Retimuko

Retimuko, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Retimuko! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Monero

Looks like the Monero community is doing an organised action to get people to edit their page [1] - you might want to consider applying for an edit lock on the page. Investanto (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I see that some drama has unfolded already: edit war, protection of the page for a couple of weeks. Thanks for your concern regarding this. Retimuko (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Retimuko. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 01:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on split notion use in the Bitcoin Cash article

Hi. Thank you for your efforts as one of the article editors. Let me inform you that there is a RfC related to its contents. You can find the discussion at Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC on split notion use in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Your recent editing history at Electroneum shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Greyjoy ^talk 06:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Greyjoy: clearly an anonymous user is trying to force into the article promotional content. I invited to discuss on the talk page, pointed to all the rules, but no effect. Perhaps, an admin help is needed to protect the page or something like that. Retimuko (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that, however edit warring isn't going to fix the issue, I am about to request temporary protection for the page in an attempt to encourage discussion on the talk page. Greyjoy ^talk 06:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Retimuko (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Schneier edit

Hey, hope this is the right way to contact you. You undid my Schneier facts entry on the Bruce Schneier page. I think the "Schneier facts" is a big part of his reputation on security and something that should be mentioned there.

He mention it a few times: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/bruce_schneier.html

There is a site about it: http://www.schneierfacts.com/

There is t-shirts: https://www.zerodayclothing.com/schneierfacts.php

and more refs: https://boingboing.net/2006/08/16/bruce-schneier-facts.html https://lwn.net/Articles/195748/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fljack-scott (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

So what? If I make a site about some celebrity, are you saying that it should be mentioned in Wikipedia? I am not sure what do you mean by saying that the site "is a big part of his reputation". The refs you mentioned are not reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Monacoin article

Hello:

I have a draft article on Monacoin: Draft:Monacoin However, someone just accused Monacoin a ponzi scheme (which isn't, at least Monacoin started as a joke coin). Since you have edited cryptocurrency articles, can you look at it? Japanese article: ja:Monacoin.

If as the response implies, the article needs improvement with more text and sources, then fine, that's both fortunate and unfortunate, but I don't know how to improve it further since I'm so new at Wikipedia editing. If the article shouldn't exist at all, I want a second and third opinion from people who have edited cryptocurrency articles.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MingT8 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC) 

@MingT8: I see that your submission of the draft was declined, and I agree with this decision. To be considered notable the subject must receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. That was not shown at all. Retimuko (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Retimuko: Should I completely abandon this article or should I actually find more sources and improve it? How long can the article be left unedited? MingT8 (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@MingT8: This is up to you provided that significant coverage in reliable sources does exist. If there is no coverage the project is hopeless in my opinion. I am not sure for how long you can keep the draft. Retimuko (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. I will also look at other draft and deleted cryptocurrency articles for more guidance. MingT8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

General sanctions alert

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.

TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please self-revert your reversion at bitcoin

Your edit summary says "there are studies suggesting that illegal market is a small fraction of all transactions" well then include them, but don't just revert when 2 reliable sources say that illegal markets are a major use of bitcoin. "Several news outlets have asserted that .." is just BS, we report what reliable sources say, rather than say "but it's just an assertion." "Assertion" is your opinion - just leave that out. BTW a very good academic study is cited just 2 paragraph below your reversion. It says "25% of all bitcoin users and 44% of all bitcoin transactions are associated with illegal activity as of April 2017." That doesn't sound like a small fraction to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: The phrasing "Several news outlets have asserted that .." might not be the best, and I don't mind rephrasing, but I completely disagree with your previous attempt resulting in a strong statement that "popularity of bitcoins hinges on the ability to use them to purchase illegal goods". Yes, some studies seem to suggest something like this, but some other studies suggest quite the opposite.

Quebec government: "Bitcoin is not above the law, nor is it a magnet for illicit transactions: it forms only a tiny part of the criminal money circulating around the planet"

Science: "The majority of Bitcoin users are law-abiding people"

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies: "the vast majority of the funds they receive do not appear to be illicit" Retimuko (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Russian interference

Your definition is incorrect:

• A conspiracy theory is that which is claimed but not (yet) proven.
• A conspiracy theory can be partially based on a grain of truth.
• A conspiracy theory does not have to be wild, outrageous or out there.
• A conspiracy theory will often contain elements which can't be proven.

The Russian electoral interference claims fall into all four of these categories. I have no doubt that at least some of the accusations are false, but that since "Reds under the Bed" type paranoia is back in style, they will try and make them stick. (If there is a conspiracy in US politics, it is to exclude third parties from election.) However, there may be some Russian interference at some level (grain of truth - not withstanding the slightly embarassing irony that Americans themselves have frequently interfered in other countries' elections).

The Russians are blamed for everything these days including home grown problems. Trolling is blamed on Russians, and that claim is being used to enable internet censorship. But the idea that the Russians cause everything is a conspiracy theory.

Oh and by the way... I'm not a Trump supporter. Can't stand America's binary politics. Not Russian either!!! Copying this to discussion page.-31.84.101.248 (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

My editing is not disruptive. Why and how is my editing disruptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetin (talk • contribs) 03:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Timetin: I see that you have just registered and started adding phrases that appear to express your personal opinion about the subject. This is not how Wikipedia project works. Contributions are welcome, but they must be done according to the guidelines. Please have a good look at the policies and guidelines. Just stating your opinion is not constructive. Repeatedly doing so on many pages despite warnings is blatant vandalism. Retimuko (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"talk page not a forum"

what are you doing, trying to save electricity or ink or something? you might not be interested in my tiny little remark on the morse code talk page, but what gives you the right to remove it?

duncanrmi (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

duncanrmi I am interested in preserving the principles of the project. Talk pages are to discuss issues and improvements to the articles, not to chat about the subject in general. See WP:TALK. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

it's not 'chat'. it's one line, & I suggest that it might be added to the article in the section dealing with references to morse code in popular culture, & not just deleted on your say-so. it's a talk page; if I can't open up a discussion there, then where? your contribution to 'the project' is about saving server space? you're not in charge. again, what gives you the right to remove it? duncanrmi (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Duncanrmi We are talking about this edit, right? It was not one line (not that it matters, but why misrepresent?). You did not suggest any changes to the article. You can open a discussion there about the article. Everyone is in charge, and everyone has the right to edit anything following the policies. Your edit was against the policy WP:TALK, and was removed for that reason, which was explained. Retimuko (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

again, it's a talk-page. you were free to add a comment under what I wrote, & free to question its relevance there, or criticise it as trivial, insubstantial, unsubstantiated. instead you invoke WP policy & delete my contribution; this seems petty, whatever the guidelines, & is the sort of thing that deters people from contributing to 'the project' & making it more interesting.

which one of these infractions do you consider my entry to have committed?

