Talk:Bryan Legend

For admins that Bryan has begged to take down this page please refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38RBRPwODUk and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kWPjBmPXIs for even more detailed information on Bryan Legend, unfortunately I do not have the time to write a full 9000 word essay that includes all evidence collected. However I believe this brief article that raises awareness about this fraudster will suffice and is easily more detailed and better than a lot of other pages on here.

This article was previously created by Bryan Mark Seiler himself, he would use it to trick people (particularly disabled/vulnerable people) into investing into his cryptocurrency startups. They all turn out to be scams. I believe the account "Bryzieb" should be banned from WikiAlpha due to Bryan consistently abusing the SEO ranking of WikiAlpha to narrate a false image of himself.

If anyone has any requests for the page please contact me via my accounts discussion page and I'll have a look next time I'm online.

P.S. Bryan you've already scammed people out of millions of dollars just retire lmfao — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiauditor201 (talk • contribs) 2023-09-12T11:40:14‎

• I am going to reply at User_talk:Wikiauditor201. Since I just blocked Wikiauditor201, for personal attacks, it is the only place where they can reply. Geo Swan (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

explanation

I directed User:wikiauditor201 to the article on Gerald Cotten, which I believe contains fair and neutral coverage of a crypto-currency entrepreneur.

I replaced the most recent version with a much shorter but neutral version. Geo Swan (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Calling for cooperation

User:Broker20's edit was a bit reckless. It re-inserted "Those articles have since been deleted." They hadn't been deleted. I relocated them, and re-inserted them into the article...

Legend did respond with a video of his own.

Has he deleted all his content? The reference Broker20 supplied does not substantiate that. Their assertion, "... having deleted the majority of his previous content. It is not yet unknown if Bryan will remain active in the cryptocurrency scams industry, having taken ~$40 Million dollars from investors and purchasing a large $3.5M property in Hope Island, Queensland." Isn't this pure speculation?

Shouldn't it be up to the reader to reach their own conclusion as to whether or not cryptocurrency is a scam? Geo Swan (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where this response video from legend is, the only response was a statement he made in a livestream regarding people showing up to his house. After the two more popular videos from friendlyjordies and Coffezilla were published, almost all the content on his online social media pages was deleted. Broker20 (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Also yes, changed that language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broker20 (talk • contribs) 2023-09-16T11:55:43

• I know I watched a video where he complained about Friendlyjordie's visit. Perhaps I was mistaken about him responding, on YouTube. Did you say that response has since been deleted?

It would be directly counter to the wikipedia's policies for it to be used as a forum to bring down a crypto-currency scammer. Wikialpha's policies are looser. I would prefer if to apply the stricture against attack pages to curb using wikialpha as this kind of forum.

YouTubers Coffeezila and FriendlyJordie curbed what they said about Legend. They would not be considered reliable sources, on the Wikipedia. However I think it is okay to use them here.

User:Broker20, the reference you provided to show Legend has been charged? It renders as a map. A map to where? Who knows? Is that his neighbourhood? Is a reader supposed to trust us that this points to his house? If it is his house is a reader supposed to trust us that they police noted the address because he was charged with fraud, not with disturbing his neighbours with his stereo, or fro not mowing his lawn? I'll give you a couple of days to document that he has been charged, with better references, like a newspaper article, and then I will remove that paragraph. Geo Swan (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

1. His response to them visiting his house was been deleted, the livestream were he said that has since been deleted however it is irrelevant anyways as it was prior to Coffeezilla and FriendlyJordies journalism regarding Bryan. After their videos were posted all his content was deleted, however no actual response to the release of the videos was made... only comments made during the production of the videos/investigations.
2. It's impossible to directly link, I tried to add some sort of instruction to see what I'm seeing. I intentionally made it pretty vague to only state that a Fraud charge was registered against an unknown individual at the address whilst he was living there, given that he is single it's pretty unlikely anyone else got charged at that specific address but still I'll keep it neutral. And yes if you view the address on the map, it comes up as "Fraud" at his address (https://i.imgur.com/IMDKQZH.png).
3. Also yes, using Coffeezilla primary (Friendlyjordies was mainly there to investigate in person at the request of Coffezilla) is not the best source, as Coffezilla more or less collected all the evidence and presented it in his video, with some investigations/QnAs with Bryan. If someone wants to go through and reference the exact sources of information for everything go ahead, but honestly I can't be bothered spending all day collecting evidence when it's pretty much all collected inside that video. Broker20 (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I've numbered your paragraphs.

