This is Chrislk02's talk page archive for the months of May and June 2007. Please do not edit anything on this page, but direct all coments to my active talk page. Thanks!

May 2007

RFA thanks

Thank you, Chrislk02, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicO ^Talk

Thanks for nominating! · AndonicO ^Talk 18:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Phew! Well ... :)

Thank you so much for the award you presented on my talk page yesterday, and for the kind words you spoke in your essay (which is very insighful, BTW). I'm not sure if I deserve it, though. I'm no saint, y'know! However, I'm honoured by what you said. Thank you so much! - Alison ☺ 19:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

trolling for secrets

Chris, it's the same thing that happens with just about everyone who goes around saying "booga booga here are the masonic secrets" They have an axe to grind, which is why they always cite from Christian antimasonic webpages, until they get told it's unverifiable. I have a hard time assuming good faith in the face of that, time and again.--Vidkun 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith

Your recent spree has me to beleive that your additions were truly in bad faith. I dont care what you post around, however you have lost my trust in this project. Please do not disrupt this project to make a point thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris... I thought your issue was with citing it? You're issue with me posting the word on a talk page implies bad faith on your part. (i.e. you were not honest when you said your issue was with citing it) In any event I'm done. I swear.--Dr who1975 19:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont care where you put it, as long as you dont use my talk page to make a point about whatever you want. I have repeatdly said (along with many other editors) that the issue is not with citing it, however with the unencylopedic value of it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. This really shouldn't be a big deal. Thank you for the courtesy you did extend me.--Dr who1975 20:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back, Chris! I've been busy lately and wasn't able to give proper attention to your recent distress. It's great to know that you overcome it and are back from your wikibreak. I totally agree with your essay and I was most surprised and humbled to see that I was mentioned there in the kindest terms. Thank you so much and, once again, welcome back! :-) Count on me for anything that you might need. Best regards, Hús ö nd 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		I award you this zen garden for facing adversities with maturity, wisdom and a lot of patience. Hús ö nd 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Gdk 411 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Gdk 411 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just two days...

You've been away for just two days and I'm missing you already... I hope the moving goes smoothly, and don't tire yourself too much - we need your energy over here! :) Hurry back, Chris! Love, Phaedriel - 08:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Account creation blocked

I assume you meant to Asdfjkl;73 (talk · contribs) noautoblock? Seeing as how they're already editing constructively and might be off put by having to wait 24 hours to register a new username?--VectorPotential^Talk 20:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have fixed it.

Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have to manually lift the autoblock though, as it still seems to be in effect, Autoblock ID: #487873--VectorPotential^Talk 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just unblocked it. It'll take a short while for the tool to strikethrough, but it should be okay now - Alison ☺ 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that allison! My bad for the mess Ive cause. The good news, I just got my internet set up at my new place! Hooray! The funny thing is I dont have a bed or dresser but I have my high speed internet up! Glad I have my priorites straight. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's hear it for priorities. Intarwebz first, then well worry about stuff like food and sleep. You won't get the latter anyways because you'll be too busy catching up on here :) - Alison ☺ 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning vandals

When you warn a vandal, do not forget to sign your post with the 4 tildes {Ioeth 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)). THanks and good luck! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My bad...I hate it when I forget to do that! Ioeth 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Y'all show some respectin' now

Chy'all show yer best respectin' to this user y'all hear? He's a good man, givin' 'em the good word, now it's your turn! Makin' wikipediar a better place is whata do. y'all do the same now kids, yours ClaimJumperPete 21:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Y'ain't from 'round yhere, er'ya? - BillCJ 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Metric first in US articles

Could you check out this [diff], and User talk:Necessary Evil#US measurments in US articles? Do I have a leg to stand on here, or should I just let the issue alone? I haven't brought it up on WP:AIR as yet, but will if you think it's appropriate. Thanks. - BillCJ 22:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

NORAD vandal

Chris, I've reverted a vandal: 22:20, 3 May 2007 LanceBarber (Talk | contribs) (15,565 bytes) (Undid revision 128069917 by 66.189.155.104 (talk) vandalism) I think you've mentioned where to log these events, and I can not find your notes. I've scanned the WikiVandal page, no luck. After your move, plz drop me a reminder. Thanks. LanceBarber 22:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, LB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LanceBarber (talk • contribs) 00:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Betacommand's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Chrislk02/archive02

Hi, I notice you protected this archive page, with the comment "preserving status or archive". Protection of archive pages, even in userspace, doesn't seem to be mentioned in the protection policy, and further more doesn't seem to be common practise. (Put it this way, out of the 30,000+ archive pages we have, right now this is the only one that is protected). "Preserving the status" of an archive seems a little unnecessary when page histories are available if the record is in doubt, and vandalism of archives is an extremely rare occurence and easily caught if it does happen. As there doesn't seem to be any vandalism or anything else that might make the protection necessary, could you possibly reconsider it? Thanks – Gurch 03:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, for the record, I've got all my talk page archives fully protected. I don't think it's particularly unusual. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd. Wonder why they're not showing up on Special:Protectedpages. Anyway, unusual or not, it's against policy and, as far as I can see, unnecessary. Adminship is a position of trust, not a right to privileges that other users don't have; that includes protection of arbitrary pages without reason. In other words, if non-adminstrators can't have their archives fully-protected (which they can't), why should anyone be allowed them? – Gurch 04:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't protect mine, though some of my transcluded userpages are as they've been targetted by vandals in the past. What I have done, however, is to put my archived pages on my watchlist & this picks up any funny business pretty quickly - Alison ☺ 04:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently, I've got 1,400 items on my watchlist (yes, I realize I need to trim it down a bit). As a result of the size, it is entirely possible for something to slip through the cracks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of well known names on this list who have fully protected talk archive pages. – B.hotep ^u/_t• 10:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No big deal, it was one of my first expirements with protection and semi-protetion. I thought I had reversed it, however must have missed one or has a specific reason for re-protecting it. I will take a look at it though. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jzg

Chrislk02, I never called Jzg a vandal, I pointed out a blanked page that could have been vandalism. I used the phrase "possible vandalism". I have been editing here for over two years and a consistent observation is that a few admins are supercilious and hypercritical(NOT Jzg). I hope that they eventually come down to earth sometime soon and learn to see things from the view of an editor.--Fahrenheit451 01:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Watson entry deletion? Why?

Hi! I am totally mistified why you proposed the Barton H. Watson wiki entry for deletion. Literally hundreds of newspaper articles have been written about this case in half a dozen countries around the world. I don't know what "article about a questionaly notable cyber criminal" means. Are you saying it is "questionable" whether or not Watson is "notable" enough to have a wiki entry? That is a pretty heavy value judgment to make. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camfam (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

I am unaware of who he is. You are welcome to remove prod tags, it is not vandalism and if you know something that I do not, makes a great way to save the article. That is the point of prod. Perhaps you could clean up/expand the article if he has hundereds of articles written on him! Good luck. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Clyde Vernon Cessna

On 6 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clyde Vernon Cessna, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 02:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Congratulations, Chris :) - Alison ☺ 04:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Biggspowd

Chris, could you check out User talk:Biggspowd? He placed a PROD on Cultural effects of The A-Team, a page I created and baby-sit. After looking at some of his contributions, I'm inclined to think he is either a sneaky vandal, or using PRODs to make points. I removed the notice on that basis, but would like a second opinion. If you feel I'm wrong in deleting the notice, for whatever reason, I'll resore it myself. But if this guy is user Wiki proceedures for vandalism, I don't want to let that slide either. - BillCJ 06:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's now gone to an AfD. Looks like I get to argue over painting the ~~barn~~ bicycle shed again! - BillCJ 06:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

