User talk:Chrisarnesen/Archive 1

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: 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.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"This article focuses..." to "...forced to en.bitcoin.it."
There is actually an article about the Bitcoin protocol. So readers are not forced to en.bitcoin.it if they want to learn how Bitcoin works. Also remember to sign your posts with four tildes as explained by User:SineBot. Logictheo (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback Logictheo! I modified my comment. Chris Arnesen 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
-- benlisquare T•C•E 03:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied again on mine. -- benlisquare T•C•E 03:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin
Thanks for all your recent work on the Bitcoin article. It has been in dire need of massaging for a while. I outlined some of the problems on the talk page not long ago. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You partly understand my meaning — you understand what I was trying to get at, but I misunderstood how it works. I thought that they were continuously slowing the rate of inflation, rather than keeping it constant throughout each four-year period.  Just wait and I'll be back to fix it.  Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BitBus. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Bitcoin because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! BitBus  Talk   09:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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: 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.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

RE: Are you a bot?
I don't know what's unconvincing about it. I'm obviously not a bot if I'm able to respond to you un-generically. Please read Wikipedia's Help Pages, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents. Thanks. BitBus  Talk   09:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I am not a bot! I'm a human watching the recent changes of Wikipedia! BitBus  Talk   09:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion, whether I am a troll or not. Your contributions don't say very much about yourself. My contribution history is mainly Recent Changes patrol. BitBus  Talk   10:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of discussions on Talk:Bitcoin
Do not remove discussions from the talk page (other than for archival). If a consensus has been reached the discussion should stay on the talk page, as a document of the consensus, in case new discussions arise or the consensus is being questioned. Thomas.W  talk to me  18:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI talk page discussions older than one month on Talk:Bitcoin are being archived automatically by a bot (as can be seen on the right-hand side of the talk page, near the top), which is why I just reverted the removal of the discussions. So there's no need to archive manually. Thomas.W   talk to me  19:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We finished this discussion on his talk page. Chris Arnesen 21:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I came here to raise this precise issue as well. Removal of large swathes of discussion contemporaneous with a call to arms on Reddit may work out not so well - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * From Talk_page_guidelines "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections." If you feel I've archived a discussion that was still ongoing, please feel free to resurrect it from the archive. I'll make a comment on this subject on the Talk:Bitcoin page too.Chris Arnesen 15:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Samwalton9 (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Couple of things!
Just a couple of things; firstly remember to sign your comments on talk pages! You can do so by typing four tildes like so at the end of your message: ~, it helps to keep talk pages tidy. Second is that if a thread has got too long you should outdent the text back to the start with producing the following effect:


 * Some text

Start again here!