WRT your first paragraph, okay, he deleted his response video, from his website. But you saw it, and I saw it, and didn't friendlyjordie comment on it? On the Wikipedia that would not be enough. Here I think it is enough.

WRT your second paragraph, I think the Wikipedia has gone overboard on this. When I first started contributing there, if reliable sources said someone had been charged you didn't have to worry about neutrally quoting or paraphrasing those source. But, for over a decade now, a contributor would be likely to get considerable pushback, until the individual in question had been tried, and convicted or acquitted, or a judge made their ruling in a civil suit.

A google search doesn't find any really good references.

WRT your third paragraph. While neither Coffeezilla or Friendlyjordies would be considered acceptable references on the Wikipedia I personally have no objection to using them here, as they seem to be from the well respected and non-sensational side of YouTube. I have no objection to anyone quoting or neutrally paraphrasing anything they said about Legend...

Did you notice that Forbes magazine, which would be considered a reliable source on the Wikipedia, blindly praised Legend? Geo Swan (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, could you please confirm you took a good look at the article on Gerald Cotten... Geo Swan (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Image problem

I encountered problems with the image of Legend used in this article...

The image currently used is distorted, presumably by the uploader, User:8309 8443MagnoliaDrEHopeIsland. Even if the guy is a sneaky SOB it is bad practice to use ugly images...

I think we should revert to Legend's original image. Legend is not a handsome man, but his preferred image is more flattering. Unfortunately, when I used the revert feature, it (1) reverted to the wrong image; (2) that image is rendered with the wrong pixel ratio, making it look even worse; (3) the only choice now, for the top image, is "delete all"; (4) I tried re-uploading Legend's preferred image, but, for reasons I don't understand, it did not displace the wrecked image.

For now I have reverted to File:BryanTheScammer.jpg

If the problem with File:BryanLegendPortrait.jpg is merely a cache problem, that is resolved tomorrow, I will use that.

If not I will re-upload Legend's preferred image to a brand new name, and use that... Geo Swan (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• The cache must have finally cleared, and the article is using Legend's non-distorted image of himself. Geo Swan (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Broker20 - how to cooperate on a wiki

User:Broker20, in these two edits, [1] and [2], you did something that is a trigger to edit warring, on larger wikis, and which is very confusing.

Edit summaries have to be (1) brief; (2) so clear they can be read at a glance; (3) uncontroversial. Over on the Wikipedia, on contentious articles where contributors with different views edit war, you will see people do what you did.

If a justification for an edit can't be both clear and brief, or if it is likely to be disagreed with, then don't put it in the edit summary. Put that justification on the talk page. Why. Several reasons.

First, if you revert someone, or make a controversial edit, where the only explanation is in your edit summary you give them a serious temptation to combining reverting you, while putting their stinging rebuttal in their edit summary.

The result is an instant edit war.

Second, since these "discussions" combine the edit and its explanation, in a single step, anyone who comes along, and tries to unravel what the original people were arguing about, has to use the revision control system to step through each edit, one at a time. This is frequently very hard to understand, sometimes it is frankly impossible for a third party to understand. I strongly suspect that, in many cases, even the original warring parties wouldn't be able to explain the dispute, if you called on them to do so, weeks or months later.

Third, third parties look to the talk page for explanations about weird thing to do with an article. If they have questions about the article the edit summaries in the revision history is not the logical place to look.

Your edit summary justifications were: no source, and I cannot find evidence of this response video, stop adding it back in unless your gonna cite something. He deleted all his own videos, prior to the release of the "videos" he only ever said he isn't worried about the investigations. he said he isn't worried about the investigations after being told that the they're investigating, he said that before the release of the videos. After the release he nuked his social medias.

Hold on, you watched FriendlyJordie's video, right? 1073 seconds in Friendly Jordie includes a clip from Legend's video response. So, why don't you accept that as sufficient to document that he responded?

Over on the Wikipedia there are administrators who expect a level of deference usually reserved for brutal totalitarian dictators and murderous druglords. I don't expect that. But I had almost twenty years of experience editing wikis, and almost half a million wiki edits under my belt, so you might consider showing a tiny bit of deference to my greater experience.