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments

duncanrmi (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Duncanrmi, here is a quote from WP:TALKNO: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." Retimuko (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Retimuko. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Theistic evolution, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26: I believe that there is no problem to be resolved, and you placed that tag there without a good reason. This is not just a list of people, but a list of articles about the people. Those articles have sources cited, and we don't have to repeat the sources in the list. There is no BLP problem there at all. I think this should be discussed on the talk page, not here. Retimuko (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Your reversions of my edits on "List of bitcoin forks"

If you are reverting my edits, I would like you to please discuss why on the talk page. Its rather rude to revert my work and not discuss it with me, especially when I've started a talk page discussion specifically about this content. So please respond on the talk page. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Fresheneesz, others explained it to you at great length there. Please use independent reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:RS. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Others have failed to support the idea that these aren't independent reliable sources. The fact that you're reverting my work and refusing to discuss it is not appropriate behavior. You should be discussing this with me if you're going to take part in reversions of work I've made a solid case for being well-sourced. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fresheneesz: No, they did not fail. You failed to listen. The sources you are trying to use are not acceptable. Namely, in this edit:

bitcoindiamond.org - primary source

coinsutra.com, coinstaker.com, ethereumworldnews.com, hacked.com, cointelegraph.com - crypto rags

medium.com - blog

not a single independent reliable source. Retimuko (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you please put this comment on the talk page for the article so other people will see our discussion? Fresheneesz (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fresheneesz: Done. Retimuko (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

RE: General sanctions alert

Hello Retimuko,

I have been received a General sanction alert from you recently. But my edits was not spam. I added two sentences for the NFC article. First one is a clear fact that would help non-tech users to understand it easier. The second one is a new use case which worths a mention on this page.

I feel that Wikipedia is here to collect FACTS and useful information about different topics. My edits was relevant, therefore I would like to kindly ask you to revert your removal of these!

Thanks! Have a nice day!

Patarticsmilan (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: I edited the NFC page again, without mentioning cryptocurrencies. Please do not remove it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patarticsmilan (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Patarticsmilan: I posted the general sanctions alert on your talk page because you edited pages related to cryptocurrencies. Please read it carefully. It says that "it does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date". The alert is not related to my reverts of your edits, in which you added inappropriate link to a commercial web site. Please read policies regarding independent reliable sources and external links. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I understand why that warning was posted. But NFC article is OK like that. It is a project size, not commercial. Btw it's a project about new technology under development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patarticsmilan (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Patarticsmilan The link to that company is not appropriate. Please read the policies I referred to above. And please indent your replies and sign. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Request

Can you please review this Wikipedia page? - https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:ODEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff at ODEM (talk • contribs) 07:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Cardano review

Hello @Retimuko: Thank you for removing bad sources from the draft. If you have any further feedback on the article it would be greatly appreciated. Please do at this Cardano talk page so everybody can see. Otherwise I want to thank you for your time :-) --FlippyFlink (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Systematic violations of active community sanctions by Smallbones

Hi, and best wishes to the year 2019. I want to inform you about the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Systematic violations of active community sanctions by Smallbones. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Chartered Market Technician

FYI I am a MEMBER of this organization. I was asked to create backlinks to Solidus Bond which I did do in good faith, spending my valuable time. Then you go following me around all over the place, undoing all my work...its enough to make a man denounce wikipedia and it explains why so many people are leaving and starting their own wikis. There is so much bias here its unreal.Interfacts (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Interfacts: Editing pages about an organization that pays you is precisely what you should not do according to Wikipedia policies. Please read the rules, in particular WP:COI.

You also use promotional language ("thought leaders" and such) and self-published sources. Please have a good look at WP:NPOV and WP:V. Retimuko (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No no no. I am NOT being paid for this! Listen, I am one of less than 1400 people in the world who hold the CMT charter. We are a non-profit organization. Why do you go around cutting people off at the knees? Everything I wrote is true. You dont like the word "thought leader"? So change it! You dont need to go around deleting good work. Stop it. Interfacts (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for justifying the termination of your editing privileges. MER-C 20:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Interfacts: Please take time to actually read the policies I mentioned above. "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." And Wikipedia is not about truth. It is about neutral summary of independent reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I've issued an indef block and topic ban. MER-C 20:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

OKEx reversion

Hi, Retimulko. I see you reverted my most recent contribution to "OKEx" because you believe its references do not adequately support its claims. I acknowledge the issue is difficult. Please discuss it with me on the OKEx talk page under the header "Wikipedia article 'OKEx' should be deleted". Adelphious (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adelphious: Why under that header? It seems to me that my revert has to do with the section above titled "Sourcing is not good" where you said that you reinstated some content. You added some info about trading volume citing three sources. Two are blogs (medium and forbes/sites), and therefore not acceptable, and the third one (Bloomberg) appears to have said nothing about OKEx.

Regarding the notability concern, I am not sure the article should be deleted. There seems to be some coverage in reliable sources. Currently there are tree Bloomberg articles cited in the article. I am not sure this is enough coverage though. You are free to try nominating the article for deletion. Retimuko (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggested that header because the reverted contribution provided the only verifiable evidence of the topic's notability by Wikipedia standards (or so my argument on Talk:OKEx would go). With it reverted, the article provides no evidence at all that OKEx meets Wikipedia's standards for notability, unless perhaps you were able to provide evidence to the contrary, such as the Bloomberg articles you cite here. That might be a good reason not to delete the article, making it most relevant under that header.

In any case, I mean it as an invitation, not an imposition, and the topic is better discussed on that talk page than here, whatever the header would be. Adelphious (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Undoing Coinfloor dead-link fix

Hi, You just undid my fix and changed back to a dead link. Why? https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Coinfloor Dabitter666 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dabitter666: coindesk is not acceptable as a source. I updated the link to Financial Times. Retimuko (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Retimuko: Ok, can you explain why Coindesk is not valid as a source? This is one of the sites I get my crypto updates at. The reason I removed Financial Times is that the links requires subscription, I thought it makes it a problematic reference.Dabitter666 (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dabitter666: There is consensus in the community of editors that crypto-fan sites like Coindesk are not independent reliable sources. They tend to praise almost anything cryptocurrency-related, often publish press releases and promotional articles for a fee and such. Just have a look at their own admission that they have a conflict of interest. Regarding the registration requirement on the FT site, it is not ideal, but it does not make the link dead or unreliable. There is a way to bypass that: search for the title using some search engine like Google and enter from the search result link. This way works for me. Retimuko (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Undoing Bitcoin Worth fix

Hi, You just undid my fix Why? nealkitt (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2019

@Nealkitt: On the one hand, it was not fix, but a break. Did you look at the result? On the other hand, I did explain why in the edit summary. Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources Retimuko (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Acupuncture

"因为缺乏足够的现代医学实验证实其疗效，针灸常在部分国家被视作替代疗法甚至伪科学。" from zh:针灸

Acupuncture is only regarded as pseudoscience in some countries and regions, not the all over the world. Please avoid the regional bias, and use NPOV statements. --風雲北洋 WP※English is very difficult 18:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Masdggg: science is international. Retimuko (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Whether acupuncture is pseudoscientific has always been controversial. --風雲北洋 WP※English is very difficult 18:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Proponents try to make it appear that way. There is no scientific dispute. Retimuko (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Retimuko