MOL ... Manned Orbiting Laboratory to be moved

Chris, In doing research in NASA archives for KH series of satellites, I found the correct name for MOL, in a couple of places. I'm planning on moving/redirect the current aritcle to Manned Orbital Laboratory. I've place 2 ref/links to my finds. Unless their is a major objection, I will make the move in a few hours, unless you would like to do the honors. There is a current article in NASA about 2 old MOL suits being found, even the writer of that article made the same mistake. This seems to be a common mistake in a few sites on the internet. Especially those sites that quote Wikipedia. Your comments, thanks. LanceBarber 21:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Go for the move, is have no objection. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Thx,done. LanceBarber 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Keep up the good work. Are you a pilot? - Not at all... just hobbyist. By the way, on the Polish Wiki I expand warships :-) Pibwl ←« 00:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, glad to have you working on this project! Keep up the great work, I really appreciate your articles on aircraft. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about AIV

On Sam Blanning's talk page, saying that "Samuel Blanning=Hitler" isn't obvious vandalism or an obvious attack? Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

it is probably a personal attack, uncivil and in bad taste, however it does not appear to be blatant vandalism. Take it to WP:ANI, because I generally only block active vandals destroying this project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:207.160.96.252

Hi, I reported this user 30 minutes ago to AIV, and he's still vandalizing away. Could you block him? Thanks. The Evil Spartan 18:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The Evil Spartan 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, i just started on AIV patrol. I saw he was still active and BAM, gave him a complimetery wiki break! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you mean this kind of bam, right? The Evil Spartan 18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That was the general context I was going for, yes. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars

I have done some great things, and I'm not having very much barnstars. I've got two. Nothing more. And not the barnstars, but the respect of other users are the greatest award for me. I've got over 10 articlsthat I made, and none of 'em are stubs. My did you know- nomination is an award for me, and I'm proud of every image I've uploaded. Still, I agree,; youare right at this point. I'll no longer give the barnstar-idear a deathstrike by handling 'em over for nothing; I'll handle 'em to those users who have thousends of edits an none of 'em. Know some? -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain Picture Tagging

Can you give me the location where you got Image:Supriatna, 1967.JPG. Did you take the picture of the individual yourself? If you did not, it is quite possible the image is not in the public domain. When tagging images as being in the public domain, please give a rationale for such tagging. I.E., you took the photo or created the work yourself, the copyright has expired, it is ineligible for copyright, etc etc. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The copyright has expired, about two years ago. And yes, I've pictured the amn myself, when visiting Indonesia with some of my family. It now is for free use, and anyone is permtted to use the image for educational progress and goals, in order to give the world knowledge of this mostly respectable man; -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 12:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If it is in the public domain, it can be used for anything freely, not just educational progress and goals. When was the image taken? If you took it, do you release it into the public domain? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I took it in the summer of 1967, in Indonesia, when meeting the rebel in persona. And yes, I do release this image into public-domain. In case it case it'll be used for nonsense, or things insulting the honourable rebel himself, I'll consider making the image-summary more specific. I don't want the image to be used for things which not help the remorial of Supriata, or help it in a false way. I want to be perfectly clear about this. The image's-rights ain't mine any longer, but still I would be sad when someone uses the image in an insulting manner. When people think twice before adding the image, and only add it to usefull-pages, I think those reasonable editors should be able to use the image freely. BTW, thanks for yur interest in this manner. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 12:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you release it in any way on this project, there is no way to prevent that. When uploading images, please try to say when the image was taken, who took it or where you got it from. You cannot specify acceptable use. The public domain means anybody can use it for any reason they want to. Even if you release it under the WP:GFDL, you cant specify acceptable usage for it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I won't remove the image. I have trust in the editrs of this site, and even when the wrong people use this image, I'll still have it here. But I dont think pople shall do that. As I've said before; I have trust in this project. And I now that ain't for nothing. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 12:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Scepbot autoblock

Sceptre got caught in an autoblock following your block of his Bot. I've lifted it - hope you don't mind. Given that Bots and there owners tend to edit from the same IP(s) I assume you'd meant to disable the autoblock... WjBscribe 13:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! My bad for that. Yea, I did mean to do that. Sometimes my keyboard works faster than my computer and it does not uncheck when I mean to. Thanks again! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No harm meant :) The problem is fixed (Misza13 commited a fix for it in the CVS). Happy editing! Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 11:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Pssst, It's me. Just to let you know I am still here, also can you deal with this Oompapa impersonation act? User talk:Retiono Virginia. Eaomatrix 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

user:216.201.228.58

Apologies for re-posting this user for AIV - I thought my original posting had not worked.

However, I am afraid I do not understand why you do not block this guy. He may not have made any edits today, but he was on a final warning only yesterday and has already received many final warnings in the past, so it seems clear he has no intention of making a useful contribution. Drc79 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV removals with no action

Hi Chris,

First, I’m about to gently criticize you, so it’s only fair to preface all this by saying "thank you for doing the thankless task of dealing with AIV."
You’re removing a LOT of IP reports either because their final warning is a day old, or because they haven’t vandalized in the last 30 minutes to 1 hour. Now, if you’re doing that because you’re the only one on AIV right now and you’re swamped, I can understand, and I’ll go away. But if, day in and day out, you think that AIV is only for vandals that have been given a full set of warnings, today, and are vandalizing right now even as we speak, you’re basically saying that an IP vandal gets a “free” 2-3 vandal edits every day. This isn’t a rare, theoretical type of vandal; I revert them every day.

If you don’t think these reports belong on WP:AIV, where would you suggest I send them? Is AP:ANI really the place (seems like it would get swamped fast). Or, per ReyBrujo should I just live with this, and not bother to warn and report this kind of vandal? --barneca (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for jumping in here. Blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. If a vandal has stopped vandalising, why block them? The other issue is that many IPs are shared among several or many users, so by blocking an IP we might be losing good contributions from other users of that IP. I share your frustration, but I agree with Chris's actions here. --Guinnog 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(cross-posted from my talk page, since others are joining in) Thanks for the quick reply; I'll try to make this reply short so you can get back to AIV. What you're saying makes perfect sense if we're talking about an IP with a sprinkling of vandal edits among a sea of legit edits. Or, I suppose, even a sprinkling of legit edits in a sea of vandal edits. But very frequently I run across an IP address with less than a half dozen edits a day, but every edit for the last month is vandalism. I tried to anticipate and address the concern about collateral damage by noting this in my report. If you believe this type of vandal shouldn't be dealt with, that's fine; I guess we can agree to disagree. But if there's a different place I should report such an IP (and I probably run across them a couple of times a day), please let me know where it is.

Guinnog, I assure you I understand your concern, but do you understand mine? We really are giving a free 2-3 vandalisms per day pass to IP addresses? I'd love to hear a better solution than reporting to AIV, but it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're proposing we just revert each occurance, with no warnings.

