User talk:23.241.127.109

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to 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 the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. 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.

September 2019

Hello 23.241.127.109. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edits you made to InterPlanetary File System and Filecoin, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:23.241.127.109. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=23.241.127.109|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Note that, per WP:COI, a related cryptocurrency holding constitutes a COI that must be reported - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me make things clear. I have no financial interest in IPFS or Filecoin. I made a single edit to the Filecoin article and several updates to the IPFS article and have no holdings related to cryptocurrency. Like a lot of people, I like IPFS. That doesn't mean I am on somebody's payroll. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

May 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Hobby Lobby, you may be blocked from editing. If you didn't look to check to see if it was sourced (and it clearly is) that's lack of competence. Otherwise it looks like vandalism. Sources need to be in the article but not in the lead. Doug Weller talk 08:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I only made one edit on that article and that was reverting your unsourced edit. If you want to add unsourced material, please don't bother responsible editors when it gets removed. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

---