User talk:Chrisarnesen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Chrisarnesen/Archive 1

How to use multiple citations to support a single claim or single sentence[edit]

Hi. Just so you know, the proper way to use citations in concert is to enclose two or more citations within one <ref></ref> tag.

So, you should end up with something like:

<ref>For X, see ...
  • for Y, see ...
  • for Z, see... </ref>
Where the ellipses represent the citation information.

This is what a real one would look like:

<ref>For toothpaste as an abrasive, see {{cite news |last=Matonis |first=Jon |title=Bitcoin Casinos Release 2012 Earnings |url= |work=Forbes |location=New York |date=22 January 2013 |archiveurl= |archivedate=16 February 2013 |deadurl=no}} *For fluoridation, see {{cite web | url= | title=The Bitcoin Boom | publisher=Conde Nast | work=The New Yorker | date=4/2/13 | accessdate=22 December 2013 | author=Bustillos, Maria }}</ref>

...which would come out as:

Toothpaste, or dentifrice, is an abrasive paste that often contain fluoride.[1]


  1. ^ For toothpaste as an abrasive, see Matonis, Jon (22 January 2013). "Bitcoin Casinos Release 2012 Earnings". Forbes (New York). Archived from the original on 16 February 2013. "Responsible for more than 50% of daily network volume on the Bitcoin blockchain, SatoshiDice reported first year earnings from wagering at an impressive ฿33,310." 
    • For fluoridation, see Bustillos, Maria (4/2/13). "The Bitcoin Boom". The New Yorker. Conde Nast. Retrieved 22 December 2013. "...there seems to be a consensus forming around Bitcoin, capitalized, for the system, the software, and the network it runs on, and bitcoin, lowercase, for the currency itself" 

Cuckoo Cycle : Conflict of interest[edit]

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, 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 (talkcontribs) 14:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Mastercoin for deletion[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mastercoin (2nd nomination) 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 | Talk 12:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


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)

@Auric: 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

@Obiwankenobi: 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)
@Obiwankenobi: 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)
@Obiwankenobi: 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 Wikipedia: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 Category:Digital currency exchangers - 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)
@Obiwankenobi: 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[edit]


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)[edit]

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!