I am not that happy with your silence in response to my request you clarify which other wiki-ids you have used here. You are only supposed to use one. Okay, maybe you didn't realize that. But, I have told you now, and I am going to repeat my request you clarify whether you used other IDs. Geo Swan (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Friendly Jordie includes a clip from Legend's video response." He did not, that clip is from a livestream after they attempted to ask him questions at his house. That livestream was before the two videos were published, in-fact Bryan didn't even know who the person that rocked up to his door was... he had no clue and that "response" was just a clip from a livestream where he explained that people (who he didn't know at the time since the videos hadn't been published) showed up and gave him the honey pot award. To consider "random people showed up to my house" as a response to videos that haven't even been published online at the time is blatant misinformation.

To clarify: Bryan's only response to the videos was nuking all the content from his youtube channel... Was he aware that they were investigating him: Yes, Did he know people showed up to his house: Yes... did he make a response to the Coffeezilla video after it was published, No he never did.

Maybe it would be a good idea to look at it from a wider view, instead of focusing just on one tiny thing he said in a livestream and then calling that a response to a video that didn't even exist at the time? Broker20 (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• I asked you to look at the article on Gerald Cotten, another individual who was trusted by people who did not believe in government regulation to run a crypto-currency exchange.

Did you do so? Geo Swan (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

1. Hi, I dove a little deeper as I found it funny that you mentioned "Did you notice that Forbes magazine, which would be considered a reliable source on the Wikipedia, blindly praised Legend?" before, which I found strange as other magazines which had covered Bryan (without receiving payment from him) had updated their articles after his scams were exposed. Is it just me or is it strange that someone with supposedly over 20 years experience would fall for a "community written" forbes article and consider it to be written by Forbes themself, strange? Even the Wikipedia nerds picked up on this with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FORBESCON? This is also talked about in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bryan_Legend. Not saying anything just strange that someone with 20 years experience and hundreds of edits would blindly trusting a community written article as gospel? Nothing wrong with that, everyone makes mistakes and I didn't notice it was community written for awhile but honestly unless your interested in providing quality edits to this page I don't think you should continue contributing? I did make this page seem similar to the Gerald article and updated this page accordingly. However from obvious timeline errors and trusting unreliable sources (as per Wikipedia's policies) I think some suggestions can be given.
2. Also, the Wikipedia page was originally deleted due to false references and Bryan even celebrating the creation of the page, pretty much proving he had a significant involvement (or more) in creating the page (as per his alias of Bryzieb), hence this page does not apply to the same rules. Also frankly, I'm trying to replicate the look of Wikipedia pages, they look way better and more trustworthy than that Gerald Cotten page with no headings and missing capitalization. Feel free to fix up the Clever DeFi section however as that although is factually correct, it might be "not neutral" and references could be fixed.
3. p.s. if you do wish to follow in Wikipedia's steps by banning Bryan's account https://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/User:Bryzieb as it is on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bryzie.b due to the disruptive editing he was also doing here (although the history seems to be deleted) feel free!!! Broker20 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
   1. Please explain yourself more fully here.
      • Are you trying to say that there is an online magazine that looks like Forbes, but allows individuals to pay to add puff pieces about themselves?
      • Wait, are you telling me I shouldn't contribute to this article, even though several of your earlier wiki-IDs had to be blocked for vandalizing the article?
      • What's up with Bryan_Legend#Love_Life? Your Instagram reference merely shows there is an Asian Instagram model/"influencer". It doesn't show she is a sex worker, or that she has any association with Legend.
      • What is the provenance of File:BryanGambling1.jpg and File:BryanGambling2.jpg? Did you take them yourself? If so, this strongly suggests you actually know him. If this is the case don't you think you should have disclosed this? If you didn't take them, why wouldn't your posting them here be a copyright violation?
      • File:BryanLegendGaragePicture.png looks like a selfie. Legend owns the intellectual property rights to his selfies.
      • What is the provenance of File:BryanSeilerPhoto.png?
   2. As I think you know wikialpha has broader inclusion standards than the Wikipedia.
      • I did not know Legend had ever had a Wikipedia page. The keep votes in its AFD were almost certainly legend.
      • My interpretation of Wikialpha's broader inclusion standards mean people are allowed to create articles about themselves, even though that would not be permitted, as a conflict of interest, on the Wikipedia.
   3. Wikialpha is under no obligation to block individuals merely because they were blocked on the Wikipedia. If you think a wiki-ID should be blocked, please provide specific diffs to the edits you consider problematic, and explain your concerns with them. Do you know how to provide a diff?
   4. Where did the following sections come from:Bryan_Legend#Clever DeFi Project, Bryan_Legend#False Opinion on the Success of the Clever DeFi Project through an Artificial CLVA Price Pump, Bryan_Legend#Fake Investors in the Clever DeFi Project and Fake CLVA Holders, Bryan_Legend#Cancellation of Liquidity on the Uniswap Exchange, Bryan_Legend#Selling a Huge Amount of Secret CLVA, which caused the price to drop to near zero, Bryan_Legend#Refusal of the Owner and the Project Clever DeFi from further Financing of this Project