Finally, please note I'm not proposing punative blocking, or blocking after no warnings. I'm proposing instructive blocking: "Please note: this behavior has consequences." --barneca (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:72.9.210.246

With all due respect Chris, IP 72.9.210.246 on May 10 (today) and in the last 24 hours has 16 edits, all which are identified as vandalism. Every tracked edit by this IP which is only in the month of May can be identified as vandalism. It's very obviously not a shared IP. In fact this one user is on the verge of violation of the WP:3RR for the article of Fannie Lou Hamer for persistent wiping / vandalism and has been warned many times. Are there no consequences for vandalism after multiple warnings? Having been on Wikipedia a long time fighting vandalism, I know that not to be true. I trust you'll do the right thing. Mkdw ^talk 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can see here, they stopped at 1920. WP:AIV is not for punitive blocks or WP:3RR blocks. Please read Wikipedias blocking policy, it explains alot. WP:AIV is for immediate vandalism occuring now after appropriate warnings. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its a fool's hope that if you think this IP won't vandalize Wikipedia with in the next 24 hours. Many cases need to be treated like a parent-child relationship where if no boundaries are set, the child will see there are no consequences and continue on at the time, frustration, and painstaking watch of others. If not handled under WP:AIV, would it be too much to ask to point the report in the right direction or realize that its situation any adminstrator could handle quickly than as quoted by famous politician "maybe we'll deal with it tomorrow and let somebody else worry about it". I hope you can understand my frustration in the matter as well as the person above, its hard trying to contribute to the community and when regular users like myself are powerless in a situation, we need help. We come to you asking for that, and when you remove it, it's basically saying, nope not a problem, this user hasn't vandalized in the last 5 hours of 48 hours of continuous vandalism with out consequence. Mkdw ^talk 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLOCK. Blocking is not punitiive. That is exactly what I am saying. I wont block you for something you did in the past. I will only block you for what you are doing now. If you have an issue with it, try to get the policy changes or take it up at the AIV talk page. I respect your opinions, however I choose to coniinue with my current interpretation of policy. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, WP:BLOCK does state that blocking is not punitive, but at the same time my incident fell under several sections of the policy, especially persistent vandalism to which is the stated mandate of WP:AIV. Also for a user who continuously vandalizes the encyclopedia, would blocking him be also protective for a time period? Also, you cannot remove someone's privledges with out it being punitive in some ways, that is what defines the power behind blocking someone. I'm no longer asking you from an WP:AIV perspective, but as an administrator on the English Wikipedia whose mandate may be more broad. Mkdw ^talk 22:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Intervention request

Chris, I'm not able to explain User:Saburny that we are using flag templates, not hardcoded images. All country flags and most of their derivatives has its own templates. I'm reverting his edits with proper comments and I've posted message on his talk page, but I see no effect. Please look at Mitsubishi J2M article and you'll see what I'm talking about. I don't want edit war but his edits are kind of vandalism, especially if he doesn't add valuable content. You may answer here, I'm watching your talk page. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, please look at Mitsubishi J2M article once again, especially at last revert made by the User:Saburny. From my POV this is vandalism because he doesn't want to keep some standards common in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft. Saburny places additional template for Japanese Navy when we are using only one flag per country. Flags of military branches (even Royal Navy or US Marines) or logos of commercial operators are not used at all to keep text readable. Could you be so kind and explain him that? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I warned the editor about there disruptive editing style.

Done -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I hope your warning will finish removing content from templates and other destructive edits made by him. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 12:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Lksrn

Alas! You beat me to the block! :) · AndonicO ^Talk 19:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:U have 0CD

I noticed you zapped a vandal before his usual responders noticed he was here. I'm not sure if you've dealt with U have 0CD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s puppetmaster before, but you should be aware that he is a regular; he's been here twice today, I think. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder . Thanks for knocking him out as quickly as you did, but be on the lookout for him to be back. I have marked this last incarnation as a sockpuppet to add it to the growing list. --Dynaflow babble 19:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

WikiThanks

Thanks for blocking 210.23.115.66 so quickly, he/she becamed really annoying. You deserve a WikiThanks!! Eurocopter tigre 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

TomSawyerYYZ

This guy is clearly a sockpuppet of FederalBoobiesInvestigator (talk · contribs) and made repeated intermittent joke edits. Are you sure? Diagonalfish 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

IF they are a sock, list that at AIV. YOu listed them as a spambot or comproimised account. THe account i deined a block to only had 4 edits. Please feel free to relist at WP:AIV. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

JKrantoski

Despite numerous warnings (including 2 final ones), he continues to execute page moves of wrestlers without any discussion or consent from other editors to whatever he feels they should be under (whether it be their first ring name or most current name). Could you please block this person for their ongoing behavior? And also, could you please merge the edit history of Daniel Rodman into Daniel Rodimer, I accidently screwed that up when trying to move Rodman back to Rodimer after this user did a malicious page move. Thanks! Bmg916^Speak_Sign 14:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy Chris' Day!

Chrislk02 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Chrislk02's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Chris!

Love,
Phaedriel
00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

wow..I never had my day..----Cometstyles 13:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Chris, Just dropping by to ask you if you heard about checkuser linking (Mr oompapa) to Retiono Virginian here...Is it true??..----Cometstyles 13:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, dont know about that. Dont wanna argue with checkuser but i am pretty sure it would be hard to confirm oompapa = RV, especially due to the large number of IP addresses available to oompapa. That is strange. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

New article for advertising,

Chris, The KH satellite pages are on my watchlist, and from an external reference on the KH-13, a new user added a new article for Gunter's Space Page. Pure advertising in my opinion. Please review and possible mark for speedy deletion, links below:

Gunter Dirk Krebs (June 25 2003). KH-13. Gunter's Space Page. Accessed May 3 2004.

The new article was just created. Thank you for your attention. LanceBarber 19:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A preliminary looks shows a fair number of google hits. You are welcome to nominate it for deletion via afd. If you need help with this, try scanning through WP:AFD to see if you can do it. If you still need help, let me know and ill do what I can to help ya. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Another vandal-only account

Hi Chris, if you have time, this guy {User talk:Tohea} has previously been blocked, and today did a bunch of edits, all vandalism. Akradecki 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I did it; don't worry about it. · AndonicO ^Talk 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AO! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Chris, I feel bad about not letting you know that it was coming up...I just wanted to be real careful about not appearing to be improperly campaigning. Anyway, your comments were very much appreciated, and I feel quite honored by the thoughts you expressed. If I get the nod, I'll still be quite wet behind the ears, and will certainly be coming to you for suggestions and input! Akradecki 17:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I remeber the same feelings when my RFA started. A few close editors I wanted to notify but did not want to appear as canvasing. A good decision for an admin candidate none the less! If you need anything, let me know! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask Some Advice?

Hey User:Chrislk02 like to ask your advice on a situation that has become extremely volatile. Can you take a look at my talk page User talk:Shoessss as it concerns the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder article. In addition, if you review the discussion page Talk:Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder as it reflects my comments and the open confrontation with regards too both Chesspieceface and Simplemines I would appreciate any input you can give me on this matter. Thanks in advance for your help.Shoessss 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Auburndale Elementary School (Kentucky)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Auburndale Elementary School (Kentucky), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Steve block Talk 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Starshade

Just proposed that starshade be merged into New Worlds Imager. Would appreciate your input, since you wrote most of the former. Sho Uemura 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

AAR image

I just had some problems in the past with releasing photos and having them cropped.Cnota 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. I get strong google hits on the journal the society publishes, I am satisfied with the google references, and I think the association is of repute, it is noted in this recent news report regarding JFK. I think it is notable enough. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Steve block Talk 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comrades 18

User:Comrades 18 user page is full of links to neo-Nazi sites, no wonder with such name. Martin Manne 20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Get them blocked for content, there username is not innapropriate. I went ahead and deleted there userpage though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange ultimatum

Chris, I'm not sure are you watching Template talk:Country data Japan. Last edit made by User:Saburny brings kind of ultimatum:

If a source is not submitted by May 18 2007 (UTC), I delete indication of a Kyokujitsuki.
— Template talk:Country data Japan

I don't understand such behaviour and such ultimatum, is it possible to make such demands on Wikipedia? It seems that this particular user doesn't understand idea of flag templates at all. I hope you'll watch his actions because deleting part of template will break several dozens of articles. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 14:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Costner - Anon troubles

