User talk:Webgrasp

Nomination of JoshCartu for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JoshCartu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JoshCartu until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mean as custard (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to JoshCartu, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to JoshCartu has been reverted, as it removed all content from the page without explanation. Please do not do this, as it is considered vandalism; use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see here for what to do. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to JoshCartu with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Shadowjams (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Banc de Binary, you may be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

--Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Webgrasp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made editing in a page for Banc de Binary. The page reads like bad journalism instead of a fact page. An example would be the page states "indictment" when in fact the page references reveal only a Federal civil complaint and a request to the courts to grant an injunction order allowing a deposition. The word INDICTMENT repeats itself in the Wiki page of Banc De Binary. I'm a lawyer - so believe me I know the difference. "Indictments" and "charges" are only relative to criminal cases. In civil matters, there are complaints, plaintiffs, defendants, and other civil lingo. Sentences like "Charges filed on 7th August in the US stated that Banc de Binary and Oren Shabat Cohen "may be criminally liable under the federal RICO statute" also reads like bad journalism - and are simply not true or logical. Read this - http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22767.htm - and you clearly see Securities and Exchange Commission v. Banc de Binary Ltd., Civil Action No. 2:13-CV-00993-RCJ-VCF that an injunction order in a civil matter was filed - which is far from a criminal indictment that goes before a grand jury.

Wiki doesn't deal with speculation, therefore statements like "Could be criminal responsible under Rico laws" is not relative - at least not a preliminary stage of a civil complaint. Furthermore, the Wiki page sites "investigative journalism" by a newspaper called the www.thisismoney.co.uk%2Fmoney%2Finvesting%2Farticle-2407941%2FTONY-HETHERINGTON-US-watchdog-takes-bank-Banc-Binary-court--Britain-lets-in.html - yet a search on the same website "thisismoney.co.uk" reveals several positive articles for Banc De Binary, even quoting the Banc De Binary analysts - http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2350635/Gold-falls-1200-time-years-amid-warnings-go.html and also read - http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/investing/article-2312070/Hope-higher-dividends-British-Assets-reinvents-itself.html - so again, makes no sense to site a secluded article on Wiki for the negative - as Wiki is not a journalistic newspaper, nor a classified ads speculative biased site, rather just a fact site. I recently edited and fixed 2 billionaire wiki pages - just before fixing Banc De Binary - and in both cases, cited the facts only with clear tier 1 reference.

Finally, it would seem the entire Wiki page on Banc De Binary focuses on its founder Oren Laurent or Shabat or whatever his name is - and if the founder is so famous - for good or bad - then create a 2nd page for him. But 90% of what is written is speculative - hence, does he live in Tel Aviv, London, Cyprus, or the US - is not relative to the fact page on the company. I clearly wrote the complaint number of the United States Security & Exchange Commission against Banc De Binary, so I'm not biased for the company, rather just think the facts need to be stated without prejudice.

Please remove any citations or bans against my account as I'm on Wiki to contribute.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not for the content of your edits; you'll need to address the edit warring issue if you want to be unblocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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) 09:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry investigation

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reuvengrish. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]