      I find them incoherent. Did you simply copy and paste them from some other site? Is it a site that puts its material in the public domain? If not, re-using it is a copyright violation. Even if it is in the public domain, or you wrote it yourself, on some other site, you should have stated its sources here, on the talk page, for transparency. Geo Swan (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Someone reinserted the personal attack that he is a scammer into the article's lead sentence. I rewrote it.

You and I may, personally, think those promoting cryptocurrency are terrible people. But neutrality requires us to not say that, in article space, at least not without attribution. And it should not go in the lead sentence.

Gerald Cotten's widow, Jennifer Robertson, is notable in her own right. So it is appropriate for his article to mention her, link to her article. So, what if, for the sake of argument, Legend is going out with a hot model? Did an Australian publication write about their relationship? Did a publication explicitly assert she was also a sex worker? Why is the model worth mention?

I think the Bryan_Legend#Potential_Fraud_Charge section is too poorly documented to be included. Geo Swan (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW, I am unsympathetic to those individuals who bought cryptocurrency, were then ripped off, and call for the governments to compensate them. There may be some naive cryptocurrency buyers, who are so clueless they didn't know cryptocurrency was different than ordinary financial vehicles. But most cryptocurrency buyers are attracted to it specifically because it is not regulated. Geo Swan (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

incoherent material

I removed a large chunk of material I considered incoherent.

Long strings of hexadecimal numbers? Would this be meaningful to anyone, except someone who had studied the internals of cryptocurrency?

"the CLVA token minting phase"? Introduced without explanation.

Whitepaper? No links to this whitepaper, nor any explanation of its context, goals, audience.

"Liquidity pool"? WTF is that?

"Ether funding score"? WTF is that?

It was all gibberish. Geo Swan (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Relevant material

I removed Bryan Legend#Love Life. As above, Gerald Cotten's wife was a notable person. The references don't show a relationship with the Instagram model. Even if they did, how is that relevant. They unsubstantiated innuendo that she is a paid performer, not a spontaneous volunteer lover is a personal attack.

I've never heard of smile. That Legend and an unidentified woman collaborated on a warbly song together, how is that notable? Geo Swan (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

explanation

It is my interpretation of wikialpha:CSD that it disallows pages that are purely attack pages. I rewound to this earlier version as I found negative material that was not backed up by references.

Even if, for the sake of argument, the real life Bryan Legend was engaging in terrible behaviour, in my interpretation of wikialpha policy, he is entitled to have the article aobut him written in a fair and neutral language. If it talks about negative material there should be good references.

Because this article has been subject to a lot of back and forth I call on contributors to explain their edits here, on the article's talk page.

Geo Swan (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

New Wave of Edits

Hello,

I'm the one editing this wiki article as of late. The reasoning is simple, someone has been deleting the questionable behavior of Bryan "King Legend" Seiler from WikiAlpha. The user behind this goes by "Bryzieb". I belive it is Bryan Seiler himself. For context, Seiler is back from the hole he was hiding in after the SAFUU venture (or scam) went down and his YOMP token didn't work. It is not a coincidence he has return now of all times. There is a new trend in the crypto markets, the meme coins are back. Seiler's plan is to used this trend to run away with the money AGAIN!

