You're free to blank your own talk page (User pages) if you wish, though archiving is preferred (WP:ARCHIVE). You're NOT free to blank any other talk pages (Talk page guidelines). Cabayi (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

tag
I think the tag "Blockchain GS talk" on this page is out of date, it should be "Gs/talk notice|crypto" Apologies, I dont removed the –  as I dont know how to override them. I noted it is out of date as when i try to use Blockchain GS I get a system errorr and it says to use the updated one. Seems out of my wheelhouse to update this page. For example here I tagged a talk page, with the subsequent Gs/talk notice|crypto tag. If I try with the Blockchain GS talk the talk page in question will throw an error in red text. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Change made. MER-C 18:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

NFTs
We're seeing more articles about specific NFT's in AfC. Would these fall under this type of GS? Bkissin (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would think so according to the "broadly construed" clause. Retimuko (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)