Hi Chris - I hope this finds you well! You helped me out before, I wonder if you can advise on what to do again. We have an Anon editor on the Kevin Costner article, who keeps reverting edits. His purpose in this is to return to the article a piece of text which suggest Costner's father is a German American, with a reference to a TIME magazine article. If you look at the talk page, you can see the history - the last German relative came over in 1800. Another editor Jack O'Lantern has been battling this Anon for a while, and I see from his edit record that he has also become involved with the article German American. The article text of the version that Anon doesn't like includes the fact that Costner has German/Irish/Cherokee ancestory, so I can't see quite what the issue is. We have so far tried reverting, and adding additional information to the article, and adding test1 scripts to each of his IP addresses - but the Anon still keeps reverting to an older version. The Anon IP addresses (all with similar edit records) are of the form 84.140.XXX.XXX, which all on an IP trace orginate to a ing from a Deutsche Telekom owned IP address. My guess is that the address rotates as the Anon is subscriber to DT's Broadband ISP service - so it works much like AOL's rotating IP address for thei subscribers. What do you suggest? I'm pretty much out of ideas as the moment, and don't want to get into an edit war. Thanks for any help you can provide. Best Regards, - Trident13 20:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Get a consensus to NOT have it included. Then, removing it really wont count as too much of an edit war if there is a consensus against it. I will look into it more tommorow, i am a bit sick today. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanx Chris - solved! We had have consensus - and now even the Anon has fallen in line. Get well soon. Rgds, --Trident13 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

He's baaaaaack

Verdict's managed to come back again as Manfredoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Bmg916^Speak_Sign 13:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:70.245.27.189

You removed this user from AIV because he hadn't edited in "20+ minutes". But if you check the contributions, he's been adding spam, passed 4 separate warnings, over a period of 3 hours. The Evil Spartan 18:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If he starts again, re-report him. He has not repeated his actions since I removed him from the list. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do. I hate to sound confrontational (e.g., WP:DICK effect), but it took me forever to clean up this guy's spam, and we gave him two final warnings, and he wasn't even blocked because the admins were too slow to AIV. While I admire your good faith, you did similarly with 209.80.153.114, whose block lengths seem to be going down rather than up (does a 1 hour block really help for someone who's been vandalising for one hour?). Perhaps a bit too much good faith here :( The Evil Spartan 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I often use one hour blocks (and do not specify the block length on there talk page) to deter vandalism. They will more than likley give up and not sit around for an hour waiting to vandalize again. Often, i give hour blocks to what I believe to be shared IP's to reduce collateral damage. Thanks for expressing your concerns, and alot of editors do and I have no problem expressing where I stand. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. However, just for future notice: this IP has now came back and copiously vandalized the same articles less than 24 hours later, with no helpful additions in between. The Evil Spartan 15:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Secfrance

Hi, you removed Secfrance from AIV, but this edit - and the username - show that it is a sockpuppet of two indef-blocked users (France a and Secisalive!). Could you block it, please?--Rambutan (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

AIV is not for sock reporting, it is for intervetion against vandalism. The edits of the editor in question do not qualify in and ofthemselves as vandalism. You can request it at WP:ANI, or find an administrator familiar with this sock puppet. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You're an administrator, couldn't you just block it, or do I need to go through the bureaucratic procedure?--Rambutan (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am, but I dont know that he is a sock. I have NO evidence that they are a sock of whoever. AIV is generally not the place for that unless the sock is vandalising. I wont just block because I am told to, i need to know that who I am blocking deserves it. based on the edits alone, he did not qualify. Who blocked the original sock and subsequent socks? Request attention at ANI. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My User Page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

NP -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review

I saw that you followed up on an IP block that I entered earlier today. Thanks. It looks like you have a lot going on and may be extremely busy. However, if you have a moment I have request for editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gaff. I would greatly value any advice you may have to offer. thanks.—Gaff ^ταλκ 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the comments, I will work on the things you mentioned.—Gaff ^ταλκ 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Letsgetbanned1

User is slightly changing his name...please block.—Gaff ^ταλκ 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:205.213.38.3

I notice that you just gave this IP a 24 hour block. This IP has made about 50 edits in the last month, all of which appear to be vandalism. The pattern is one of persistently re-introducing vandalism as soon as it is reverted, and a complete disregard of warnings. The IP has already had eight blocks, one of which was for a week and one for a month. In this context, a block of 24 hours is frankly derisory. Can I suggest that you consider these factors and issue a block which reflects the amount of disruption and waste of productive time which someone like this causes? Thanks. --Stephen Burnett 19:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If it was a named editor, I would have done such. This is an ANON Ip i felt it innapropriate to issue a long term block on this IP. 24 hours blocks are fairly standard with IP addresses, and with 50 edits over the entire history of the IP, 50 is fairly few. There are IPS with hundereds and hundereds of vandalisms on the record. If the editor continus to vandalise after the block, please re-report them to WP:AIV. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not over the entire history; that goes back two years. I was just describing the pattern on the last month. Here's a challenge for you - take a look at the history and find me some positive edits. A handful will do. You'll have to look hard - I couldn't. Moreover, since the IP has already had a month's ban, either 24 hours is not standard or the IP did some very non-standard damage to warrant it. Maybe next time someone has to report this IP to WP:AIV you'd care to leave it to someone who's prepared to deal with it appropriately? Thanks --Stephen Burnett 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with the Ip in the way I feel most appropriate based on the information. blocking is NOT punitive, please read wikipedias blocking policy. I blocked to stopped immeidate damage to this project they were causing with there vandalism. If it was a named editor, i would have acted differently, however it is an IP address, how do we know that next week a new person wont get that IP, a new person who wants to contribute constructivley? I have said it many many times. we can ALWAYS revert vandalism, we can DO NOTHING about an curious editor who tries to edit, finds they are blocked for somebody elses actions and gives up. I would appreciate if you remained a little more civil. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you feel I am abusing my administrative tools, or acting innapropriatley as an administrator, you are welcome to request assistance at Wikipedia Administrators Noticeboard/incidents. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No - as admins are fond of pointing out, blocks are about preventing vandalism, not punishment or behaviour modification. I'm not naive enough to think that the vandal is "learning any lessons" by being blocked. A block of 24 hours prevents vandalism for 24 hours. A block of 30 days prevents it for 30 days - ie a 30 fold benefit to the community of productive users.

Unless you found any productive edits from that IP, I don't think your comments about well-meaning naive editors being blocked hold much water, do you? As for civility, I am not trying to be rude, at least not deliberately; if I were, believe me, you would know. It is not uncivil to point out that editors' efforts to retain the integrity of Wikipedia - thankless task as it is - are a waste of time if administrators aren't prepared to do their part. Neither does it seem impolite to point out that since there is in fact a considerable variation in how admins deal with these matters, it's not enough to refer to a "standard" way of treating vandals, when it's not in fact a standard at all, and the length of a block can be quite arbitrary. And you already know what I would appreciate, so I won't bother saying it again. Subject closed. --Stephen Burnett 19:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What you must not understand is I am just as much of a volunteer as you are. Now, you cannot discount my argument because it has not happened. The fact is, we would NEVER know if the editor tried to edit and gave up. I would rather temporarily stop something that can be made to dissapear with the click of a button. I will let you know that I will continue to vounteer my time, as you do, in defeidning the project in the way I feel most appropriate. a 24 hour block is the most common ANON block in my experience and while you are right there is no standard blocking length, it is a pretty common one. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Awww ... shucks .... thanks for the Barnstar :) You're absolutely right: just because you've never seen something happen doesn't mean that it isn't true. In fact, my mother used to say exactly that when I dared to question the existence of Santa Claus. I'll have to start writing to him again. --Stephen Burnett 00:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:146.145.94.82

Looking for a little direction on this guy. I reported his IP to WP:AIV but didn't get the help I was looking for. It looks like this user wants to continually add in his too cents on Aon Corp. and their ability to outsource jobs. I have reverted back the edits, only just to have the this user do the same. I have explained on his talk page on what might make the edit he/she makes acceptable, but my efforts are to no avail. Any suggestions? It also appears that there is a home computer as well. User:68.32.225.36. Thanks for your help! Barkeep 19:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - I hvae semi protected the article. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

help.

