Feel free to Talk here if you have any concerns or disputes. --HSukePup (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been contributing since May, 25 2018.

Welcome to Wikipedia, HSukePup! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2010s in video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Team Cherry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HSukePup! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Ethereum and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia: it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind for future edits. HSukePup (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't. I have no connections to any project. This is simply what I studied at school, and it's one of my interests. HSukePup (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you own cryptocurrency, you have a conflict of interest for that cryptocurrency. Regardless, please make sure sources you cite are reliable, and avoid the temptation of using sources to prop-up your own understanding of a topic, as this is original research. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you'd think I have a conflitct of interest. I haven't been writing anything positively about crypto. All of my edits have been on technical protocols and fixing inaccuracies.

I've been going over the Talk pages on many blockchain articles, and I understand the frustrations that other editors are having over not being able to make corrections and fix misleading details. There are so many articles that are outdated, inaccurate, or have undue weight from primary sources or misused sources.

I think the biggest issue with many of the blockchain articles on Wikipedia is that everyone has their hands tied behind their backs. The people who are the most technical are unable to write articles effectively because they're unable to use what Wikipedia considers unreliable sources. So we end up having Wiki articles that are years outdated due to relying on secondary sources. Wikipedia considers Forbes, Business Intelligence, NYT, and WSJ as reliable sources, but in reality they are not accurate about blockchains because their writers don't have the technical knowledge to know when the information they present is inaccurate or misleading. Also, they tend to mainly write about price movement and companies, not on technology. So it's very rare for them to go into technical detail..

On the other hand, it's probably a blessing in disguise that crypto sources are so hard to find because it would be chaos dealing with all the edits if the floodgates were opened to allow more sources. I think it's ok if articles are a couple years outdated, but when they start getting 5+ years outdated and also being inaccurate, it becomes worrying. HSukePup (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For Forbes, specifically, see WP:FORBESCON. More generally, the reason these sources are seen as unreliable is because they are unreliable for a large number of inter-related of reasons. One of those reasons (but far from the only one) is conflicts of interest.

The way in which you didn't address whether or not you have a conflict of interest strongly suggests to me that you do, in fact, have a conflict of interest.

Anyway, you're not the first person to say this. Part of the problem is that Wikipedia is a general audience encyclopedia. We use reliable, independent sources to decide which technical details are important and which are not. If an article includes technical details which are very out of date, and no reliable independent sources exist to update that info, it's usually a good sign that these technical details don't even belong in the article at all. Don't get lost in the weeds. Write for a disinterested audience. Start from reliable sources and do not write backwards based your own familiarity with the topic.

One of the underlying reasons so many of these articles are mess, out-of-date, filled with obtuse jargon, etc. is because they were written by blockchain enthusiasts did not follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Another reason is spam and thinly-disguised market manipulation. One way to start fixing these problems is to rewrite to summarize based on reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already said I have no connections to any project, and have never had connections to any project. I also have no conflicts of interest.

I think the opposite is happening. These articles are bad and patchworks of information because people are writing backwards from easy-to-acquire sources. They find a reliable source and then add that information without thinking about overall structure of the article.

For example, the Avalanche article is 90% history. There's not even a "Description" section for it. This is a terrible article because editors are finding sources first and adding unimportant information from those sources, instead of thinking about what information is missing or needed in the article. That's why I'm doing more of the latter. I'm thiking about the overall structure of the subjects and what's missing in them. HSukePup (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]