User talk:Fleetham

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

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fastenal may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Tata Nano[edit]

You have undone eight months of changes with the simple comment of "restore" on Tata Nano - [1]. I assume this was a simple mistake rather than an extreme case of page ownership! Feel free to reply here if I have misunderstood. - Ttwaring (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Information icon Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Tata Nano has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Note that this edit of yours is nothing short of SNEAKY VANDALISM. Do this again and you'll find yourself back on the chopping board of ANI, which I've warned you sometime back. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 04:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Tata Nano photos[edit]

Any reason you removed 2 Tata Nano Photo without any comment?

Ctny (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


Hello. I have reverted your latest edit to Lavasa since it is both unsourced and unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a place for pure speculations such as "Surrounding villages are thought likely to spring up organically around Lavasa and cater to the needs of city residents. Some have been the focus of CSR efforts." or "As of 2013, a graduate-level certificate in accounting is planned to be later offered by an educational institution inside the city proper" (see WP:CRYSTAL). Phrases like that might be at home in a promotional brochure or something, but they most definitely do not fit in here. So any further attempt from you (or anyone else) to introduce speculations and/or unsourced content will be reverted at sight, with whatever warnings that might be appropriate. Thomas.W talk to me 17:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

My talk page[edit]

I would would like to know

A) Why you dumped 40K of text there, and
B) Why you seem to have tried to remove my comment about your recently somewhat strange editing behaviour, particularly on Lavasa.

I'm looking forward to your answers. Thomas.W talk to me 19:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I apologize for the massive attack of text. I should have placed it in my sandbox, but it's full of preferential voting stuff. So I can't. Won't happen again, and I would appreciate it if someone would help look after the pages I often edit as I have no systematic method of reference gathering; it's just a jumble of easily accessible sources pinned together with thin prose. Fleetham (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
You can have more than one sandbox-page, just name them sandbox1, sandbox2, sandbox3 etc. And I'm still waiting for an answer to the second question... Thomas.W talk to me 17:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I do know of subpages beyond sandboxes like the ones about the Indian children. IDK why I tried to remove something nor remember the question itself. Fleetham (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

How to link to an earlier version of an article[edit]

Don't post a copy of the previous section on User talk:Thomas.W. Don't post two versions of an entire article on his page either, or on anybody else's user talkpage. It's not good to bloat up a user talkpage in that manner (and even the page table of contents!), and not necessary. If the long texts, footnotes and all, which you posted on Thomas are versions of Lavasa as edited by you, then I suggest you simply link to those versions and ask Thomas about them. The way to link to a selected version of the article is to go to the article's history, look at the chronological list of edits you see there, and click on the time and date of the version you want to discuss. The URL of the page you are now on is the link you want. Post it to Thomas. For instance, the URL of the article version you edited last looks like this: Hope this helps. I was going to remove the repetitious texts, but Thomas got there before I did. You'll have to add the links yourself, since I don't know what versions you want. Another idea: just describe the versions you want to discuss, for instance by saying "my last version" or giving the timestamps of them or something, and Thomas, who is an experienced user, will find them. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC).

Still waiting...[edit]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions under the heading "My talk page". And I noticed that you made an edit to Lavasa, I haven't had time to look at it though, but I will (I hope you realise that you're out on thin ice on Lavasa...). I also intend to take a look at previous edits you have made, not only on Lavasa, because there seems to be a disturbing pattern in what you're doing. Thomas.W talk to me 15:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kit (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) 11:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox automobile[edit]

Hi. There is a debate at Template:Infobox automobile whether to change the title style from how it has been so far, from outside the infobox to the inside. If you consider that it should remain outside the infobox (as in Template:Infobox company for example), please express your opinion at Template talk:Infobox automobile. Thank you. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bitcoin and Reddit-warring. Thank you. --Laser brain (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin lede bias[edit]

