Archives

1

Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.

• Main Introduction — What is Wikipedia?
• Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers — A good starting point.
• The Five Pillars — What are the principles behind Wikipedia?
• Quick Introductions to:

• Policies and guidelines — How does Wikipedia actually work?
• Talk pages — How do I communicate in Wikipedia?
• Referencing — How do I add sources to articles?
• Uploading images — How do I add and use images?
• Navigating Wikipedia — How do I find my way around?

• What Wikipedia is not - even though everyone can edit it, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the many help pages.

• Google: Wikipedia is very well indexed by Google. Searching for a term, even about an editing question, followed by "wiki" or "wikipedia" usually pulls up what you need.

• Check out Help:Watching pages. Your own Watchlist can become your favorite place to visit.
• If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
• If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
• If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Wikipedia's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
• For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page or the Wikipedia:Teahouse page could be your next stop!

• Help:Starting editing

Good luck and happy editing.```Buster Seven Talk 14:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Surround sound, you jumped in and reworked the page, but you did not follow talk page guidelines. I'm going to do some cleaning up after your work, as you were not supposed to rewrite the questions of others, or change the headers. You should instead answer questions as they stand, or start new entries. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your refactoring of Talk:White spirit. It is not really ok to refactor the comments of other editors in this way. Adding a bolded action to comments is putting on an emphasis the origial writer may not have intended. You also moved comments out of their original order which loses the context in some cases, and you moved parts of some comments away from their signatures making it hard to determine who said it. As User:Binksternet said to you in January, this sort of thing is against talk page guidelines. SpinningSpark 18:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will comply with the guidelines but your comments indicate that you did not read either the before or after versions. Your comments about emphasis, context and signatures are not correct in this case. The article, as it is, has a problem and you have reverted an effort to resolve that problem. So be it. Arbalest Mike (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are my comments not correct? I read both versions quite carefully. SpinningSpark 19:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, I am happy to drop my edits - this is to reply to your question only.

You said: Adding a bolded action to comments is putting on an emphasis the origial writer may not have intended.

Of the four sections relating to merging this article, one is in consensus-voting formatting. Since the other three relate to just that, I have added the summary "vote" to match the fourth in a way that is unambiguous from the content of each comment. Per the guidelines I added the bold text per:

Avoid excessive emphasis:

Bolding may be used ...most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view

Yes, but the bolding should be done by the person writing the comment, not by someone else. In any case, while this is a common practice in some types of discussion, most of the time we try to avoid polarizing the discussion in this way. It certainly should not be retrospectively done years after the discussion. SpinningSpark 22:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said: You also moved comments out of their original order which loses the context in some cases, and you moved parts of some comments away from their signatures making it hard to determine who said it.

Yes, in two cases a single comment was split in two and the signature was lost on the former part - my mistake. But no, as for context, I corrected the format with respect to threading per the guideline of acceptable edits. I should have also indented the entry by Tealwisp.

The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below...

Keep the layout clear:

Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, using standard formatting and threading

You must not split comments that were made in one edit. You must not change the order comments were made in. That is going beyond tidying up the layout and is outside what is considered acceptable nowadays for editing the comments of others. SpinningSpark 22:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One section was headed with "Merge?" and two more were headed with "Merge with Mineral Spirits"

Per Editing comments - Section headings:

It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed

It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading

If all you had done was run the sections together under one heading, I would probably have left it alone. SpinningSpark 22:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that there are four Talk sections related to the question of merging. While the consensus is opposed to merging, the article itself is still using the terms interchangeably. Look at the main article section headed with "Use" and see that the terms are used in an alternating way where one cannot tell if one or two (or even three) things are being discussed.Arbalest Mike (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that mineral spirits has already been merged into this article in 2011 so these old threads are really only of historic interest. If you want the issue discussed on the talk page, I would recommend a new thread for clarity. SpinningSpark 22:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! It looks like a user, who had not contributed to the article or talk page previously, made the merge (with no mention on the talk page) then 10 minutes afterwards added the move request to the talk page. The move request closed later with the consensus being "No consensus... to move" yet the article remained merged. The text from the Mineral Spirits page was pasted over into the White Spirits page as-is which is the source of the ambiguity resulting from inconsistent naming. The result is a confusing page with no mention of the merge in the talk page. And my clean-up of the talk page (consistent with guidelines) is a problem? Arbalest Mike (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't recommend (and will not do) an edit of the main article to make the naming consistent while there is still disagreement on whether they are the same solvent. A better solution, it seems, is a clean talk page section where a subject matter expert can see what is going on before making changes. Perhaps someone, like you, can archive the current talk content about this and make a new section. Arbalest Mike (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been very iffy to do a merge while it was still being discussed, but the discussion was two years old, had not reached any conclusion, and there had been no further comment for over a year. We should assume good faith, the editor may not even have noticed that there was a discussion. Even if he had, editors are allowed, even encouraged, to be bold. Anyone could have boldly undone the merge (they still can), but no one seems to have been interested enough to even comment on it on the talk page.

