User talk:Jhkim!1

July 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. A.R.M. 11:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf^(talk) 11:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely request a new username with the following reason for the unblock on wikipedia. I am now well aware of the possible mistake that I made. I assure you that I will never repeat the same mistake.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jhkim!1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

jhkim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I now understand that my previous username and contents may appear as advertisements of a company. However, I want to inform you that I just wanted to include as much information that I know about this contents; during this process, my contents may have included some phrases or links that seem like advertisements. I am now well aware. I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience and my mistake. From now on, with a new username, I strongly appeal that I will not repeat the same mistake again.

Decline reason:

You will not be unblocked until:

you propose a new username that meets the username policy
you confirm that this account is used by one individual only
you agree to avoid creating or directly editing articles related to your organisation (requested edits will still be permitted)
you agree to abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and disclose your paid relationship in accordance with the paid contributor policy
you indicate what areas of Wikipedia you intend to edit in the future

If you have no interest in editing Wikipedia beyond writing about your organisation, then you will not be unblocked. If this is the case, I recommend you consider alternative outlets. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the unblock request for you, but the name jhkim already exists, so please edit the above request and suggest a different one. You can check if a desired username is free using Special:CentralAuth. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Jhkim!1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22222 was submitted on Jul 30, 2018 10:51:55. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmochain (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jhkim!1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

jhkim!1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I believe I was blocked on Wikipedia from editing because of my username and some parts of the contents. It is my mistake that I may have overlooked on the guide to create a proper username. To look back, just because I know something about the topic to create a username with that topic's title was not a good idea. Moreover, I believe some parts of the contents that I wrote and edited may included sentences that sound like advertising or scam. To add, I think I over-edited the page that I wanted to create. In my defense and explanation, I was continuously saving when making even minor changes that I made during the process; also, I wanted to include as much information as possible. However, I now understand how admin may have regarded me as a potential threat, and I sincerely apologize. From now on, if block lifts and I get a new username, I strongly appeal that I will not repeat the same mistake again. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request. You indicate that you still want to edit about COSM and Cosmochain, which will not be permitted- and which suggests that you don't fully understand WP:COI. Based on the now-deleted draft you wrote I also have difficulty believing that you are not paid in some capacity by Cosmochain. Others may feel differently but I don't see a pathway to you being unblocked unless you are prepared to agree to not edit about COSM or Cosmochain as I ask below, and tell what it is you do want to edit. If you are only here to tell the world about COSM or Cosmochain, you should consider an alternative outlet. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have globally renamed Cosmochain to Jhkim!1, and someone else will review your unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate that you have reviewed WP:COI and, if applicable, WP:PAID. Would you agree to not edit about COSM or Cosmochain? If so, what do you want to edit about instead? 331dot (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did review WP:COI and WP:PAID, and I clearly state that I am not being paid to write. Also, I do want to edit about COSM and Cosmochain. It is not for an advertising purpose, but rather as a short introduction writing with a purpose of information delivery about Cosmochain’s COSM token. COSM token is relatively new in the market, thus many people do not know much about it, wanting sources to get more information. COSM token is listed in actual global exchanges including HitBTC, UEX, and Latoken; hence, I believe editing and creating a page related to this topic is absolutely crucial for global cryptocurrency market and crypto-investors.
If there is any problem or issue regarding my appeal, please let me know. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhkim!1 (talk • contribs)

"Relatively new in the market", "people do not know much about it" = "doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article". Wikipedia is not the place for you to disseminate information about ~~your company~~ your favourite blockchain. If that's all you want to do, you need to go elsewhere; you aren't going to be allowed to write about Cosmochain on Wikipedia. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui is absolutely right here. Investors might want information about such things, but so does Wikipedia if it is to carry an article about a subject. In order to meet notability standards, the information must already be out there, with reliable sources already covering the subject in depth. Wikipedia is absolutely not a place to provide information that is not readily available elsewhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that investors should never use Wikipedia to find information for the purpose of making investing decisions, and so it is never crucial for an investment market or for individual investors that Wikipedia should carry anything about any investment subject. Investors should go for specific investment-targeted sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]