The problem is that I do not think your changes actually do reflect the article as a whole, and even if they did I also believe that the lede should always be balanced, due to the majority of users reading this article being completely new to Bitcoin. The greater contents of the article should allow the user to form their own opinion with a much more verbose explanation of the happenings of Bitcoin. A non-neutral lede will color a reader's expectations and perception for the rest of the article. There are plenty of opportunities to list the various illegitimate uses of Bitcoin throughout the rest of the article. One line or two with one source or two in favor of showing Bitcoin's legitimate use and the same for Bitcoin's illegitimate use is fair and reasonable, I believe. I hope that helps explain my reasoning. Orbixx (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that your edits really reflect the article as a whole? The aspect of Bitcoin being used for illegitimate purposes is an extremely valid talking point, but it is overaggerated. One only needs to look at the Trade link (see bottom of article) to see the legitimate use. All I want to see is neutrality when Bitcoin is written about, on Wikipedia moreso than anywhere else. Your edits dwarfed the single sentence indicating the legitimate use of Bitcoin in the lede, making it seem like there is an agenda of some sort. Let's keep it to an equal ratio of good/bad connotations. I don't mind which it starts with, start with legitimate/illegitimate use - it doesn't matter, but the written content and source content should not be outweighed on either side. Does that sound agreeable, or at least somewhat reasonable? Orbixx (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Mrcatzilla's recent edit is exactly the sort of thing I think is reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbixx (talkcontribs) 18:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A reference problem Bitcoin[edit]

(editconflict) Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names.

Here you added a new ref name=toomanyspecs & ref name=washp but didn't define it. This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. Cite error: The named reference was invoked but never defined. Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks --Frze (talk · contribs) 18:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Check bitcoin talk please[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canton (talkcontribs) 16:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I am offering you help in understanding Bitcoin technically[edit]

Bitcoin consists of SHA-256(redirects to SHA-2) and Digital signatures. I'm offering you help in learning more about them. I would begin with explaining what use a Digital signature is in Bitcoin and how they have been used since at least 2001 by certificate authorities. This is easy for me to explain if you have prior experience browsing to a website that supports https. Also I can only help if you wish to learn, so it's up to you. Nevertheless I like sharing knowledge and improve my own Logictheo (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Encryption - No encryption is used. Only digital signatures There is no encryption(Did you mean Cryptography?) used in Bitcoin, all Bitcoin transactions are public and need to be publicly accessible on the Internet for the system to function. Logictheo (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC) no more questions? Logictheo (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your rewrite of the bitcoin article[edit]

Just a heads up I mention you here: By no means am I saying 'step aside' on the Bitcoin article -- if you've got a bone to pick, then by all means, pick away -- but I am asking you to reconsider making unilateral sweeping changes that include the wholesale deletion of others' work. Do you believe that you're so unbiased in the matter of Bitcoin that you're the right person to be applying 27,000 character deletions and whole-article reorganizations? Canton (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Canton +1. Fleetham did the same thing to me too. Dude, just give some reasons like everyone else; use Talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbondi (talkcontribs) 03:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edits on Bitcoin.[edit]

I have restored the material that you, with no previous discussion and without the support of other editors, removed from Bitcoin. Do not make that type of edits unless there is a clear consensus on the talk page of the article supporting it! Thomas.W talk to me 16:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

ping:Thomas.W +1. Fleetham just did the same thing to me too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbondi (talkcontribs) 03:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bitcoin, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Caution for unexplained removal of 6K bytes of content from the article, with a misleading edit summary saying "clarifying". Removing almost all of the technical content isn't "clarifying". Thomas.W talk to me 18:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Baidu and Bitcoin[edit]

The problem is that after the story came out, it emerged that a lot was "lost in translation" from the Chinese press and the report that Baidu as an organization was doing anything en masse with regard to Bitcoin was not accurate. It was only ever a tiny subsidiary of Baidu (Jaisule) that was accepting Bitcoin (see [2]) and then they ceased to accept it after the central bank announcement. So it's not really accurate to say Baidu either accepts or does not accept Bitcoin without qualifying that it's just that one service. It's been difficult to find reliable sources on any of this because the American press still doesn't understand Bitcoin, and they certainly don't seem to understand what the Chinese press is even reporting.