I noticed that you have taken it upon your self to change my edit on "The God Delusion" article & judging from page, I acknowledge that you are a skeptic but I only took the time to edit the statement because Evolution is not factual & neither is The Big Bang. My only aim was to stress that such statements should not be taught as though they are proven. Please take note that I am in no way offended or triggered by this & only wish that other people's opinions are not taught as though they are factual because this is deceitful. The best way an informative website like Wikipedia can avoid bias is to present the evidence from both sides of the argument & allow the reader to freely interpret it for themselves. I have no intention of deceiving anyone, in fact, I can objectively provide for & against the arguments from the arguments. I appreciate you taking the time to read this Repent.The End is Near (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Repent.The End is Near: This is your personal opinion. Evolution is an established fact just like that the Earth is spherical. There is no scientific debate about this. I see that you are new to Wikipedia. I would suggest studying policies, in particular WP:FRINGE, and regarding the process please have a look at WP:BOLD. When your edit is reverted, you are not supposed to revert the revert (this is called edit war WP:EW), but start a discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Jay Gould said it well: "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." —Tamfang (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Creation Science

Hi. Please refrain from removing my citations on this page. They are valid and relevant, even if you happen to disagree. Please respect my right to contribute in the same manner in which you would expect to be respected. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadManPaddy (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@MadManPaddy: First, I did not remove citations (yet). I removed your whitewashing attempt, that appeared to be your personal opinion. Such things have been discussed ad nauseam. Please see the talk page, especially the highlighted section on top. Please have a good look at the policies linked there. Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Retimuko: The log states you undid a few of my edits. I am not whitewashing anything. I am correcting a clear bias in the wording used. I did review the policies and I am not violating them. If anything, I am enforcing them. Wikipedia should be a neutral source yet this page is highly biased against creationism. Best to present facts and sources, not opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadManPaddy (talk • contribs) 02:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@MadManPaddy: it does not seem that you looked at the talk page. In particular, you must have overlooked the following:

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents Creation science in an unsympathetic light and that criticism is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

• NPOV: Pseudoscience
  
• NPOV: Undue weight
  
• NPOV: Making necessary assumptions
  
• NPOV: Giving "equal validity".

Retimuko (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Retimuko: Saw them, read them (reread them at your behest) and have no issues with them. You give the impression that they support your bias. Not so. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadManPaddy (talk • contribs) 03:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

PAGE

Hi, Please Look Draft:Aybars İbak Meyar09micheal (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Meyar09micheal: why? Retimuko (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Because Its a Draft Page Meyar09micheal (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Meyar09micheal: So why should I care? How did you decide to let me know? Retimuko (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No blogs

Hi Retimuko, you reverted my edit because you said not to source blogs, but there are thousands of blogs sourced all over Wikipedia, including the link directly above my edit, from Vox. This, of course, isn't to mention that Steemit isn't a blog, which its surprising that you don't know if you're editing cryptocurrency-centric topics. Also, if you read through the existing citation sources there is actually "blog.ethereum.org" amongst them, but I haven't seen you attempt to remove that citation. Why? I'm reverting your edit until these points have been clarified, because I think this edit is frivolous and unwarranted, and your reasoning so far is spurious also. Joel McLeod (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I moved this section from my user page where Joel McLeod put it apparently by mistake.

To answer the question: First of all, Wikipedia must be based on independent reliable sources. Steemit is not one of them. Second, there is a special situation around articles related to cryptocurrencies of which I have just posted a notification on your talk page. Simply speaking, due to proliferation of promotional information and low-quality sources such as crypto fan sites, blogs and quasi-news, community decided to implement stricter rules regarding sources. And third, your argument of the sort that something is done elsewhere and therefore it must be fine here is not a valid argument. Perhaps, we should look at other instances where rules are not enforced, there is no way to clean everything. We are talking about a particular case. Other violations don't justify it. Retimuko (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

As a part of the notice that you just sent me, it mentions that before any action being taken I should have what that warning means explained. Being that I would like to avoid issues here, perhaps you could answer a few questions that are leading to my confusion: Steemit has been used as a source and is live as a source for over a dozen different pages. Should I understand now that Steemit is an officially blacklisted site for use on Wikipedia as a source? Secondly, my point about the other violations is that you could easily revert the edit for the source with the actual word "blog" in it (blog.ethereum.org), yet you are making a conscious choice not to, but instead to target my source based on it apparently being a "blog", which it is not. I'm not asking you not to edit my source, I'm asking you to be consistent and try to edit that source as well, in fairness. My suggestion would be that it is equally as important for the sanitation of Wikipedia, and equally as quick and easy as reverting my edit. If you can clarify these two questions, it would be appreciated.Joel McLeod (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not in a position to say that it is officially blacklisted. Everything is done by consensus here. You may want to look at this discussion regarding whether to keep the article about Steemit. The result was to keep the article, but note how it is described by reliable sources. Essentially, it is some sort of a user-generated content with no established editorial oversight or any reputation at all. Regarding other instances of using blogs. You are making the same argument again. "Other stuff exists" (WP:OTHER). Yes, there are many problems in Wikipedia. I would love to see them fixed, but cannot possibly do that. We are all volunteers here. If you want to help, please go right ahead. Remove whatever you believe is wrong and explain why. If others disagree and revert, open a discussion on the article's talk page. Or you may want to start from a discussion first. A lot of help is needed around here. Retimuko (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Coin base edit

Hello,

I'm kinda new here so can you please elaborate on your edit?

You state 'what independent reliable sources noticed this?' are following media considered a reliable source? - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coinbase-says-foiled-sophisticated-hacking-090118574.html - https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614094/an-attempted-heist-at-coinbase-was-scary-good-even-though-it-failed/ - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/20/coinbase_firefox_zero_day/ - https://www.wired.com/story/firefox-vulnerability-coinbase-ransomware-border-hack/

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrypentest (talk • contribs) 07:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Henrypentest: Yahoo Finance just re-posts some "partner feed" (whatever that is). In this case it was Coindesk, so "no" to that one. The Register and Wired must be good. I am not sure about the Technology Review at the moment. Please have a look at WP:RSP.

So I would think that something like you proposed can be added to the article citing good sources such as Wired. However, watch the style please. Phrases like "most importantly" and "fortunately" in Wikipedia voice are not acceptable. Please see WP:MOS, and MOS:NOTE in particular. Retimuko (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Chernobyl disaster - spam link, somebody's personal youtube channel

Hi @Retimuko

You removed the link to a video I made. The related GIF in the page is also my work. I made the content with the intent to better inform about a subject I have researched as meticulously as possible and modeled from the historic blueprints. You say it is spam. I disagree, the video is highly relevant and informative of the Chernobyl disaster. Anybody viewing the GIF will understand the topic better and leave more informed about the topic. If they want to learn more than the GIF shows the video is full of much deeper detail about the disaster.

Please explain why the GIF and video aren’t directly relevant to the Chernobyl disaster topic and don't inform efficiently about the topic. I looked online for detail on what the reactor no4 looked like on the inside and for before and afters of the crater and could not find much. That's why I made the content and the video with the primary intent to better inform anyone interested. This Wikipedia link is the most efficient way for anyone looking to find it. I challenge you to find better and more informative content and put up that link instead.