I have been auto-blocked. Are you able to free me? —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I am now free!—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To a Knight of the Light

When weary with the long day's care,
And earthly change from pain to pain,
And lost, and ready to despair,
Thy kind voice calls me back again
Oh my true friend, I am not lone
While thou canst speak with such a tone!

And thou art ever there to bring,
Still in evening's most quiet hour
With never-failing thankfulness I
welcome thee, benignant power,
Sure solacer of all my cares
And brighter hope when hope despairs.

Emily Brontë

My dear Chris,

When I read this poem, I can't help but to think about you, and all the strength, beauty and shine that stem from you. For being a guiding light in times of darkness, you will always have my respect, my admiration and love, the way true friends love each other.

You are worth too much for some people to realize. Never forget that. Don't let them take you down again, ever, Knight.

Love, Phaedriel - 06:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock request

Hi, Justill45 is requesting to have his indefinite autoblock reviewed. It was triggered by using the same IP as Davidjeter whom you blocked with block message "voa". I'm sorry, I am new to this whole admin thing, but I have no idea what "voa" means, so I figured I would just contact you. Is that code for a Voice of All checkuser result? If so, clearly the autoblock should remain unless some major shared IP is hit. Anyway, I thought I would just ask. Cheers. --Selket ^Talk 14:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A VOA is a vandal only account. It is generally an account (not an IP address) thats edits are totally comrpised of blatant vandalism. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Vindictive user

Chris, a new user is engaging in vindictive actions towards me for taking a hard line regarding notability and sourcing on an article he has created, Consolidated Liberator I, in my comments at WT:AIR#Liberator B Mk I.

These are the articles affected so far:

I have not contacted the user directly at all, esp since he bagan thes actions. Any advice or help would be appreciated. Thanks.- BillCJ 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

First, make an attempt to resolve the issue with them. Try to be friendly and civil but also explain your issue. If they ignore your requests, come back to me and I will ask them! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have looked into it a little more. He is most definitley trying to make a point. He has stopped now, should he continue, let me or another admin know that he should probably recieve a short term block. Good luck! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Read all of these articles by this editor - feel they are extremely short (with little references) suggest they all be merged into one complete, indepth article instead of many small articles with random bits of information. Not being vindictive, as I did find several articles which had insite, very good references and decent amout of research behind themDavegnz 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

An article being short or small does not mean it should not exist. Check out our many many stub articles. Because it is small does not mean we should not have it, it just means somebody else has not gotten to it to expand it yet! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. - BillCJ 19:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well these articles should be designated a stub then.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davegnz (talk • contribs)

Then go for it., {{aircraft-stub}} at the bottom of the page would work. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) It appears you (Davegnz) might not be familiar with our guidline on stubs. Stubs are legitimate articles, and per the guideline, the helicopter articles you're referring to are already longer than stub length. Akradecki 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do understand the point of a stub, but I am not the one that brought up this reference - I said that these articles due to there short length and narrow scope of interest should be merged together until they can be expanded —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davegnz (talk • contribs)

Actually, 6 of the 7 rotorcraft articles you've targeted cover more than one aircraft type.

Bell 222 - Bell 222, Bell 230, and Bell 430
Bell 214 - Bell 214 and Bell 214ST
Bell 427/429 - Bell 427 and Bell 429
Bell/Agusta 609 - only the BA609
Sikorsky S-69 - Sikorsky S-69 and Sikorsky X2
Sikorsky S-72 - Sikorsky S-72, and the X-wing which used the same airframe.
Schweizer 300 - Hughes/Schweizer 300C, Schweizer 330, and Schweizer 333, also TH-55 Osage and Hughes 269 until this week.

In addition, they ALL do have sources. Yes, some of them, in particular the Sikorsky pages, need more info, esp pictures, but all of them are notable designs. The main difference is that these are aticles on helicopter models, not individual airframes, except for cases where only one or two were built. For example, I have not attempted to list every Bell 222 or Schweizer 300C ever built, as most of those are not notable. - BillCJ 20:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My User Page

Thanks again, I owe you a barnstar at some point when I get the time. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 19:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

NP, all in a days work! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia

Can you help me with the citations and references? All of them can be found at the external link-section, but I don't know how to add 'em as proper facts\references within the text! Can you help me with the Pier Gerlofs Donia article? By adding the references? Thanks, allready, from -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 07:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Are the references in english? I cant read any other language except some spanish. read WP:CITE, that might help as well. I will also take a look at it next week if that is not a problem. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it ain't a problem. Take your time with it, and yes, some of the Internal links are in English, at least two, but the rest is in Dutch. When you do two of the English ones, I can watch the thing from you, and cite the rst myself. Thanks for your willingness to help! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Consolidated Liberator I

Chris asking that my article on the Consolidated Liberator I stop getting the vandalism it has been getting -
1) My article has more citations and/or footnotes then a majority of the other aviation article (many, many more)
2) As far as Nobility

a) This article deals with early ASW operations in WWII
b) One of the oldest B-24 still flying (AM927)
C) Early combat testing of the B-24
D) Detailed history's one an important group of aircraft (Liberator I)

Just because I write and I feel that a cronological oration is easier to read and understand then a long verbosity test driven article is no reason to for a deletion. Right now, just getting started with this history (have more to add plus more photo's) but if the editors are going to chop it to bits because they do not understand it then why bother - This is also the reason I want it removed from the aviation projects - feel too many editors do not like detailed histories (and since wickipedia is about information).Davegnz 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppets

User:XNightfallx is a sock puppet of User:AxeSpray424. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 14:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of their edits are the same exact to Antonio Banks, very few productive edits, you can block if you'd like as a vio of WP:SOCK, but they seem to have gone away. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 19:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Qatar

Hi, Chris. Per the header, could you limit the blocking of this IP to about 10 min to at most 1 hour, because this IP represents the entire country of Qatar. Thanks. Real96 07:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

B-29 saga

Chris, If it is okay with you, I'd add back the deleted Survivors Section text, again? Then, maybe, you can put a temporary lock-out on the B-29 article? ... until the AFD is resolved. Thanks. LanceBarber 20:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You are weelcome to replace it. I would wait until the afd is completed first personally but it is your call. As of now, I see no need for protection. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in no hurry, as I have it saved off-line... been researching for proper referencing of all the old USAAF 29 wings/groups for the new operators break-out article. Maybe Dave will restore it as per my request to him on his talk page. LanceBarber 20:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Chrisa1002

Just thought you'd be interested to know that you've been parodied. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 12:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:209.212.28.50

I find it interesting that User:209.212.28.50 , in this diff, was the first to remove the "Notability" and "Citations missing" from the Consolidated Liberator I page. He has also made edits on several of the articles that Dave frequents. I assume you're already running aCheck-user on this one? - BillCJ 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that. Also, if you look at the list i out up for afd, the comment by that IP bears a striking resembelence to User:Slightly Selassie keep nomination. Suspicious none the less. I am pretty sure closing adin will take it into account. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. Anyway, it took me awhile to catch the reference to Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia in User:Slightly Selassie. Now I'm thinking of naming my next SP "Lowlie Selassie". - BillCJ 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:62.30.74.94

