User talk:HSukePup: Difference between revisions

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:

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]