If you cannot, then I respectfully request you revert your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadpolefarm (talk • contribs) 09:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tadpolefarm: Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources, and somebody's personal YouTube channel is not such a source. Anyone can start a channel and self-publish whatever they please. Spam, perhaps, was not quite the right word. It does come to mind since we see a lot of attempts to promote all sorts of sites and blogs by adding links to them in Wikipedia. I suggest looking at the policies regarding reliable sources. "relevant" and "informative", as you say, is not what matters. Retimuko (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding UTXO refs

I removed the original link (https://bitcoinsnews.org/tag/bitcoin-unspent-output-transaction) because it appears to link to an irrelevant page now, I tried a plausible replacement (Investopedia). If Investopedia isn't a reliable source, should we at least remove the bitcoinsnews.org link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C301:130:5426:6B01:B8EF:E2DD (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have already removed it. Retimuko (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Jihan Wu for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jihan Wu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihan Wu 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. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Trump-Ukraine controversy

Hello. Your contribution to this article is much appreciated. However Twitter is not considered to be a reliable source. So I had to remove the reference and the related text about the NBC reporter. If you find a reliable source that supports 4-chan as the origin then bring it up on the article's talk page. My source says the origin is different and I just put it in the article. In any case, if 4-chan is the origin of the conspiracy theory then we can say that. By the way, I'm the one who originally wrote the paragraph about this conspiracy theory :>) Regards, Steve Quinn (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not add this reference. I just noticed an error in the reflist that title has line breaks. I agree that Twitter should not be used as a reference. Retimuko (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks for the reply. --Steve Quinn (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Upbit Edit

Hi, I wanted to discuss the Upbit history you edited. Much of the references I included were from legitimate news sources including Coindesk, The Investor, etc. or linked directly to the source site such as BTI. Could you let me know which references were problematic for you, so I can exclude them on my next edit? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FongBuster (talk • contribs) 06:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@FongBuster: We need reliable secondary sources independent from the subject. "The Investor" ("The Korea Herald") is, probably, acceptable (I am not entirely sure about this one), but crypto fan sites are not acceptable including Coindesk (see WP:RSP). Retimuko (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hut 8 Edits

Hello. I'm wondering about the recent edits to the Hut 8 article. You have said that every source is unreliable. I only used press releases for factual information which isn't contentious, and generally avoided making any claims at all, using WP:NPOV as a guideline. If a news website was to cover something mentioned in a release, all they would be doing is reporting on the press release and adding background info. While the secondary source would be preferable in this case, what good would it do?

Crypto is a tough topic to source, the company in the article is a TSX listed company and has notability, but only the biggest companies will get coverage in the traditional "reliable secondary sources". There is no designation of what sources to use and what not to use for cryptocurrencies here, and I would like to take the appropriate action on the article to remove the template. What do you suggest I do in this instance? B4shful (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@B4shful: I would suggest looking for independent reliable sources. If the company is notable, there must be plenty of such sources available. Retimuko (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

History of bitcoin Edits

Hello, I hope you're doing well. I worked very hard on that page and researching information trying to help improve it. I understand if you don't like the resource that I chose, which I would like to discuss with you but I do not appreciate you just undoing all the work that I did. I understand that I'm new and I'm still trying to learn my way around here but it sucks to put hours of work in just to have it undone in minutes. I have been in the space since 2014 and I personally feel that the article was good and they did a good job taking information from blockchain.com and explaining it. I agree the source is not necessarily the best but the information is good and there was nothing else. I was hoping to work on the page further and try to improve it more tonight but I would like to resolve this matter. What kind of resolution do you think we can come to? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeG001 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@MikeG001: Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources, and theblockgear.com is not one of them. I would suggest looking at WP:RS and WP:RSP. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Retimuko: First off I don't care about the reference that's not what I'm upset about, it's the fact that you undid everything I change within minutes of me saving it and there's no way you actually went through everything I changed that fast. I spent a lot of time doing grammatical fixes and researching content to be added to the page, I was actually in the middle of rolling out a bunch of upgrades and changes. It's okay if you don't like the reference, even though I think it's still the best possible choice available (I would like you to suggest a better one) but you just undid all of my hard work and not just the reference.

I and all the other crypto fans appreciate you and all the hard work you do to help keep the cryptocurrency threads accurate and up-to-date. I do understand there's a lot of Bad actors out there but I was just trying to help because it's a topic I'm familiar with. Although this incident is deterring me from it and I'm hoping we can come to a mutual understanding.

At this point, I would like at least my other changes to be added back to the page. How do you suggest we go about doing that?

Since you did not like the reference I suggested I would like you to suggest one so that we can get that wrapped up.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeG001 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@MikeG001: I would suggest making smaller changes, so they could be reviewed separately. We are all volunteers, and nobody is obliged to preserve as much of your large change as possible. I don't have a better source and I don't have to produce one every time someone proposes an unacceptable source. Perhaps there are no good sources for that claim at all. In that case it would be better to remove the claim altogether. I hope you will learn the rules and practices of Wikipedia and will understand. And please indent and sign your comments. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

For reverting at Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons and Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I have reported the IP to WP:AIV. Cheers. Beach drifter (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Reverted you

Yes, I'm aware this user in now Tbanned from Cryptocurrency, and blocked too, however, neither the Tban nor the block prove COI. The Coi board is still discussing wether he actually does have a COI. Please discuss first before reverting. Thanks! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC) _{PS: In case you're wondering, no , I don't work for that company nor have I ever worked for any company that deals with cryptocurrency, nor do I have any interest in it. I work in an insurance office that has no dealings with any cryptocurrency, so for that reason I won't touch any insurane pages! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)}

@Wekeepwhatwekill: There was a clear admission of COI in my view, but I am willing to drop this case. Given the topic ban it is not clear if this record is of real importance. Let's see if your reversion stands. Others might disagree as well. Retimuko (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

Thanks for the constructive feedback on Solid-state battery. I initially thought that referencing the uses of the topic would be a good idea, as that was how a few external references introduced the topic. But now I know that doing so is not a good idea, because it is important for readers to know what solid-state batteries are before knowing where they are used, and also because the sources I referenced deal specifically with the benefits of solid-state batteries, and are therefore biased in favor of them. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 12:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: This must be some mistake. You seem to have reverted someone else's edit. Retimuko (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It was indeed a mistake and I apologize for that; you can disregard my above notice because it accidentally got placed on the wrong user page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them.) WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which has a button "Cite" click on it
2. Then click on "Automatic" or "Manual"
3. For Manual: Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details, then click "Insert"
4. For Automatic: Paste the URL or PMID/PMC and click "Generate" and if the article is available on PubMed Central, Citoid will populate a citation which can be inserted by clicking "Insert"

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency tokens are not Digital Assets

@Retimuko: Please feel free to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Cryptocurrency#Cryptocurrency_tokens_are_not_Digital_Assets Litesand (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Retimuko: You had removed my update quoting the "need independent reliable sources." Lets take a look at the statements that you feel do not have a legitimate source. The following is the copy of the removed content:

The use of the term with cryptocurrencies

The term digital asset is often used to describe a digital asset that functions as a representation of a store of value, such as Bitcoin or Ethereum. Alternatively, cryptocurrency is also known as “digital currency” or “virtual currency." This is a different use of the term compared to a binary source that includes the right to use. Digital files that do not include the right to use are not considered digital assets.

Cryptocurrency is binary data that can be possessed and may be stored in custody of individuals or organizations, often with the use of digital “wallets”. For example, Forbes and other sources characterized bitcoin as a digital asset.