As I understand it, the two terms are synonymous, it is mostly just a matter of the difference between US and UK terminology, although there might possibly be a difference in specifications between the two countries. I can see a great number of book sources that say they are synonyms[1][2][3][4][5][6]. Given that, a merge was not such a terrible thing to do. Only this one makes a distinction, and that might be a peculiarly British usage of mineral spirit. Also, both terms seem to be pretty generic and can be the synonym of various other chemicals, see Handbook of Green Chemicals.

You are, of course, right that the article should be using a consistent terminology throughout. SpinningSpark 15:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike. I jumped the gun on an edit of yours and quickly self-reverted. Just wanted to let you know I did then go to your talk-page comments and did agree with your edit. My apology for editing too quickly there! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Tolly Burkan. If you Google my name, you will see I have worked hard for 38 years to show that firewalking is not paranormal and that anyone can do it. There are literally thousands of references that confirm this. I taught many celebrities, including Tony Robbins. Every mention of me is cited and referenced. However, there is a group of people who dislike me and are attempting to remove my name wherever it appears in Wikipedia. Their disruptive editing and vandalism is on just three pages: Tony Robbins, Tolly Burkan, and Firewalking. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Robbins, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolly_Burkan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewalking) Now, after being in Wikipedia for maybe 10 years, I am being considered for deletion on the basis I am not "notable." I have been written about in over 70 books, including these books by mainstream publishers: HEAT by Bill Streever Little, Brown and Company 2013, THE FOUR SPIRITUAL LAWS OF PROSPERITY by Edwene Gaines Rodale Books 2005, FIREWALKING AND RELIGIOUS HEALING by Loring M. Danforth, Ph.D. Princeton University Press 1989, HARPER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MYSTICAL AND PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE by Rosemary Ellen Guiley Harper Collins 1994, HEALING STATES by Alberto Villoldo, Ph.D. and Stanley Krippner, Ph.D. Simon & Schuster 1987, TOO MUCH IS NOT ENOUGH by Orson Bean Lyle Stuart 1988, DAVE BARRY'S GREATEST HITS by Dave Barry Ballantine Books 1988, FIREWALK: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PHYSICAL IMMUNITY by Jonathan Sternfield Berkshire House 1992, SECRETS OF SUPERSTAR SPEAKERS by Lilly Walters McGraw-Hill 2000, MIND GAMES by Michael Powell Barnes & Noble 2004, LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH IN SPIRIT by Alan Cohen Hay House 1996, SWITCHED-ON LIVING by Jerry V. Teplitz, J.D., Ph.D.Hampton Roads Publishing 1994, DANCING WITH THE FIRE by Michael Sky Bear & Company 1989. If any editor takes the time to research me on Amazon.com, you can see all the other books that speak about me and my work. Over the years, people have expanded descriptions of my work in Wikipedia, and have put all the needed citations and references on the entries. Yet, one man and his associates keep deleting valid facts and references. Is there any way to stop this? Thank you very much for looking into this. (tolly@tollyburkan.com)73.12.138.134 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, I am Tolly Burkan. We have interacted before and you were extremely helpful. I have written a number of books that have been translated into many languages, so I am a credible writer and a public person. One of your own editors has tried to stop whomever it is that is trying to erase me from any history about FIREWALKING or TONY ROBBINS. Since who I am and what I have done is not open to debate, the fact that someone at Wiki can try to alter history by constantly deleting my name — even when the posting is historical, documented, and well-referenced — only proves that Wikipedia is neither a reliable nor credible resource. Perhaps you are someone who is concerned about historical accuracy in Wikipedia and you will look into the vandalism and disruptive editing. Also, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScrapIronIV. The last discussion is between two Wiki editors. If you check the history on TONY ROBBINS and FIREWALKING, you will see why I am calling this to your attention. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.138.134 (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tolly, please read carefully and thoroughly about conflicts of interest. If you add citations to yourself, they will likely be removed even if they are otherwise suitable. Tayste (edits) 00:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't care, even if he is willing to read any relevant policy. I doubt he even reads any of the responses to comments he leaves. This sort of editing and associated disputes have been going on forever. He is not clear about what the Wikipedia is (e.g., see "one of your own editors" comment above) and ALL of his edits are to either the page about him or the page about the thing he does. All COI. Arbalest Mike (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your revert of solution : Lots of providers might offer open source, but aren't they all trying to "sell" us a "solution" even though the price might be very low to vanishing? Just a little food for thought. -- Kku 17:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I take your point and I did not make the change without considering if I was over-doing it. I would not be opposed to "solution selling" being in a "see also" section. I just am concerned about solution stacks being conflated with something that is "sold" as opposed to something that just "is". The range of their use includes an individual, a high school club, or who/what ever who has a project in mind and seeks, then chooses, one of these stacks on their own -- as their basis to build on. Arbalest Mike (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Arbalest Mike: We can't do anything unless you tell us your IP (it should be in the blocking message you receive when you try to edit Wikipedia). Vanjagenije (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a curious thing. The block message lists this range: 69.3.0.0/16. However, my actual IP address is NOT in this range. My provider (very knowledgeable local group) doesn't know how this IP is even showing up on your end. For what it's worth, my real IP address is 69.3.230.170 Arbalest Mike (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your address is in the range - a /16 is 65536 addresses and will be 69.3.0.0 to 69.3.255.255 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entering your address Special:Contributions/69.3.230.170 shows "19:53, 26 May 2017 Ks0stm (talk | contribs | block) blocked 69.3.0.0/16 (talk) with an expiration time of 2 years (account creation blocked) ({{colocationwebhost}}: https://www.megapath.com/cloud-it/cloud-hosting/)" User:Ks0stm is the blocking admin to talk to. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The block page instructs me to appeal by putting this template in my talk page with an explanation. You are contradicting that by telling my to contact the admin directly? I certainly cannot edit his/her talk page because of the block. I don't know how else to contact a user.