My earlier edits were based on an old version of this article, posted by Bryzieb. My latest contribs have references to the claims made there. I believe the portrait of Bryan should not be undo. The picture that is supposed to be "neutral" is not neutral at all, it was posted by Bryan with the intention of tricking people. The current version of the portrait is taken from an promo video Seiler made for a dead project called YOMP. It's not edited, that is his real face, the way he wanted to appear on a live-stream of his. Most of the information I have posted here are written versions of video reports made around Bryan's questionable career. I believe this written version is of great value for possible victims of Bryan's actions. This wiki is the fourth page one gets when googling "Bryan Legend". It's value becomes clear by inspecting the amount of times Bryzieb has committed vandalism against it.

I recognize there may be some sarcasm in my contribs, but I'm willing to remove it or rewrite it in order to keep the relevant information available. It would be nice if the contributors wouldn't undo everything that has been posted here. Rather edit the parts that are believed to be wrong.

I also think Bryzieb should be banned from this platform. He clearly has shady intentions with this article. The information posted by this user is composted of half-truth and paid hit-pieces. At the same time all evidence against Bryan Seiler has been removed by him. His actions motivated me to edit this page. If WikiAlpha values this "neutrality" that much, with all due respect I call to protect said "neutrality" from Seiler and this Bryzieb.

WhereIsTheMoneyBryan (talk)

File:BryanYOMP.png

I tagged File:BryanYOMP.png as a copyright violation. Mr Legend, for the sake of argument, may be a terrible person. Nevertheless the only person who can legally upload a image of Mr Legend is Mr Legend himself. Now, if Mr Legend was at a public event, and an audience member snapped a picture of him, and then choose to upload it under a free license, then that image could be re-used here.

Elsewhere I suggested you look up the rules on using non-free images under the fair use exception. I repeat that suggestion. Geo Swan (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

File:BryanYOMP.png Part-2

I thought about this for a moment and had an idea. It is most likely a stupid idea, but I'll share it anyway. The above statement claims only a picture taken during a public event can be "legally" use as Mr. Seiler's portrait. As my understating goes a live internet broadcast (live-stream) is a public event, it could be very "meta" but in way it is. For it is available for anybody to see and participate in. Hence a live-stream made by Mr. Seiler could be consider a public appearance in a public event. By this half-baked logic a frame or a screenshot of this live-stream could be consider a valid portrait of him. If that's the case, then another picture besides the file uploaded by Mr. Seiler could be used. Based on this naive take, I'll change the portrait to something else, trying to do proper reference. Another idea I had was using a picture posted by Mr. Seiler himself on a different website. My biggest issue with this topic is falling back to a picture that portrait's Seiler as a "real" businessman. For there is no evidence what so ever of him having a legitimated record in said area. Also, said picture is quit old and Seiler has aged, like all mortals do. A more recent picture would be more realistic. WhereIsTheMoneyBryan (talk)

Upbringing...

In this edit User:WhereIsTheMoneyBryan used two YouTube videos from Coffeezilla... As YouTube content creators go, Coffeezilla seems to be one with a reasonable reputation. However, these two videos have the same title. So, that is confusing. The shorter of the two, [3] at almost 13 minutes, doesn't talk about his upbringing. So, why was it listed as a reference here.

How should YouTube videos be referenced. I dunno.

The longer of the two [4] interviews a relative he was raised beside, at at 216 seconds into the video. I am going to suggest that, if the video is going to assert he was raised by his grandparents, it say something, "Coffeezilla interviewed Seiler's aunt, who described growing up with him, when her parents, Seiler's grandparents adopted him when he was a four year old orphan..." followed by a reference that takes the reader directly to the portion of the video where she says that. Linking to a 30 minute video, and claiming that substantion for an assertion is somewhere in that video, requires someone checking your editing to listen to the whole goldarned thing. Don't ask people to do that. Geo Swan (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Reply to: Upbringing...

I agree to change the references to Coffeezilla's videos in a proper fashion. I used the ones available in the wiki page at the time of the edit. It is going to take some time. I wish there was more than YouTube videos to references this article. Sadly, a lot of people, including authorities, do not care about the behavior of the like of Mr. Seiler. This mostly due to the lack of regulation in blockchain technology. Also, a lot of people are bias enough to think only "crypto bros" with similar tastes as Mr. Seiler are allured by this "ventures". They are wrong. I agree there's a lot of questionable content in YouTube, regretfully it is most of the backing available as today.

WhereIsTheMoneyBryan (talk)