Litesand (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

None of the cited sources are independent reliable sources in my view. Techopedia - certainly not, Shearman - commercial site, Forbes - contributor blog, Papers - seems like a self-published source, anyone can submit any paper there. Not acceptable, especially given the special situation with blockchain and cryptocurrency topics I notified you about on your talk page. There was and still is a problem with proliferation of promotional content, links disguised as citations and such, so that community ruled to enforce stricter rules for related articles, both for content (solid sources needed) and behavior of editors (for instance, one revert per day, simpler procedure to sanction spammers or other offenders by an uninvolved admin and so on). Retimuko (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• • @Retimuko: I understand. What do you think is the best way to identify and disclose the difference between the dual use of the term "digital asset"? Clearly, in one instance the term is used to describe data that "functions as a representation of a store of value" and in another case it is "binary data that includes the right to use." The problem, of course, is that "digital asset" such as bitcoin does not produce revenue, unlike a "digital asset" such as Microsoft_Windows platform. These are clearly not the same, yet cryptocurrency article references it as the same thing. My intention is not to spam this article, but to clarify the difference. I appreciate any feedback at Talk:Cryptocurrency#Cryptocurrency_tokens_are_not_Digital_Assets with some ideas to resolve this. Litesand (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Litesand: I do not have any solution at the moment. We need solid sources: books from reputable publishers, articles in reputable magazines, peer-reviewed academic publications and such. If something is not discussed in reliable sources, then, I am afraid, it should not be discussed in Wikipedia as well. Retimuko (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• • @Retimuko: I understand. I will move this discussion to Talk:Digital_asset to see if anyone else can contribute with better sources. As any product on the Internet, good or bad, the successful solution to any problem are driven by network effects. Please feel free to keep or remove this thread per your discretion Litesand (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Impeachment trial of Donald Trump: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Update of "Dubrovnik"

Hello, Retimuko!

Thank you for the additional change you made to article Dubrovnik after I made a change. I looked over your list of recent contributions to Wikipedia, and it looks as though you like to make the same kinds of changes that I look for-- small spelling or usage corrections. Keep up the good work!!

May I suggest that on this page, Dubrovnik, that "the" be added back? So it's: "affected the well-being of the Republic." I think it would read more naturally this way. I got the impression from some of your writings that English is not your native language; if I'm right, your command of English seems to be excellent. Still, using/omitting articles is a very common problem for non-native English speakers. And I might be totally off base with this guess of mine, so I simply offer this suggestion. - Jkgree (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jkgree: yes, you are right, English is not my native language, and omitting the article you are talking about must have been a mistake. Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Not an improvement

Hello, Retimuko. In this change you changed "preventative" to "preventive" in two locations, with the edit summary "ce". But according to Wiktionary, "preventative is in all senses synonymous with preventive", so there is no reason for this change. I have not reverted it because of the equivalence, but in future please refrain from making changes that are simply a matter of personal preference rather than actual improvements to the article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Gridcoin

Thanks for politely pointing out the reasons to delete my edits. Uchyotka (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• EDIT You still haven't explained, why my sources are bad. I, basically, brought a chuck of information from Russian version of Gridcoin article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchyotka (talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Uchyotka: Russian Wikipedia is not the same as English Wikipedia. It has a slightly different set of rules and practices. In particular, in English Wikipedia at some point a couple of years ago there was a big problem with promotion and POV pushing around cryptocurrency topics. As a result, stricter rules have been set for these topics, in particular with respect to sources. Only reputable independent sources are allowed. No fan cites, no blogs, no RandomCoinNews cites, no Coindesk or BitcoinMagazine or Coinswitch or such. I would like to see slightly stricter rules in Russian Wikipedia as well, but there was no such a massive problem so far, and some sources that would not be acceptable here might be considered acceptable there. Retimuko (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

BIPS article deletion discussion

Hi, I saw you did some Bitcoin related edits. Maybe you'd like to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. --Ysangkok (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Bitcoin Magazine

What is wrong with Bitcoin Magazine? Aaron van Wirdum has some well written articles. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

From whose point of view? It is not an independent reliable source. Retimuko (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is truly "independent". Bitcoin Magazine is one of the better ones. I will revert your edit, I propose you bring it up on the AfD. The community needs to decide on whether it is really not reputable. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I propose you bring this up on WP:RSN Retimuko (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I did. It was already there. It is reputable. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how one can conclude from that discussion that BitcoinMagazine is reputable. Retimuko (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Good day sir, a new crypto-AfD regarding Classic

Hi Retimuko, I hope you're having a great day. I see that you have made various edits to pages within the cryptocurrency space, and I was wondering if you'd like to chip in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Classic. Your contributions are very welcome! --Ysangkok (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Hi Retimuko, what a lovely day! Would you mind commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Base58? If you are not too busy, that is. Ysangkok (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Revert on Ayurveda

Your revert is grossly misleading, given the problems with the edit heavily discussed on the talk page. To be more specific, have you bothered to read Talk:Ayurveda#Pseudoscientific? or are you aware of the page-restrictions that any new edits (which have been objected) would require consensus per the page restrictions? Consider self-reverting yourself since you are in violation of the page-restriction imposed on the article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am quite aware of the current discussion and a million similar ones before. Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a case of WP:SHOT to me then, or at least WP:CIR. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Siddsg (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Banking on Bitcoin

With this edit you reverted several additions to Banking on Bitcoin with the summary: "Many unreliable sources. I would suggest making smaller changes supported by reliable sources" I cannot tell which sources you consider unreliable and which you see as acceptable. I do not want to play a guessing game. It would be easier to understand if you would restore the version you reverted, then make a series of smaller changes to remove material that you consider to be inaccurate, source by source. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are not aware of the situation around cryptocurrency topics. That is why you have been notified on your talk page. In my view it is a little unfair to shift the work on me to sift through big chunks you added. I would suggest avoiding crypto-sites like Cointelegraph, Bitcoin Magazine and such. Bitcoin.com is owned by Roger Ver, so it is clearly biased. Perhaps you think that reverting your changes was an overreaction, and I understand how it might seem that way. There was a long history of promotion with proliferation of low-quality sources barely distinguishable from blogs and advertising. That is why general sanctions are in place and restrictions on sources as well. I hope you understand. Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Travelling salesman problem: constant factor approximation in the asymmetric case

Hi Retimuko,

you undid my July 23rd revision about the matter; as I included the references to the work, can I ask why do you find it wrong or irrelevant? Perhaps I misunderstand something, but the claimed results seem straightforward enough. Please see e.g. the abstract of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.00670.pdf

P.S. - this section seems to get between the previous one and its references - sorry, I don't know how to correct this.

Thanks,

Ehud Schreiber.

In your revision you removed a statement with a defined citation and replaced with a statement with two undefined citations. Perhaps, you don't understand how {{harvtxt}} templates should be used. Now I see what you are referring to. It seems to be a self-published source. Anyone can upload a paper to arxiv.org site. We need a publication in a reputable peer-reviewed venue. Retimuko (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi again,

I'm indeed not familiar with the citation templates, and so apparently misused them.

In any case, the two papers are reputable, and were published in peer-reviewed proceedings (and even got prizes):

* 1st paper: see https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3188745.3188824

* 2nd paper: see https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3357713.3384233

The arxiv.org versions are free access.