Chris, could you check out User:62.30.74.94? (Not a Dave problem!) Its edits consist solely of adding anti-John Leahy/-Airbus links and comments to articles. It's more of a a disruption and violation of EL policy than outright vandalism. If there is somewhere you want me to report this, I will be glasd to do so. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking into it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

He has a final level warning. Next time he does it, let me know and I will block him. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa

you just blocked the wrong one... the victim not the impersonator. GDonato (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, let me check.GDonato (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

ooops, wrong one! Ive fixed it now. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's BlackberyIaw (talk · contribs), methinks less one r and a capial I , I hope, check the contribs. GDonato (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, Mangojuice got it! GDonato (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Another sock

User:Paiyn, sock of User:Verdict. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 13:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, you're one of few people on the wiki I don't know what I'd do without, oh wait, yes I do, I'd retire. Thanks for all your great work, like I said, I owe you a barnstar at some point... Bmg916^Speak_Sign 13:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

- No problem, no problem at all. That is what I am here for. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Masters in IT, eh? I work in IT, sounds like we have something in common other than fighting off sock puppets :-). Bmg916^Speak_Sign 14:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually work as a software developer as of now. I however done desire to work here forever, just a starter job! IT is a pretty big field, what area do you work in? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm mainly web development and programming, but I do a little of everything since I currently work in a 5 person IT department (we support an orthopaedic practice of 23 doctors and 150+ some staff). Bmg916^Speak_Sign 14:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish i did web development. I program in an ancient language. At least it was not hard to PICK up, lol. I did alot with web development in my undergrad though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pick, eh? Wow, I thought that was dead. Yea, web development is fun, but so is server maintenance, and all the amusing queries I get when I do take help desk calls. I'm thinking of becoming certified in something by someone soon, just not sure what yet. There's 10,000,000 possible certifications out there. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 14:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Candice Michelle

I am in danger of violating 3RR thanks to a pointy disruptive user, Becky-RE-fan. She keeps inserting week by week non notable events, then when upset that it can't be included, she deleted something notable (the start of a major feud) claiming it too wasn't notable. This is incredibly disruptive and as I said, pointy, and is irking me to no end. Do you think you could watch the page and warn this user if need be? They are in danger of violating 3RR too. Thanks. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 14:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, she just violated 3RR, but could you revert her last edit, it isn't blatant vandalism, and I don't feel like getting blocked. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Im not adding week by week events I have added ONE event so its not violating 3RR! Beck 15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Candice

Yes and it shows the feud is continuing, I HAVENT added a week by week I just said 2 weeks later she beat Melina in a non-title match this is important as I feel it shows the feud is continuing between the two. Thanks!

I also wrote this on the person who complained to you about me: Im NOT adding week by week events im just adding the match she won against melina (with source) it shows that the feud between them is continuing.. Why you went off & got someone to tell me off I will never no, just get over the fact that melina lost, I added ONE week NOT week by week which shows she beat the womens champion!!! well from now on i will not contribute to my fav wwe diva to improve the article by adding ONE week by week thanks alot!

I wasnt going against the rules I feel this is notable as it shows the feud is continuing and that she beat the woman's champ in a non-title match.

PLEASE REPLY BACK

Beck 15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for mediating, if I had contacted the other user directly (which I now have) at the time I asked you to step in, I would have violated WP:CIVIL for sure, which, obviously, is something I'd rather not do. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 15:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Bmg916, hereby award Chrislk02 this original barnstar for all his help and work in fighting vandalism, numerous sockpuppets, and his ability to remain calm and mediate well. An all around excellent wikipedian Bmg916^Speak_Sign 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Available later today?

Chris, will you be available to check your email later today? AKRadecki 16:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am available to check it now, later. Usually between 8 and 5 i am always checking it. After hours i check it once or twice. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My error - sorry

Sorry about removing the tag. I had no idea. I am OK with including more information, but I also support the compromise, which I would agree is much more encyclopedic in nature and format. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 16:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please give your input at WT:AIRCRAFT. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How am I doing?

Hi Chris, sorry to bother you. Can you please have a look at User talk:Wcwmag and review my communications with the user, who has four times (once as an IP) added what I would regard as hate-speech to the Jim Torbett article, specifically the allegation that Jock Stein knew of Torbett's abuse but protected him. If you know anything about sectarianism in Scotland, you'll know how inflammatory a statement that is. I believe it is also highly unencyclopedic, but it may be that I have been unnecessarily harsh. If you have time to look it over and let me know what you think it may save me a trip to AN/I. Best wishes, --Guinnog 16:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly look over it. Give me a few minutes if that is ok! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, take your time. I think the editor in question has settled down for now, but it would still be good to have a second opinion. --Guinnog 16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Complain filed

I have filed a complaint in the Requests for arbitration section for you actions and discregard of wikipedia policy regarding lists and the vandalism (ie destroying the original intent and purpose of) my article [Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors]Davegnz 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I've commented on your talk. While it is potentially always hurtful when one's work is edited or deleted by others here, that is the way a wiki works.What Chris has done is certainly not vandalism and the article is not "yours"; immediately you publish here it becomes everybody's. You might want to read WP:OWN which talks about this. Best wishes --Guinnog 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chrislk02

Just to clarify Chris from the above, the users filed an ArbCom case about you, I've already left my 2 cents, so you might wish to make a statement as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

.....and it's gone already! Ryan Postlethwaite 17:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And then restored. Bah, stupid bureaucracy... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That guy with all those socks

User:Dan 86 is a sock of Brock Lesnar's biggest fan, same edits. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

you must have made a mistake, that is not a valid username and or has no contribs? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Try it now, I forgot to space the 86 from the Dan. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one: User:Maxedmusclepack. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 17:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yamla beat me to it! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 17:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That is wikefficieny for ya! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Hero of the Wiki award

Thank you very much for the award, and for the kind things you wrote. I really appreciate what you said and will try to live up to it. Many thanks, --Guinnog 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Atlpimpin770

As I wrote to User:MCB: with respect, you may not be ideally placed to make this call. In the absence of a qualifier like "my ride," I'm going to assume it refers to what it appears to refer to, viz. the facilitation or provision of a prostitute in the arrangement of a sex act with a customer. You may wish to consult female admin about whether she finds this practice, and hence this username, offensive, per 5: Offensive usernames. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to post it at WP:RFCN. Good luck. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-Efficiency

~~User:Yarood Bmg916^Speak_Sign 20:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)~~

Yamla got 'em again! Bmg916^Speak_Sign 20:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:EastGermanAllStar

Hey, I was wondering, based off this user's actions, do you think it would be possible to get him banned? I mean, he's done nearly everything that you can do and not shown a care about it. Just a thought.--Whs itc hy 20:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybye. He has not caused a significant amoutn of trouble though in comparison to some other editors I have worked with. He might clean up his act, if not hell prob get indef blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Who knows, based off what he's done, he'll probably get the indef for these reasons: A. he didn't quit, and B. he attacked admins tell him to stop. Personally, I think the attack at you after you blocked him on his talk page was quite stupid, more so the "You can't block me now, I'm about to be an admin!" part. Obviously he has no clues on the rules here. --Whs itc hy 20:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not knowing the rules is not a reason for a ban. I actually run into alot of hotshots who may be used to throwing there weight around in real life and figure theyll give it a shot here. It is usually stupid and most certainly never works. Some of them clean up there act, others just leave. A few get so angry at there lack of control they launch continuous attacks against this projects. There are several known sockpuppeteers who have hundereds and hundereds of socks. These are usually the ones who get banned. Not the joe schmo who is just pushing the limits. Admit it, we all push the limits from time to time. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that's the reason for the ban mind you, I'm just saying it's unlikely to me that he'll clean up his act. And I'm not going to argue the last statement you made. I'm in high school, still living at home. I definitely push the limit here. --Whs itc hy 20:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We all push the limits, that is how we define our boundries. It is those that dont stop at the proper time are those who end up in trouble. As of now, it does not appear worth the effort to get them banned! Thanks for your concerns though. They are valid. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but oh well, we'll have to see tomorrow what happens when his block is lifted, if he even comes back. --Whs itc hy 20:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I know this is sort of beating a dead horse but... From the guys RfA:

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: No conflicts, no previous blocks, I don't like to fight with people, and I will never be prone to doing so. I understand that I am not the longest-standing user here, but if I am given the chance, I will prove my worthiness to contribute to this encyclopedia as an admin. Thank you.

