User talk:Interfacts#top

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:3}}|Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC}}

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SwiftCoin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, Interfacts. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{tl|request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.{{#ifexpr: ({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} - 20181026110916) < 5000000000 | {{PAGENAME}} | }}

{{Ivm|2=Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. }} MER-C 11:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidus Bond until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Pegnawl (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Amazing. Nobody has any problems with Solidus Bond for months, but then when I make a good faith effort, spending 2 hours to improve the article yesterday by adding backlinks etc, just as you asked me to do... you nominate the article for deletion! Not even 24 hours go by! This is the thanks I get. Seems there is no way to win, it makes no difference what any editor does when you are determined to delete an artcile. So, shall I continue to waste my time on this or just forget it?

Interfacts (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

{{Ivmbox

|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg

|imagesize=50px

|1=The following sanction has been imposed on you:

{{Talkquote|1=Indefinite topic ban from blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed}}

You have been sanctioned for failing to declare a conflict of interest when prompted back in October, promotional editing and not being here to build an encyclopedia.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at WP:GS/Crypto, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. MER-C 20:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

}}

To be served concurrently with:

{{unblock reviewed | 1=Im being blocked in retaliation for challenging (on talk pages!) wikipedia's unfairness and bias. This is grossly unfair. I am not a paid promoter for anything and a review of my brief history since 2016 shows that my topics are not cryptocurrency focused or even commercial. Ive created and edited articles about deceased people. I am the author of solidus bond and was asked to create backlinks to strengthen the article. I did so in good faith less than 24 hours ago... and within hours I was hounded, had all my work undone and then when I complained on talk pages, my account was blocked! Who are you people? You are discrediting wikipedia. I never got paid a dime and now you try to censor me. This is outrageous. I am a journalist and will speak publicly about this. Interfacts (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC) | decline = The discussion of the community sanctions aspect of the block(re cryptocurrency related editing) did not result in a consensus to unblock you. Further, your edits were clearly promotional whether you were paid for them or not- though you clearly have some sort of association, paid or otherwise, with the subject("was asked to create backlinks") that you will need to disclose. As noted in the AN discussion, any unblock will likely be contingent at least in part on a topic ban from edits about cryptocurrencies(broadly construed). I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)}}

Appeal copied to the administrators' noticeboard. MER-C 21:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed | 1=First you block me for 1 year (!) for touting solidus bond because I tried to comply with a 3 month old request to strengthen the article by providing backlinks. Then you block me indefinitely because I am a member of the Market Technicians Association and... since I have more knowledge than the average person about Chartered Market Technician I must be breaking wikipedia rules by editing the article about an organization I know a lot about!...and you tell me that Wikipedia isnt about the truth! Well then...why doesn't wikipedia make that disclaimer on its masthead? When the unsuspecting public finds wikipedia articles on page 1 of google search for every topic in existence...do you think they are aware that wikipedia has no concern for the truthfulness of its articles?. How disingenuous. Interfacts (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC) | decline = Only one unblock request at a time please. The above one is being reviewed. Sandstein 21:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)}}

I am a member of the Market Technicians Association...

So, why, exactly, are you a member of the Market Technicians Association? --Calton | Talk 00:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Calton, I am an MTA member because I passed all 3 CMT exams and met all the requirements. Interfacts (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

:There is something seriously wrong at wikipedia. You tell me Im blocked, then I state my case for unblocking. Then I make another statement and you say stop, only one statement at a time please. Then I am asked about why I am an MTA member. I answer the question, then I get yet another block notice for "abuse of editing privileges." Really, you people are nuts. In 3 years, I wrote TWO articles related to crypto and you block me for spamming about crypto. You block me for 1 year (!) for touting solidus bond because I tried in good faith to comply with a 3 month old request to strengthen the article by providing backlinks. Then you block me indefinitely because I am a member of the Market Technicians Association and... since I have more knowledge than the average person about Chartered Market Technician I must be breaking wikipedia rules by editing the article about an organization I know a lot more about than you do...and you also tell me that Wikipedia isnt about the truth! Well well then...why doesn't wikipedia make that startling disclaimer on its masthead? When the unsuspecting public finds wikipedia articles on page 1 of google search for every topic in existence!...is the public aware that wikipedia has no regard for the accuracy of its articles?. How disingenuous. Before the alleged reasons for my block are even examined, you put yet another block on! Really, you people cannot be taken seriously. This needs to be discussed publicly. Wikipedia needs to be debunked. Interfacts (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

::You have only been blocked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AInterfacts once] but admins are declining multiple unblock requests. You are the one goofing that up...respond normally and leave the unblock template alone. You should only see one open (blue) request on your talkpage. Your request is being discussed here. Most of what you have written above looks like you don't understand the situation. You are way off...are you sure that you do analysis for a living? You weren't blocked because of the reasons you state so you let yourself rant because of your misunderstanding and then call people nuts. Your analysis fell way short here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

So you are a member of the CMT Association and know a lot about it, yet the most significant fact you could think of writing about it was that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CMT_Association&diff=prev&oldid=879095369 Daniel Bruno is a member], who happens to have invented the Solidus bond? That was supposed to improve our readers' understanding of the CMT Association? Based on two web pages associated with Bruno himself? You wouldn't happen to be Bruno, would you? Huon (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

:Hello Calton, I am an MTA member because I passed all 3 CMT exams and met all the requirements.

:I didn't ask how you qualified for membership, I asked why are you a member? --Calton | Talk 07:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Under discussion at AN. Recusing as I took part in that discussion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)