I hope this will allow my edit to be used with the proper citations. Possibly all that needs correction is the two years of the publications (from 2019 to 2018 (1st) or 2020 (2nd)), but again, I don't know how to verify this and wouldn't want to mess again.

Thanks,

Ehud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.214.43 (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

In that case I don't have objections to putting your revision back with proper citations. Thanks for clarifying this. Retimuko (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

POV Push?

Hey Retimuko, You seem to have reverted my edits saying it was a POV push. On the contrary, I was trying to take out two derogatory lines which is purely POV backed with citation from an opinion piece. Kindly reconsider your edit. Thank you, --H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 07:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@HPN: This has been discussed many times on the Auyrveda talk page. This tactic of using a lot of single-purpose accounts repeating the same arguments over and over will not get you anywhere. Retimuko (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Retimuko:, this isn't a single-purpose account by any means. I've been here for 15+ years and have contributed to Wikipedia in several ways, not just editing. I've been on a wiki break - which I had to break when I saw this glaring addition to the topic. May I request you to go back and check my edits for all these years and do a background check? I would request you kindly not to make such comments. --H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 10:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@HPN: Sorry, I did not express myself clearly. I tried to refer to the situation on the Auyrveda talk page during the last couple of weeks or so. A lot of fresh accounts appeared in a seemingly coordinated effort to dispute the description of Auyrveda as pseudoscience and quackery. I assumed that you must have been aware of it since your edit appeared to be a part of this campaign. Your arguments seem to be along the same lines: calling objective terms and scientific consensus about the subject "derogatory" and "opinion". I would expect an editor with 15+ years experience to know better. This has been discussed ad nauseam on the talk page, which can easily be found there and in its archives. Retimuko (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You're quite disrespectful to fellow Wikipedians. Why brand someone and assume they're part of a campaign? Being arrogant and rude to others just because they do not agree with you or have different opinions does not go well. It is okay for people to be different or think different. You're also putting comments around saying "You're wrong" to the face of editors just because they differ, which isn't good. As a long time editor, my experience tells me to respect fellow editors' views and try the best not to make them feel miserable for getting into a debate on a talk page. The community here has changed a lot and it can get quite overwhelming for even someone who's been here for 15+ years to even digest what is going on. I would hope that you'll stop attacking people around just because their views differ. --H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 15:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised that you find rudeness where there was none. Retimuko (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Blockchain

Hi Retimuko, I saw you reversed some of my contributions under the tag "unreliable source". I wanna specifically tell you about Blockchain. So far in the world not even the most prestigious universities know exactly how to successfully implement a Blockchain in our life. I have been researching about blockchain since 2014 and so far I have a lot of courses, specialisations about blockchain in some of this prestigious universities and to be honest, they are 2 years behind the evolution of this technology.

As you can research your own, R3.com is one of the main consortiums developed in collaboration with more than 350 institutions around the globe to define and implement new technologies as BLOCKCHAIN. So if there is a truly reliable source about Blockchain, definitely they are part of it.

I just wanna let you know that I don't work for R3 or have any retribution from them. I am encourage to help people better understand this technology and quickly migrate from actual database systems that can be deceive, hacked or corruptible, to new storage technology as Blockchain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rofalilu (talk • contribs) 18:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rofalilu: Wikipedia must be based on independent secondary sources. There is a special situation around blockchain and cryptocurrency topics. I have just left a standard notification on your talk page. Retimuko (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Non-fungible tokens

Hi Retikumo, you've just edited the text I added about Sorare and Axie Infinity. I had given www.nonfungible.com as as source but maybe this is not reliable enough for you. Here are some sources for Sorare: https://www.businessinsider.com/fantasy-soccer-football-startup-sorare-andre-schurrle-pitch-deck-2020-7?IR=T and here are some for Axie Infinity: https://www.coindesk.com/nft-game-filipinos-covid

Let me know if you want some more, but I think these are the biggest new players in the non-fungible token space and it made sense to udpate the wiki page. Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruhagun (talk • contribs) 23:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bruhagun: Coindesk is not acceptable (as well as other crypto sites). I am not sure about Business Insider. It might be acceptable, but it is behind a pay wall, so I could not even look at the article you linked. Retimuko (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Retikumo, is Forbes more acceptable for you? Here are links: https://www.forbes.com/sites/henryflynn/2020/12/18/gerard-pique-joins-sorare-to-help-reinvent-fantasy-soccer-worldwide/?sh=17f318fe308f — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruhagun (talk • contribs) 19:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Forbes publications can be of two kinds: by staff or by contributors. There is a consensus that contributors are not reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexei Navalny

Hi! Maybe stress marks are not a part of "standard spelling", but most (if not all) Russian-language encyclopedias have them. I personally think they are needed here too.
And, by the way, you revert will encourage the user to remove stress marks from everywhere. Even if there isn't an IPA transcription. Just wait. I have told him 10 times already that he can start a wider discussion on stress marks somewhere [for example, at "WikiProject Russia"], but he doesn't seem to understand. The user just doesn't seem to respect consensus. Btw, he is currently blocked in the Russian Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not persuaded by the argument that if some encyclopedias do something, we must to that too. I am not persuaded by the "slippery slope" argument "if we allow this here, it will be done everywhere". Perhaps, he is not following the protocol, I am not sure about that, but he seems to be right about the stress marks in my view. Especially if IPA is present. Retimuko (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

1. Not "some" encyclopedias, but most if not all of them. 2. Please note that only a small portion of articles have an IPA transcription. Therefore, if a rule banning stress marks is adopted, the stress(es) won't be indicated at all and for many names there won't be any way to tell how they are pronounced. No way at all. (The Russian Wikipedia is much smaller than the English one and has stricter notability rules, so there aren't so many articles on Russian gymnasts, figure skaters and so on. So you won't be able to go to the Russian Wikipedia for this information.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a tragedy. If any rule is adopted, it will be discussed first. Why do you assume that the rule will necessarily be bad? Perhaps, it could say that IPA should be added in order to remove stress marks. And why do you prioritize pronunciation? Maybe people want spelling more often? And the correct Russian spelling never has stress marks. You keep pointing to Russian encyclopedia, but there virtually all readers understand that those marks should be ignored for spelling purposes. Which is not the case here. I hope you can see that your preference is not indisputably better. It is a trade-off. And not the best one in my opinion. Retimuko (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"And the correct Russian spelling never has stress marks."
— "Correct spelling"? What is it, in your understanding? One doesn't make a spelling error when he adds a stress mark. Open virtually any English-Russian dictionary and you'll see stress marks. Do you think dictionaries are incorrect?
"You keep pointing to Russian encyclopedia, but there virtually all readers understand that those marks should be ignored for spelling purposes."
— A person who doesn't understand what the marks are for, wouldn't have any usage for the original Russian spelling anyway. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct spelling of names is one used in legal documents. I don't see why not use this spelling if IPA is present right next to it. Retimuko (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm very, very sorry (honestly), but I will revert your reverts now. I have the right to do it, read WP:BRD. (I wanted to let your edits be, but the user continues to harrass me. And I've looked at his edits, he has removed stress marks on many pages already, even on those that didn't have an IPA transcription. I believe he should be stopped.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've just reverted the two edits of yours. I suggest you start a discussion on the Russian project talk page or somehere like that, but until then could you please stop edit warring? This is not how Wikipedia works. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: I believe that you are edit warring, not me. And, no, you don't have the right to do it. Retimuko (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. I had the right to revert the articles to earlier versions from a month ago. And I've told you that a wider discussion is needed on the issue of stress marks. But you and Mike Novikoff are trying to win by force. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
The matter is very serious, it concerns tens of thousands of pages. And I am afraid that Mike Novikoff is planning to start a mass removal of stress marks. I can't allow him to do it. That's why I'm reverting. Not because I care about the Navalny article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: Please, a little balance. I have reverted your changes once in two articles (two reverts in total) because those articles do have IPA, and therefore stress marks don't improve anything. And you are accusing me of trying to win by force? You are the one who reverted many times. And you keep implying a sort of a slippery slope argument that if we allow it here, then it will lead to a mess everywhere. No. If there is IPA, there is no need for stress marks. Why you "can't allow him to do it"? I believe that your position about those particular articles is hardly defensible. I don't mind discussing somewhere, of course. Retimuko (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Mike Novikoff reverted yet again, so I've started a discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mike Novikoff. (Sorry that I mentioned you there, but I had to.)
I just hope that Mike Novikoff will be told not to remove stress marks until there has been a wide and thorough discussion of the matter. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Justin Sun