Found that sort of ironic, don't you think? --Whs itc hy 21:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"No conflicts, no previous blocks" - well, he's kinda got that bit sorted now :) - Alison ☺ 21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed.--Whs itc hy 21:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Gulfstream Aerospace G6

Chris, user:Gulfpedia and user:68.15.127.124 (apprears to be the same person) has been adding unsourced information about the so-called Gulfstream G6 to the Gulfstream Aerospace. I've already reverted him twice, and given him a double warning (vandal and error) once. Any assistance would be helpful, as I don't want to risk 3RR. Thnaks. - BillCJ 20:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Its vandalism, dont worry about WP:3RR. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Jeff user:Fnlayson has backed me up on this, but if it doesn't stop, we'll file an AIV. - BillCJ 20:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's Not Winter, I Don't Need All These Socks

User:Jtgflo Bmg916^Speak_Sign 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

B50 & TU4 at survivors

Chris, I think that you are being a bit restrictive in removing the B50 & TU4 entries and the partial airframe, as a person researchig the topic would benefit from the knowledge, but I won't oppose you on this. I'll ask your to revert your changes, but leave it at that. On to other projects. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

They are small subsections of this article. Being they are so small and for an article with an unique aircraft. I would not oppose inclusion in those articles as long as the list remained small. As it is, it cluttered this list. You are welcome to include them where you like. I am trying to clean this list up because the way it is now, this list would be of no use to anybody not very familiar with old aircraft. This project is not supposed to holed detailed technical information for niche groups, however information of interest to the greater public. I am trying to edit this information into such a manner and in a manner to decrease confusion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

B-29 Survivors Suggestions

Chris, can live with this table with a few minor changes - first you mention that you do not like restorations or wrecks, yet you have at leat 2 listed:

44-69972 "Doc" is under long term restoration and is not on view.
45-21787 "Fertile Myrtle" is in pieces - nose is in one location, remainder of airframe is stored.

Big suggestion please, please - organize table by builder (ie block number and serial number) like what I orignally had. Right now, table looks and is very disorganized, if done then looking up individual surviving aircraft would be much easier for the historian. Also (not a biggie) but need to see entire s/n on one line (wonder - remove registration column place registration number under History say something like currently registered as N3299F)

Does need some clean-up on spacing but I can live with this format.Davegnz 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to move it around. I am on a secondary computer so i wont do complex table work on here. (I user a ergonomic keyboard 9 hours a day and at my other computer i have a straight one and am very clumsy with it). I will look into it tommorow. Glad we can reach a compomise here. I will work on sorting tommorow. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If this matter is being resolved, can I suggest that Davegnz withdraw the arbitration case (which I can assure you has no chance of being accepted for hearing anyway). Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, from coming home from a 13 hr work day, and read your message, and responded to the discusssion , I had not realized the creation of table format was done, till after my comments. The table format is too "linoleum" and does not flow like Piotr's version. The written text of each survivor gives more 'enclopedic' atmosphere to the aricle. Frustrated! For example from Piotr's verson to the table version, the loss of the details on T-Sq-54 is significant as to why she became a survivor. The Museum of Flight was not responsible for her surviving, it was the Lowry Heritage Museum (now Wings OVer the Rockies Air and Space Museum). How do I know this, is because I was one of the original restoration members at LHM and I put ove 200 hrs of restortaion in her. I am photographed in Mathewson's webpages. It was LHM's volunteers that pulled her out of China Lake. For political reasons, USAF Museum transferred her to Museum of Flight. Who in our aviation group knows how to hand crank a B-29 land gear down and locked... who knows how to install B-29 wings, who knows how to install... the list goes on. I do. I hope you can understand my perspective and frustration. Will all the discussions we have had, we have lost a key element of these survivors, not just the survived AMARC's guillotine, but how or why they survived should be the focus of the new article. The table format is just an organized version of Dave's original list. Let's step back and take a seoond look at what we are trying to do. Please! Thank you, Lance. LanceBarber 05:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Userpage revamping

Chris, you might try User talk:69.105.72.225, who's done some excellent work on the Boeing 737 page in the last few minutes. Odd that it was blocked yesterday for vanmdalism ;) - BillCJ 01:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Light entertainment

The ultimate in lists is this list of lists: List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas --Kevin Murray 16:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Any time, dear Chris!

Dearest Chris, so sorry it took me a full day to get back to you :( I'm so glad you liked the design, and the fact that it was unexpected makes it even better! ;) You know, I had been working on it since Thursday, and I wanted it to make it a surprise for you. When you gave me the beautiful smile, I thought, "Oh no! He saw my sandbox!" but I relaxed when you asked for help with your userpage ;) So here we are now, and I am delighted at your pleasure with your new userpage. That's all I need - no other "award" would make me happier. Oh, sweets, before I forget - there's plenty of subpages in your userpage that the new design has rendered unused now, you might want to delete them, or not, I wouldn't dare to touch them. I hope you're having an awesome weekend, and once again - enjoy! :) Love, Phaedriel - 14:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Barn star

Can you explain how a barnstar was "awarded" by you at the page User:Kermanshahi when you apparently never edited it? Srnec 16:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you think to check the talk page history? - BillCJ 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As a common practice, I award barnstars on user talk pages. This is to respect any particular formatting a user may have. If you had checked there talk page, I regularly engage in discourse with this editor. Thanks for the concern though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry

Hi there, sorry about that, I know, I know, one must deny. --Kyoko 13:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all! It is good to have concerns. Sorry if you feel like I was stepping on your toes there. You are always welcome to replace anything I remove as part of a WP:DENY campaign because it is not an official policy. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I wasn't offended or hurt. I just find this sort of vandalism very strange indeed. --Kyoko 13:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is it is somebody who may know him in real life and is just screwing around with him to get a reaction. Even if they do not know each other, this type of vandalism is bad faith and true trolling. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppeteer.

Thank you for reverting the trolling on my talk page. I saw your message on Phaedriel's talk page about a sock master, and indeed, there is one. Do you remember about two months ago, about a couple of hours after my RfA ended, you, Ryan, Alison, and Newyorkbrad were all saying that you were sorry about the unsuccess of the RfA? Well, as I was trying to respond to you all, a user called "Owner of Boats" posted a message to my talk page asking about why I revert vandalism on Natalie Erin's user page. You blocked Owner of Boats for vandalism. Since Owner of Boats was the first user to start this "Acalamari loves" business, I am sure that they are the sock puppet master here. This was funny at first, but with it continuing two months later and becoming an almost daily event...it has become boring now. Acalamari 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that I am aware of it, I will block on site and deny them the pleasure of getting a reaction! Keep up the good work. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re. Questionable award

Hello Chris. You did well. I don't know if the editor was giving me that barnstar in bad faith, but still the comments appended to it are totally inappropriate and I would refuse the award. Second time this month. :-) Best regards, Hús ö nd 18:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Newsletter - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the Virginia WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Kubigula (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Frisians

I am interested in the projext. I might create templates and awards for it; can you give me tips? Murlock 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tierck Hiddes de Vries

