User talk:HistorianofRecenttimes

Welcome!

Hello, HistorianofRecenttimes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Please take care with your editing on Banc De Binary. I have reverted your edits, which appeared to consist of a fair amount of original research with a decidedly non-neutral tone about the history and nature of the bank. There is already a "regulatory issues" section in the article. This should suffice to record the issues that the bank is experiencing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi HistorianofRecenttimes! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

linking style on talk pages

On talk pages, it's usual to write [http://example.com] rather than <ref>http://example.com</ref>. The latter won't be readable unless a {{Reflist}} template is added to the page. —rybec 22:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banc de Binary

You're right back where you started, with unsourced allegations and synthesis. Please confine yourself to cited facts. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The relevant section is WP:ANI#Banc de Binary Blackmane (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.

BDBJack (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Banc De Binary. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Historian

I noticed that we are both interested in the BDB article and lots of accusations have gone around. It looks like you are established as a WP:SPA and I'm sure you've read that and hope you are seeking to comply. You also have accumulated a few negative notices and I wanted to affirm the other commenters that it's essential to keep up with what Wikipedia policies are.

There are lots of suspicions. If I can speak without offending you, the fact is that I came here assuming that my choice of contributions would lead to beliefs that I am connected with a key player; and I presume you would have considered the same assumption about yourself. But there's an easy way to handle this with reductio ad absurdam. Even if, for the sake of argument toward absurdity, we were both royally paid editors, it would be in our interests to come to agreement about the protected article rather than to keep up with poor sourcing and poor Wikipedia citizenry. And even if we were the most neutral editors in the world, the same conclusion would be even more true. So I hope you will have a chance to comment and work with me on the article text during the protected period. Thanks. Okteriel (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the right place for your questions like "Is there anything that can be done about 'cash for editing' users like CorporateM and Okteriel, the latter of which left a weird and half-threatening message on my talk?" is this page, not the article page. That's a pretty obvious one. Instead of doing something you perceive as half-threatening, what I'll do is use the templates, surrounded by explanation. Basically, those who template you are saying they're pretty confident you're straying from Wiki policy and they are concerned you will be disciplined if you keep going, so the threat is not from the individual but from the Community, which works as a hivemind, to get to the right decision sooner or later. For instance, if you're assuming that I'm a paid editor, that's original research; if you're judging my message as half-threatening, that's uncivil discourse. If you're going to accuse an IP who says he's Oren Laurent of being a criminal on the article talkpage, as you did last October, that's a pretty severe BLP violation and might merit a level-3 warning and of course a reversion. But here's what a level-1 OR looks like: Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Then it's me talking again after the boilerplate "Thank you". I will probably give an evidence link when I use a template, and explain it briefly, such as by saying "assumption of which the user has no source evidence is the definition of OR, even if it's on talk". I'll be happy to assist the community in continuing to measure your progress via praise, and templates if necessary. Now, the answer to your question is, what do you want done with us? Also, the answer to your assumption is in my userspace. Feel free to continue discussion there, thanks. Okteriel (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateM

If you have evidence that CM is being paid, please post it at WP:COI/N. The appearance of is probably not sufficient. I would avoid making unsubstantiated claims. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: if you have RS for Banc De Binary's issues, might be a good idea to add them. Jim1138 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mike V • Talk 21:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's today's wrapup, Historian. You have 20 SPA edits 11:30-21:26 today. 11 of them are frantic WP:CANVASSing of 6 people, all perceptible as being on the same !side. 3 are a 3RR that almost went over the line except Black Kite saved you by full-protecting the article again (1 of the 3 accuses me of being banned). 1 requests rollback for yourself without even an understanding of what is required or why it's not given to editors who want to use it against particular other editors. The other 5 are content edits on talk that all make sweeping anti-BDB assumptions aka original research. I'm sorry to report that you are not contributing positively to the encyclopedia. This is the level-2 OR warning, and it applies to sweeping OR in talk as well:

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

This day appears typical of every day you've been here. I will grant that you made one change: you seem to have started inserting footnotes in your talk, which is good, but that happens in the same paragraphs as the sweeping OR, so let's work on that next, please. Maybe you can help me understand, how is it that you believe you are contributing positively to the project? Okteriel (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Banc De Binary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trump Towers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restrictions

Hello, I left a similar message for BDBJack (when he asked for a clarification of editing restrictions you two are subject to now) so I thought it would be courteous to leave a similar note on your talk page.

The policy that covers your restrictions is at WP:BAN. That page covers a lot of different circumstances in which a person may be banned, and different kinds of bans, so I'll point out what is relevant in your situation. You are subject to a topic ban. If you read that section, and read the example there but substitute "Banc De Binary" for "weather" then you'll get the idea. Please note that in your case, you are not restricted from discussing the topic, so you aren't prohibited from talking about Banc De Binary at article talk pages, user talk pages, or any other place. You're only restricted from editing main article space.

Also, the kind of ban you are subject to is a community ban. That doesn't make any difference as far as your restrictions go, but it doesn't affect how your ban can be appealed. In your case, for the ban to be lifted another discussion would take place, similar to the one that occurred at WP:ANI, and there would need to be a consensus of editors who agree to lift your ban. I will say that if you do want the ban lifted, my suggestion is to give it some time (at least wait a few months) and don't be too aggressive about having it lifted (this is just my personal advice).

Essentially, you should not edit the Banc De Binary article directly, doing so is a violation of your ban and can lead to warnings, or if you make an obvious violation it could lead directly to a block (usually the first block is a short one, and subsequent violations would lead to longer blocks and eventually you may be indefinitely blocked). Furthermore, you should avoid editing articles related to Banc De Binary (such as Nadex, or Binary option). You also shouldn't change the content of articles if your changes are related to Banc De Binary, such as inserting a link related to BDB, or removing information about a competitor, or correcting information about BDB. You can always report what you consider to be vandalism to the proper places (WP:ANI, WP:AIV, and so on) or ask other editors to fix problems, and you can make edit requests on article talk pages.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me, thank you. -- Atama頭 15:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historian, I would advise you to take a breather from the talk page as well. All BDB accounts have been site-banned. There is no need for lobbying from an interested party who doesn't like the company. Just a friendly suggestion. Thanks in advance. Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact me if you can

Just use the "email this user" function on my talk page. Re: your favorite article topic. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]