Hello. I noticed that you recently edited content from the Justin Sun article without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page173.88.250.97 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Copyedits are appreciated! Thank you heaps. Mottshmikes (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Financial markets content project

Hello,

My name is Tijana and I am managing a newly established non-profit project called Wikinvesting. Generally, it concerns a knowledge base creation, where everyone will be able to share their knowledge, experience and information related to financial markets. I saw you expressed interest in topics related to it on Wikipedia and I’d love to discuss the project with you further.

If you are interested, please let me know how can I contact you?

Cheers,

TijanaRistic (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Addressed blockchain edits

Thank you for pointing out the questionable quality of some of the sources of my edits to Blockchain and Solidity#Criticism. Please check the revised edits and new sources I have added. Since these articles do not fall under WP:BLP where poorly-sourced statements should be outright removed, I believe {{better source needed}} or {{refimprove}} tags would be more constructive. -- Dandv 01:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dandv: please note that blockchain and cryptocurrency topics are under general sanctions. I see that someone just notified you on your talk page. And I see that in your new edits you cited Coindesk, which is not an acceptable source. Retimuko (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Saw that, but I assume CoinDesk is not acceptable for conceptual blockchain topics that should have coverage in published papers (e.g. smart contract vulnerabilities). However for aspects like the amount raised by a crypto startup, or its team composition, are there better sources than the crpytozines? I've seen similarly different standards to which sources are held in health articles (example), where for example for citing the popularity of a diet, U.S. News is acceptable, but for its effects on body composition, we abide by the much more stringent WP:MEDRS standards. -- Dandv 04:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dandv: there is a consensus that we are not using cryptozines. I am afraid I cannot point to a particular discussion. There were many discussions on different talk pages over the years. Perhaps you can find discussions about specific sources like CoinDesk in the archives of WP:RSN. Retimuko (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens

Greetings. What do you mean random obscure youtube channels are not acceptable? The channel is not the source. --Jamirowikee (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jamirowikee: what do you mean it is not the source? Anyone can open a youtube channel and publish anything. There may be many problems with that including copyright violation. Channels of reputable media organizations or well-known persons would be acceptable. Retimuko (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Youtube is only the medium by which we view the source. The source is Christopher Hitchens himself and the words coming out of his mouth. If there were copyright issues with the video it would have been claimed on Youtube, however there is no claim on the video I cited. --Jamirowikee (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A few points to note.

• As Retimuko has correctly mentioned, linking to copyright violations is not allowed; I have removed the problematic revisions.
• Whether a video actually displays a specific person is not for Wikipedia editors to judge, especially in the age of deep fake videos. WP:BLPRS is strict about reliable sources; I hope Jamirowikee will adhere to it more closely than they did before.
• "If there were copyright issues with the video it would have been claimed on Youtube" – No, this is incorrect. Neither does YouTube have a perfect copyright violation detection, nor do we accept such justification (see WP:COPYVIO, and if interested, commons:COM:PCP for Wikimedia Commons' explanation).

~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jamirowikee: I completely agree with the previous comment by ToBeFree. Retimuko (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

discussion: move Bitcoin SV to its own article

Hi

In 2018 you opened the request to delete the Bitcoin SV page.

I like to update you that I have created the talk section move Bitcoin SV to its own article to discuss if the redirect should be removed and Bitcoin SV moved to its own article.

torusJKL (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Decentralized finance

Hi,

I have seen that you reverted my edit in Decentralized finance. Thank you for the feedback. Can you please point me to the Wikipedia page where it says that blogs are not allowed as reference? The blog entry contains a lot of further references and does not contain advertisement etc. Please let me know which sources you consider adequate and I will add them. I think the sentence itself (with or without sources) is a valid statement. I would like also to point out that this article contains advertisement of a company called Binance which nobody removed so far. Why is an advertisement fine, but an independent blog with many further references not? Jornfranke (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jornfranke: please see WP:RS. I don't know about the advertisement of Binance. I will have to take a look to form an opinion. Perhaps, it needs to be removed. You may want to discuss this on the talk page of that article. In any case, presence of one violation of policies does not justify introducing another. Retimuko (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

My edit's of 2 sources on Binance wiki page, at least 1 decrypt.io is a independant source

This edit you removed, == Structure and affiliations ==

Investigating the company they are affiliated with a Cryptocurrency consultancy company https://consensys.net/ who fund them as per their own words here: "Decrypt is funded by ConsenSys, a NY-based incubator, but we are both editorially independent and technologically agnostic." https://decrypt.co/manifesto which does seem potentially biassed, but as Decrypt do also provide unbiassed viewpoints in their other articles such as here https://decrypt.co/72276/heres-how-chinas-crypto-fud-will-play-out

Investigating the company further it seems they are active and with a sizable community of staff. Company linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/decrypt-media/ Employees: 26 Self description: Decrypt Media is an independent media brand covering stories from business, politics, art, culture, technology, education, and the latest news.

The URL's linked from the sources articles point to supposed trusted sources. Would that still preclude it from being used as a source of truth? SumeetJi (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@SumeetJi: Why did you copy this stuff here instead of a link to the diff? This made such a mess here. Regarding your point: I don't think that decrypt.io can be considered a reliable source especially in light of more strict rules with respect to blockchain and cryptocurrency topics. Retimuko (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Retimuko I removed the section that caused the references to appear, sorry about that, I'm still learning the Wikipedia formatting ways. As for your answer, I accept that decision thank you. SumeetJi (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Addition of the word "DeFintrepreneur"

Hello Retimuko,

You removed my Sept. 2, 2021 addition of the word "DeFintrepreneur" and related explanations from the "Decentralized finance" page. (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Decentralized_finance&action=history) The listed reason for the deletion was "advertising." You have an extensive amount of experience in this space, so I don't want to question your judgment. I re-read Wikipedia's advertising guidelines under "What Wikipedia is Not." I would like to know under what conditions you would allow the introduction of this term, and the event of its creation, into Decentralized finance. I'd be happy to try to accommodate your suggestions to resolve this.