Don't worry about "berating"; if I had a problem with my edits being questioned or reverted when they are wrong, I would have left Wikipedia long ago. I'm interested only in what's best for the article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin Article Edits[edit]

Fleetham a lot of your edits aren't helpful. If something isn't correctly sourced, please first look for a good source before simply deleting something. I've noticed you've got habit of making big edits which actually aren't helpful.

"Some call it a cryptocurrency" - everyone calls Bitcoin a cryptocurrency. I'm not sure what prompted this edit? "removed mention of a "proof of work" system because not mentioned in source" - then find a better source - the proof of work system is what makes the payment verifications possible. It doesn't add value to the article to remove this. "removed unhelpful diagram (what is this depicting?)" - The diagram depicts how a bitcoin transaction takes place - it is helpful, you shouldn't have removed it. Why did you removed the reference to the "early technical problems of 2009"? Your edits regarding China removed valuable information and don't present a balanced view of what's going on in china. Further it wasn't Baidu but rather a subsidiary thereof which had been accepting bitcoin — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinceSamios (talkcontribs) 09:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the Bitcoin page[edit]

I appreciate the editing experience, grammatical precision, and skepticism that you bring to the Bitcoin page. We may disagree sometimes on content but you're always willing to express your thoughts clearly on the talk page. So thanks! Chris Arnesen 17:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bitcoin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Post | date=19 October 2013 | accessdate=21 October 2013 | author=Wyher, Tommy}}</ref> [[Circa|C.]]] 2013 legitimate transactions were thought to be far less than the number involved in the purchase

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning : you've used up your three reverts for the day[edit]

One more would be edit warring. Chris Arnesen 23:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning : You're edit warring[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. It's not bold revert revert discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisarnesen (talkcontribs) 17:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for my personal attack on Talk:Bitcoin[edit]

I've just read Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and conclude that some of my recent comments directed to you on Talk:Bitcoin were indeed a personal attack. I sincerely apologize and vow not to make it a habit. Regards, Chris Arnesen 20:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please challenge verifiability on the talk page first instead of summarily removing content for lack of citation[edit]

As you know, content included on Wikipedia not only needs to be true, it also needs to be verifiable. You recently removed several statements from the Bitcoin article with an edit summary, "removed mention of things that, while possibly true, aren't mentioned in the citation at the end of the sentence". I just want to make sure you understand that absence of an in-line citation is not sufficient grounds for removal of content. When an editor removes uncited content for lack of a citation, he is also implicity challenging the verifiability of the content. That is to say that the editor is implicitly asserting that not only has a reliable source not yet been found and cited, such a source could not be found. In the case of the recent removals from the Bitcoin article, a reliable source was easy to find, and I've since restored the content with in-line citations (leaving in place some of your language enhancements, thanks). In the future though, I ask that you only remove content that you feel is truly unverifiable, not just not-yet-cited.Chris Arnesen 21:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In future, I will go looking for sources before I remove anything. Some of the content I deleted I knew to be true, so I apologize for the extra work this caused you. Fleetham (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Fleetham, I have explained this to you many times in the past. As always, I recommend placing {{cn}} or {{fact}} tags on the bits you suspect and then waiting a bit for other editors to add citations. Also, these tags should be used sparingly and only on things that seem doubtful. Every sentence in an article does not need a citation.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers I will concede that I am a bit of a citation-freak. I'll look for citations myself, but if I'm hasty citation needed is always better than a deletion. Fleetham (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Double ref[edit]

Hi Fleetham,

Today I noticed that an important reference had gone missing. I traced it back to this edit with summary "remove double reffing". The statement was that there are more than twenty thousand online merchants accepting bitcoin. One reference was for Coinbase's 10k+ merchants, the other for BitPays's. Neither alone had 20k+ so both references were important to establishing the statement. I'll re-add the removed citation. I'll try to make it as a single reference to avoid double-reffing, which I agree should usually be avoided.