Again this just keeps the talk pages a bit tidier! Not sure if I've said before but if you have any questions about editing feel free to drop me a message :) Samwalton9 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder about signing. I forget sometimes. I added to the infobox discussion, thanks for the tip. Chris Arnesen 20:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Bitcoin paper wallet generated at bitaddress.org.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bitcoin paper wallet generated at bitaddress.org.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your repeated removal of content from Talk:Bitcoin
Stop your disruptive editing immediately. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Bitcoin, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. ''Repeated unexplained removal of talk page discussions with a misleading edit summary. There has been no content added to the archive since 25 November, and a look at your contributions shows that you have just deleted the material not moved it anywhere, yet your edit summary says "To archive". Which archive?'' Thomas.W   talk to me  09:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thomas had jumped too soon to conclusions and suspicions again. The threads were right where they belong in Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisarnesen (talk • contribs)
 * I did not jump to conclusions and suspicions. The content you removed from Talk:Bitcoin wasn't added to the archive until after I warned you, long after you started to delete material with the edit summary "To archive". In addition to that you made mass deletions of content from the talk page just a few days ago, with no intent to archive it until after being warned by me. So the warning stands. Thomas.W   talk to me  12:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , I was cutting sections from the Talk:Bitcoin page one by one and pasting them into a single edit of the Archive page. That's a heckuva lot easier than having to re-edit the archive page for each and every section that I archive. I appreciate that you brought it to my attention some time ago that the discussions need to be archived. Now please trust me. If I say I'm writing a thread to the archive, I am. I also don't understand why you have to escalate the tone of conversation so rapidly. You veteran Wikipedians are supposed to be nice and help us newbies out. You go from not saying a word to dropping warnings on my home page because I didn't hit the "save page" button frequently enough for your taste. Chris Arnesen 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What part of "stop your manual archiving" is it that you don't understand? It is clearly disruptive, especially since not everyone editing the article seems to agree with your claims about a consensus for some of your edits. The discussions on the talk page should stay there until they're automatically archived so that your claims about consensus can be easily checked. Thomas.W   talk to me  19:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that I strongly disagree. I hate to break it to you, but you're not helping. You're actually a disruptive force. I looked back a ways through the version history of the Bitcoin article and I can't find a single constructive contribution by you, only undos of other people's edits. That is counter-productive. If you want to help, why don't you weigh in on any of the 30+ threads that I DIDN'T archive? We don't need you to police the talk page. We need your constructive contributions. I don't want to have to waste more time talking to you about this. If there's a thread you feel that I've archived prematurely, please resurrect it from the archive with your constructive comments. Otherwise stay out of it. Chris Arnesen 20:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, just a quick opinion from a third party to hopefully quell some of the tension here. Firstly, though the warning is fair, it was a little premature Thomas. I think it was fairly obvious that Chris was attempting to archive discussions by removing them one at a time, before making one big save on the archive page; you would have realised this with a little investigating. I can see your point about premature archiving however, although when to condense pages says that "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections" it's probably best not to do this for discussions you have started yourself, as this could be construed as closing a discussion in favour of your own opinion. Perhaps being a little less hasty and letting other editors reply to your questions and suggestions, maybe even asking a few people directly on their talk page to chime in, would be a good idea in future before making edits and archiving discussions. You're both trying to help and could do with assuming good faith in each other, we're all here to achieve the same thing. Just my two cents :) Samwalton9 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sam, your diplomacy is greatly appreciated. I really think that those old discussions distract us from making progress on the many threads that still do require action, but I'll stop archiving now because all this meta-discussion about whether or not to archive is clearly even more distracting. Chris Arnesen 22:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bitcoin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Server (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) 09:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How to use multiple citations to support a single claim or single sentence
Hi. Just so you know, the proper way to use citations in concert is to enclose two or more citations within one tag.

So, you should end up with something like:
 * Where the ellipses represent the citation information.
 * Where the ellipses represent the citation information.

This is what a real one would look like:

...which would come out as:

Toothpaste, or dentifrice, is an abrasive paste that often contain fluoride.

Cuckoo Cycle : Conflict of interest
Hi, Chris. Some comments on your undoing of my PoW entry: As to verifiability, my paper has the same status as some other PoWs listed there. Since its original announcement in early January, it has been looked at by many people in the cryptography and cryptocurrency people, including people who designed their own PoWs, and none have found any flaw in it. It has also just been published on the cryptology eprint server at http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/059, just like e.g. the Hokkaido PoW listed there. As to conflict of interest, it would be limited to "Citing yourself", which, quoting "is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work." I see you are very interested in bitcoin yourself. You should be able to assess the paper's qualities. Let me know if you find any problems with it. regards, -John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tromp (talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Mastercoin for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mastercoin 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 Articles for deletion/Mastercoin & 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 notice from the top of the article. Citation Needed &#x007C;  Talk  12:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Reflinks
Hello, I saw your edit on Wikipedia, intending to use Reflinks to format a New York Times reference. Sad to say, NYT urls are skipped by this tool. I prefer to format them manually instead.-- Auric    talk  03:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It didn't work for me either! I ended up doing it by hand instead too. That stinks. Does the reflinks maintainer know about that shortcoming? NY Times is a my favorite paper! Chris Arnesen 03:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably. I discovered this tool which should help.-- Auric    talk  04:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "No information returned by NYTimes API." Chris Arnesen 04:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's strange...-- Auric    talk  04:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LocalBitcoins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATM (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) 09:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