Thanks for your time, and for your contributions to this great resource.

Best, Randomescargot (talk)

@Randomescargot: I would suggest reading more Wikipedia policies about neutral point of view, verifiability and reliable sources. The language you used is far from neutral: "distinct yet growing class of innovators who began enterprises that accelerated and elevated the decentralized financial economy". This is not an encyclopedic style at all. "The term was immortalized" - this is for a press release. Twitter is not a reliable source. Neither is opensea.io. Retimuko (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

CoinDesk

Hello Retimuko--in my humble opinion, I do not think you are giving CoinDesk a fair shake. I have read this publication since 2013, and have always thought the articles to be thoroughly researched and verifiable. Very often, CoinDesk investigative journalists will break crypto news stories before their peers at other prestigious publications, and the company is owned by Digital Currency Group (in my opinion a legit company as well). At the very least, I think it is definitely clear which pieces are investigative and neutral in nature. I agree that most crypto news outlets have a problem with being more promotional than substantive, but I believe that CoinDesk is not in this category. However, I do understand if this is simply Wikipedia's policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satoshi9378 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Satoshi9378: please take look at this [2]

Influenza vaccine edit

Hi Retimuko I am here to have an explanation on why you keep reverting one of my recent contributions (this edit to Influenza vaccine). I don't think I need to remind you that Wikipedia has the goal of making information comprehensive and easily available to everyone (WP:Purpose). As the english pages are shared between multiple english speaking countries, where small dialectical differences occur, the pages should be comprehensive for everyone. If you reed the WP:FAQ Wikipedia itself suggests to use a blend of both if the topic is relevant to either dialects. I am not pretending to change the entire article to British spelling but just to include both names in the first line as this would ease the search and understanding for a non-american english speaker. If I am missing something please explain it to me and don't just revert my changes (talk pages are here for this reason). Thanks Fra098 (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fra098: I do think that I need to remind you that Wikipedia has to based on reliable sources. Do you have a reliable source to support your edit? Retimuko (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Retimuko: well there is no source proving that influenza vaccines are also known as "flu shots". So we either find a source for both or otherwise I shall remove "flu shots" for not having an appropriate source. In my opinion sources here are not relevant as this is sort of the title of the article. Anyway if you really need sources for this here is the meaning of 'Jab' in the Cambridge Dictionary. Fra098 (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fra098: The title of the article is "influenza vaccine". The dictionary does not establish that influenza vaccines are commonly called "jabs". It does not even mention vaccines. Retimuko (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Retimuko: You probably have not read the dictionary page I sent you or just stopped at the first line. If you keep reading you will see the explanation of the term "jab" in the context of injection and as a matter of fact the first example is exactly "Flu jab". Could you provide a source for "shots" instead please. Fra098 (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fra098: I believe that dictionary does not really establish that this is a common usage. Regarding "shots". Are you really arguing that "flu shot" is not a common term for "influenza vaccine"? If this dictionary is enough to convince you, why don't you look up "shot"? Or better use any search engine. You will find almost every pharmacy mentioning that. You will find CDC mentioning that. You will find a million articles from reputable media mentioning that. Are you seriously disputing that? Retimuko (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Retimuko: Are you suggesting that a dictionary is not a valid source? What would one be then? Regarding "shots" I could use the same argument for "jabs". If you search online you will find many pharmacies, articles, blogs, the NHS, the BBC and many others use it. I personally never heard of "shots" in the context of vaccines therefore I was simply suggesting to include both terms as to ease the search online for those that commonly use the term "jabs". I honestly don't understand why we are debating this, it don't see where the problem would be in including both. I've searched Wikipedia for other British-American differences in vocabulary and many pages include both versions such as a Lift or a Spanner or a Flat and, if I might add, without the need of sources! Fra098 (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fra098: I am suggesting that in dictionaries one can find definitions of very obscure words and phrases, not just commonly used. Are you sure you can find many reputable sources using the term "flu jabs"? Could you give a few examples? Retimuko (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Retimuko: These are just the first five I found with a quick web search: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. These are from the most used pharmacies, where people actually buy them, there is also an article from the BBC and one page from a random city council giving info on the vaccine. Hope this helps. As for "shots" I've done some research myself and it looks like, as you said, it is of common usage. Fra098 (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fra098: It seems that you are right about "flu jabs" being in common use in the UK. I am not going to object adding this to the article in question. I wish this discussion happened on the talk page for that article. You may want to post some explanation there, especially if some other editors object. Retimuko (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Retimuko: Thank you. I made the edit inspiring myself to the previously mentioned pages to include the british/north american english detail. I have also added a section in the talk page explaining this edit and redirecting to this talk. Fra098 (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you dislike Investopedia?

Hi Retimuko. Today, you removed a number of references to Investopedia. You did so at least two times earlier, in December (here) and Januari (here). You seem to dislike Investopedia. But why? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Dislike is a wrong word. We do things here in Wikipedia based on policies, not on personal likes or dislikes. Investopedia is not a reliable source. You may want to take a look at WP:RSP. Retimuko (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Retimuko: I did look at WP:RSP. Investopedia is marked with a !-symbol, which according to the legend means "marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context". Users are advised "to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis". Investopedia has been discussed four times (1, 2, 3, 4). If you look at those threads, you'll see that they didn't really go anywhere. Investopedia has articles written by professionals, and a Financial Review Board. I will create a new thread about this at some later point when I have time. Take care, Manifestation (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

As promised, here it is: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Investopedia, 5. - Manifestation (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: Coinbase trades are not anonymous:

what is your objection to Cointelegraph? The statement I added is 100 % correct. Walter Tau (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

There is consensus that such crypto sites are not reliable enough for a contentious topic such as blockchain and cryptocurrency. As an example, I happen to have some links to prior discussions: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_242#Cointelegraph_source, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk. There must be more in the archives, but that should be enough to get an idea. Retimuko (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Bitstamp

Retimuko, I saw you undid the changes we made to the Bitstamp Wiki page. We carefully tried to update all facts, people and so but I think you marked it as promotional. Please let us know why you disputed this or marked us as promotional? All we want is the correct and most recent info since a lot has happened in our company since the last edits from our side.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulBitstamp (talk • contribs) 02:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@PaulBitstamp: You did use promotional language and did not provide any sources. The sources must be independent reliable sources. Also the facts that you seem to represent Bitstamp and refer to yourself as "we" are against the Wikipedia policy. User accounts are not allowed to represent a company and not allowed to be used by more than one individual. Please have a look at WP:USERNAME. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@PaulBitstamp: I also recommend having a look at WP:COI Retimuko (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Joseph Lister

Retimuko, why do you keep changing preventative medicine to preventive healthcare on the Lister article. The term didn't exist in the 1860's. It is wrong the link for the context. If you change again I will need to revert. scope_creep^Talk 23:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This belongs on the talk page of the article, but since you started here I will respond here. The preferred term in modern English is reflected in the name of the article Preventive healthcare. Direct links are also preferred (as opposed to redirects). Doing something like [[A|B]], where A is a direct link and B is your favorite uncommon spelling, like you did just above, is not a very good practice. Your statement that you "will need to revert" is a strange one. No, you will not need to. Retimuko (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)