ILoveFinance

Edit summaries

Hi,

• In this edit you removed a sentence from the LEAD with the edit summary "Organizing chain split history" which is not an accurate summary of what you did, where you for some reason removed one sentence (and since there are not many sentences in this LEAD) I guess you removed 1/3 of the LEAD (or more).

• In [1] this range of edits you go on to re-organize the lead and introduce some odd concepts which are not supported in the article. Refer to MOS:LEAD.

This is unacceptable. Please note I have previously given you a WP:GS/Crypto notice which you removed. It appears to me that your edits might be WP:PROMO in nature. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. I did organize. Please refer yourself to the History section which now includes mention of the BSV split right above the XEC split. That is called organization. Now they are in order of timeline, and organized.

Please describe to me which part(s) specifically are not accurate or "odd". Everything stated was completely factual and supported by the sources in the article.

Please clarify specifically what was inaccurate or unacceptable. Please retract your suggestion of "WP:PROMO." ILoveFinance (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Bumping my reply. Additionally, as you yourself mention on your own talk page, please keep discussion of specific topics to their representative Talk pages, not my personal. Thanks. ILoveFinance (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf again I bump you on this. Please refrain from slanderous accusations without any support. And per your own guidance on your own talk page, keep article discussion off of my talk page. I will await for your retraction. Thanks. ILoveFinance (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Advert

Hello, I'm Jtbobwaysf. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bitcoin Cash have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, stop posting on my talk page and ignoring my responses to your last. You appear to have an agenda here.

You continue to fail to list out specifically what is "Advertising."

Thank you. ILoveFinance (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf I still await a response on both of your unwarranted talk page posts. Thanks. ILoveFinance (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have previously provided you with WP:PROMO to consider. Since you have pinged me again, you might want to review WP:IBA. I do not intend to summarize this for you on your talk page. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This appears, again, malicious. I ping you to specifically call out what you are referencing, but you continue to fail to do so. ILoveFinance (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

suggestion about references

Hi, instead of using a ref name such as 0 or 02, you can use a refname that is more closely tied to the source. For example call it arstech2017 or 2017AT or arstechbch. This will later make it easier for other editors to sort though things and find references. Not mandatory at all, just a suggestion. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the suggestion! Very helpful idea. Will do going forward. ILoveFinance (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Why did you add the text back here? So when we have a source The first time you list the full source, the second time you only list the refname Or am i confused about something? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, that is a new source that hasn't been used before? There are two different Ars Technica sources. ILoveFinance (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

when I look at them, I see the same source name. Am I wrong? Or am I just confused by the source name with the zero in it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be confusion because of the same website, but they are two separate articles:

One article is titled this: "Bitcoin rival Bitcoin Cash soars as Coinbase adds support"

The other article is titled this: "Bitcoin rival doubles in price in four days as Bitcoin price slumps" ILoveFinance (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm confused, though?

If it helps, this is what I am doing:

In the edit tab, I clicked on Cite and used automatic citation. Then inserted it. The [35] footnote is only used in that one spot, so it is the first (and only) reference. ILoveFinance (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I have never used automatic citation. Have to try that sometime! :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't always work, but when it does, it's convenient! ILoveFinance (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

References