stop reverting
Hi, it is standard practice to fill up, not empty, categories nominated for deletion/merging. If the category is deleted, the contents can be merged to the parent. In the meantime you should not empty it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The category is fundamentally flawed. How do you plan to draw the line between exchange and not? Why are you wasting your time modifying all those article? You're undoing the work that I did last weekend in preparation for deletion of the category. Category:Bitcoin doesn't need subcategories. You'd be better off weighing in on the deletion proposal than undoing work that'll just need to get redone in next week when the category gets deleted.Chris Arnesen 21:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop subcategorizing Bitcoin!!! Chris Arnesen 21:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal - we regularly separate people from other topics, so they can show up in wider "people" trees. There's no work to be undone - if the subcat of exchanges is deleted, then it will just get merged to the parent by a bot. No work needed on your end. Relax, it will be fine. You need to make your case why this cat should be deleted. I'm still on the fence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for the info on the procedure here. This is my first time going through a topic-wide re-subcategorization. I don't think subcategories are necessary but it's good to know that it'll be easy enough to merge later if that's the consensus. I'll just see where it goes. As per your advice, I'll relax now. Cheers, Chris Arnesen 22:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read Categories_for_discussion, you'll see in the header this rule: "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." The purpose of this is so that the community can see the potential of the category. If the category is empty, obviously people will vote to delete it, but if we can put valid contents in, that gives a better setup. Thus, you should not empty a category to prepare it for deletion, nor remove its parents. Instead, just nominate it as is. I will sometimes add items to a category just as a way of understanding the potential, and even they I may vote to delete it - it's only a few articles, so not a big deal. To this particular issue, the nomination should be changed to "Merge", as it seems you do want to merge the contents back to Bitcoin (as opposed to delete). If there are truly definition issues around Bitcoin exchanges, and what qualifies, you need to elaborate that argument at CFD; additionally, you need to address whether the definitional issues apply to the parent - personally I think that's the strongest argument to delete, which is we don't need to have a category for Ripple, for bitcoin, for all of the other currency + exchange, it is enough to have a single category for all exchanges. But, I'm still on the fence, but you should prepare an argument and make it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for walking me through the process. I shouldn't have started just willy-nilly reverting. Chris Arnesen 22:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BTC-E logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:BTC-E logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Ripple_(payment_protocol)
Hi Chris,

A while ago you offered to help clean up the Ripple article. Right now I'm still involved in a protracted content dispute with User:PirateButtercup, but he also complained about the quality of the prose I'm proposing. Could you have a look at it and help improve it? If you could also help guide us towards consensus that would be great too. Thanks!

Martijn

July 2014
Hello, Chrisarnesen, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. -- dsprc   [talk]  03:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Chrisarnesen. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- dsprc   [talk]  03:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That's rich welcoming me to Wikipedia. I have like thousands of edits on a whole range of topics. And moreover, like you, I'm a champion of encouraging people to disclose their COIs (though I voted against the recent TOS change because the whole thing felt like a witch hunt). I really don't appreciate you posting this threat on my talk page. Look at my user page. I link to my LinkedIn profile!!! You're giving me a hard time for trying to help Expresscoin do right by the policies, though in this case clearly I was missing an important element of the equation (that shared company accounts aren't allowed, which seems silly but nevermind.) Chris Arnesen 03:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Namaste. There is no threat, and no one is giving you a hard time; relax. I only plastered this boilerplate so you could be better informed on these policies. You were missing these elements, now you have them. At your leisure, you may also peruse and become further acquainted with other Polices at List of policies. Again, please exercise caution when editing in topic categories where you may have a conflict of interest. Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia. -- dsprc   [talk]  04:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Realize that when you post on a user's talk page and your post starts out "THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN THE USER IS BLOCKED" (emphasis is yours), it feels threatening like if I don't take some unspecified action to defend myself I might get blocked. So here's a wiki-link back at ya: Civility. I can only infer from you having posted on my talk page that you're dropping that template all around town. Much obliged if you'd take a moment to consider the recipient and whether they've actually done anything to indicate a potential conflict of interest before you hit that "Save page" button. Chris Arnesen 05:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you daft? I'm not sure what you are going on about but I never said anything about blocking or removing anything; the template mentioned blocking, but only if you violate policy; so don't, and you're cool. All I said was use some discretion and caution when editing in areas that you may have a potential conflict of interest. I wouldn't even have boilerplated you if you didn't mention that you created a shared account for your startup in the first place. This is against policy; rather than assume good faith, I assume no clue. Now you know. I again offer Sock puppetry as guidance in this regard. Thank you, and Namaste. -- dsprc   [talk]  11:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * : You obviously haven't read the full text that gets transcluded onto a page when you paste that COI warning template. Please do so. My admission to Expresscoin that I had created a company page was in the context of us both trying to figure out how to do right by Wikipedia. I've read the sock puppet page, and intend to adhere to the policy, thanks for reminding me of its existence.Chris Arnesen 15:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hehe. :) Don't assume bad faith, it is just a maintenance notice for cleanup; You should also read the rest of it too though, and consider the intent of it. It didn't seem like a big deal to me. However, you are encouraged to propose and discuss an alteration to the wording of the template uw-coi at the user space templates discussion page (and to notify the Twinkle maintainers of discussion too). I've removed the text from your talk page in any event, should that assuage you. It was not my intention to upset, tizzy nor to threaten. Thank you, and Namaste. :) -- dsprc   [talk]  20:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)