Cheers, Chris Arnesen 19:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll explain later how to add two or more references to support a single claim. Fleetham (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the lesson on my talk page! I've used that a couple times already on other articles. Chris Arnesen 22:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Smaller edits[edit]


Much appreciated if you could make fewer changes in a single edit. When you do a combination of moving, modifying, and removing content all in one edit, it's harder for the rest of us to see what's changed.

Thanks, Chris Arnesen 22:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Cut and paste[edit]


From Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Repairing_text_plagiarism "Material that is plagiarized but which does not violate copyright does not need to be removed from Wikipedia if it can be repaired." Instead of summarily removing those cut and pasted sentences about the pizza purchase, a better approach would be to simply modify the language or flag the issue on the talk page so that one of us other editors could do it. Chris Arnesen 23:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sentence removed[edit]

I'm not sure if you meant to, but you removed "Bitcoin-Qt can be used as a desktop wallet for regular payments or as a server utility for merchants and other payment services." That's actually important.

Bitcoin brainstorming[edit]

I want to discuss a couple of points without needing to make the talk completely public. Hope you do not mind. You wrote: " you think we could find some sources that state Bitcoin doesn't need to have any intrinsic value outside of acting as a medium of exchange to work? Would that help with whatever perceived NPOV issues?" This helped me to look at the subject from a greater distance and try to summarize the issues:

  • cirics, e.g., Paul Krugman state that bitcoin does not have any intrinsic value
  • there are sources stating that value is never intrinsic, e.g. Ludwig von Mises; they can be interpreted as agreeing with the point on one hand, making the point irrelevant, on the other
  • other pundits, e.g., Bank of America's FX and Rate Strategist David Woo state that bitcoin does have a "fair value", which is a result of his analysis, and as such, it is in Wikipedia called (perhaps misleadingly) intrinsic value, or, (perhaps less misleadingly) fundamental value
  • Paul Krugman, in reaction to such analyses dismised the results pointing out that the value obtained was "extrinsic". I cannot help but agree with his point, knowing that value is always extrinsic.

So, now is the time to straighten the mess in my head and try to make some sense of it. Do you have any inspiration from which end to start? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

My above thoughts, of course, don't exclude the possibility that certain sources stated that there was no need for bitcoin to have any intrinsic value. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with me, now I think I have got a pretty reasonable idea how to handle this issue. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Your last restore[edit]

I guess that you made an error when trying to restore some material. I think that it would be better to revert your change and revert the change HLachman made as a cure. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Bitcoin". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 03:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Urban beekeeping edit[edit]


I see you removed the link to the French urban bee health study. I was wondering why? Andy Sherman (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


Twice now you've moved "The so-called "Satoshi client" can be used as a desktop wallet for regular payments or as a server utility for merchants and other payment services. Bitcoin-Qt is sometimes referred to as the reference client because it serves to define the Bitcoin protocol and acts as a standard for other implementations." from the software section to the history section. That's not history. That's reality and a very important one at that. Please stop moving it. Chris Arnesen 16:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Confused: 1) you thanked me, then 2) deleted what I wrote, and 3) called the deletion "rearrange new material"??[edit]

Hi Fleetham, I undid your deletion of my addition to the Bitcoin entry, since you gave no reason for deleting it. Could you please share why you did that? Thank you, /rb

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you commented at the edit warring noticeboard. I'm not saying I'll block you if you don't, although you obviously violated WP:3RR, but it would be a sign of good faith to do so. I'd also appreciate it if you keep it brief. Just because the other user posted a long message doesn't mean you have to respond in kind. At this point, I'm leaning toward warning you and the other user rather than blocking you both, but I haven't come to a firm conclusion yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Urban Beekeeping page response[edit]

Thanks for the quick feedback Fleetham. I will make this change and do look forward to learning more about the world of Wiki. Paulajgill (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 7 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

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 Department of Justice (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) 08:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, please show some respect for other editors´ contributions on the Bitcoin page.[edit]

Fleetham, please show some respect for other editors´ contributions on the Bitcoin page. You do not own this article. Who gave you the final say in every edit on this article? Please show some respect for others. Thank you.ChocTinFoil (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)