Also,it seems then that all 65,536 addresses are blocked from editing the WP because the are associated with a company that does whatever they do. Yet I am a customer of one of their customers and I get a single IP address as part of my DSL plan. What can anyone do about that? Arbalest Mike (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all addresses in the range are blocked from editing. And yes, you did the right thing with posting the unblock template message. Just, be a little patient. We are waiting for Ks0stm to help us. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can wait. Hopefully you can make an exception for single IP addresses. It would be a shame to block random contributors in blind sweeps like this. Arbalest Mike (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well? Did Ks0stm actually block 65,000+ IP addresses with no discretion then go on vacation? Arbalest Mike (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Checkuser needed Can this be solved? Is this really a web host? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes CUs are a little loose with the template they use when they are blocking a proxy server. I wouldn't call MegaPath a webhost, but its IPs would not generally be used by ordinary users. I personally have never blocked a range that wide, and in looking at the picture now (it may have been different on May 26), I personally wouldn't have blocked the range. Arbalest Mike's statement that he edits from only one IP is correct, at least in the last 90 days. I also don't see any reason why he should be blocked. I know what action I would like to take, but I'm hesitant to step on another CU's toes. Arbalest Mike says Ks0stm is "on vacation". Does anyone know that for sure and, if so, when he's supposed to return? Vanjagenije, I suggest you e-mail Ks0stm. If you don't get a response within say the next two days, let me know, and I'll consider changing the block. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user page for Ks0stm said "status: Busy" or something to that effect when I made my last comment -- a little sarcasm. A while ago I changed from MegaPath to a small local provider which must be reselling MegaPath service. In any case, since I host a few personal web pages (my own only) I got DSL service which includes a STATIC IP address. Maybe that is how I wound up in that address range. But this physical location at home is the only place I have edited the WP from. I don't have any knowledge beyond that from which to defend myself. But I encourage whomever makes the decision to look at my past contributions. Arbalest Mike (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: - would IPBE be acceptable in the meanwhile so Mike may continue editing? SQL^{Query me!} 18:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can wait. Arbalest Mike (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. This IP range only had account creation blocked. It does not block you from editing while logged in. Are you currently prevented from editing even after being logged in or only while logged out? I was mistaken. I'll try to talk to Ks on IRC or TeamSpeak; he should not have hardblocked a /16 colocation range. Colocation generally is used by at least some valid endusers. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23, BU Rob13, and Vanjagenije: My apologies for the late reply; I've been extremely busy in real life lately with a new job, and today is the first day in about a month that I've had extensive time to sit down and focus on Wikipedia. There was extensive abuse on this range from an LTA prior to my hard block that has since fallen out of the rolling three month checkuser window, including from a few sleepers that could bypass a soft block. I would prefer IPBE be granted since Arbalest Mike is clearly unrelated to the block target, but I would not object to downgrading the block to a soft block to see what happens. Arbalest Mike, you have my most sincere apologies for the inconvenience that this block has caused and my slowness in replying to it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  15:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Ks0stm:. As of right now it seems I am still blocked. I was just checking and do not have any current urge to edit anything. By the way, I don't know what LTA or IPBE are. Are these acronyms in a table somewhere around here? Arbalest Mike (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked them for your convenience. As for a list of them, Wikipedia:Shortcut directory#Project shortcuts is the best place to look that I know of, but I'm not sure how complete it is. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  18:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations is what you're looking for. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  18:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this userright to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  19:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm: Thanks. Arbalest Mike (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ruyter. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Rodrigo Alves, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Ruyter - talk 13:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]