Can you help me with this article? He was a famous naval hero, as can be seen on both he Frisian and the Dutch wikipedia, and that way deserves an article on wikipedia!!! Murlock 10:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could but i can find no sources in a language that I understand. I found a source from google books that appears to be about the subject however it is not in a language I understand. You are welcome to read that source and add information from it. Also, if you could give me translations I could use it to enhance the article as well. Good luck though! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Brock Lesnar

Resolved

User:Iamaloco, is his #1 fan. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming you were saying he is a sock? Can you tag it for me. I have blocked them from the few edits that I saw looked like a sock. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagged. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 14:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

More socks

~~User:Jake Rocker of banned User:JB196 Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)~~

Nevermind, resolved. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikefficiency for ya! User:Shadow1 beat me to it! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yah, and me. I'm watching too :) - Alison ☺ 18:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Socks dont stand a chance here, do they! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not, hooray! Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely sure about this one, but really suspicious the way they just jump into similar edits in articles as JB. User:Jumpsteady R Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm convinced, as within minutes he is hitting the same articles with the same edits, just smaller edits at a time. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that. blocked him and reverted every single edit he made! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added several of the articles frequented to my list. Ill keep an eye for him too. I know how it goes with socks, ive fought socks who created a sock a minute for almost an hour. At least he was an idiot and named all of his socks really obviously. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not an obvious name, but the edits are, User:Symbiotic Dresscode. Honestly, I know this violates WP:NPA, but this guys is a real loser who needs to get over himself, honestly. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at it, i blocked him before you gave me this message. I watchlisted several artcile and lo and behold, i click my WATCH shortcu and the top 8 edits were by this guy. Bye bye! just WP:DENY. the best thing to do. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep an eye on the logs for socks, sometimes he "pre-loads" by creating one sock account, then using that account to create 3-5 more for when the first one gets blocked, as sleepers to get around semi-protection SirFozzie 18:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Matty Smal (talk · contribs) - gone - Alison ☺ 18:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Golf hitter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - *sigh* - Alison ☺ 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agent Dude 007 (talk · contribs) it was amusing at first... Bmg916^Speak_Sign 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

JB196

I think you deserve this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The **Vandal Whacking Stick** - you need it :)

And this! - Alison ☺ 19:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(goes hunting for an Iron Maiden (the torture device, not the metal band) picture. Then again, listening to Iron Maiden for some could be classified as torture.. :D SirFozzie 19:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

File:Iron Maiden of Nuremberg.jpg

Here ya go :) - Alison ☺ 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

you know, if they announced the above were the tools for admins, there'd be a lot more applicants for adminship than just a plain ol mop ;) SirFozzie 20:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see it now! "COngrats ony our successfull RFA! I hereby award you with a trusty Iron Maiden! I hope you use it well!" -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly would lower the recidivism rate, eh? :D SirFozzie 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

HAHA, yep. There would no longer be a block log, however an iron maiden log! Bet vandals would only do it ONCE! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Instead of a Block and Ban log, we'd have an Iron Maiden Log and a Guillotine log. SirFozzie 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How's this for a vandalism? ;)

Will I get another warning, mr. Admin...? ;) Phaedriel - 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Awwww. It's a pity all vandalisms weren't like this :) - Alison ☺ 20:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Watch this please?

Hey, I hear my helo landing, so gotta go...would you watch User:NickKelsey10...I've warned him, looks like a vandal only account, don't have time to wait around and possibly block. Thanks! AKRadecki 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar vandalism!

For your great humour and the good hearted laugh you've gifted me, I award you this laughing little star! Phaedriel - 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Hi

Hi this is kind of embarrassing. I think you are a sock puppeteer. I sent messages to other admins already. Here's what the message looks like:

I suspect that user:Chrislk02 is a sock puppeteer. He has currently banned 3 users for being sock puppets. I checked their contributions, and I suspect, that those 3 banned users are sock puppets for Chrislk02. All of their contributions has been vandalism, and they have all been reverted by user:Chrislk02. The vandals vandalism, are all on the same pages!!! The vandalism, were all somewhat simliar. The banned users are:

user:Shaq dunks like a maniac

user:Symbiotic Dresscode

user:Jumpsteady R

I think that Chrislk02 has been making accounts, vandalizing with them and reverting the vandalism with his admin account in order to make him look good. He thought people wouldn't figure his scheme, because he blamed the sock puppeting on a banned user, and the vandalism was small.

So........ Don't bann me please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I must do what is right! If is means death. Uh, have a good day!

Runewiki777 21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

... Um.. I'm sorry, but you're so incorrect that you're coming out on the other side closer to correct. Chrislk is reverting and banning JB196, one of the site's most persistent vandals. And um.. telling 15 other admins about it? Bad thing. SirFozzie 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to believe whatever you like. You are welcome to request a check user or whatever you like! Good luck. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are truly concerned, you are also welcome to post a notice at administraotirs notice board/incidents. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as you don't delete the main page or start blocking other admins you'll get away with it... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My bad. And it wasn't 15 other admins. It was like 6. Runewiki777 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Still suspecting.

Some suggestions then, look up the [[WP:LTA| Long Term Abuse] report on User:JB196, as well as the pending Request for Check User (under IP Check), and see this post [1] which is Jonathan Barber (JB196) boasting about his vandalism. SirFozzie 21:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get this spamming thing! Can you not post on admins talks?! Just saying.

If you look, there's several sections on WP:ANI devoted to JB right now, in fact :) SirFozzie 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok! I get my stupid error! I have 1 more question. How do you people know if those users are sock puppets or not? Runewiki777 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Common edits. Look through there history, they all target the same section of articles in a short period of time. I have done a large amount of work in sock tracking. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I've dealt with JB from the start (almost a full year ago now), as has One Night In Hackney, and we see the way he does things. (the fact he vandalizes our user pages with a lot of his sockpuppets, (even signing as "JB196")is usually a tip off as well) SirFozzie 21:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, the concept: Creating sock puppet accounts in order to block to make oneself look good? Huh?! That has to be the funniest thing I've ever heard. There's enough socks and vandals running round here in broad daylight to do that without creating ones! Ha ha. – B.hotep ^u/_t• 21:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Chris, first you go and have warn Phaedriel for vandalism, then you have to take your socks off...you're certainly having an interesting day! AKRadecki 01:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, I must be the definition of a Rouge and/or a Bad Admin. As the above accuser stated when canvasing other admins I am a "bad" or "evil" admin and he should be thanked for discovering my evil scheme and tipping the rest of the wiki world off to my evil scheme -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:38, 1 June 2007

Oh, the Gods... first Ryan, now you? Next thing, I'll discover I'm a sockpuppet myself! Phaedriel - 02:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Real bad stuff!

The admin user:Pathoschild had redirected the page Thor to Insert text. In the history, it says that ip 190.58.6.18 committed the crime. Its weird! I swear, I saw Thor being vandalized in the recent changes. I went there and I was redirected to Insert Text. I went to the Thor page and checked the history! It said Pathoschild! Hes a bad admin! I know I made a mistake before.......... But this time its real! Runewiki777 23:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC) (embarrassed kid)

And the redirected was protected so I couldn't fix it.

Ok - I'm not seeing this at all. Can you show us a diff? - Alison ☺ 23:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Slight mistake

Oops. Also the Xtreme Pro Wrestling protection didn't stick because of Twinkle, and you might want to protect Rob Zicari too. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Blowland

Can you please block User:84.241.150.26 and User:Blowland? They have no constructive edits whatsoever, and keep on vandalising my userpage. Can you please, have this activeties stopped by banning 'em? My page is being vandalised on a near daily base now! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry. I really am.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Runewiki777 (talk • contribs)

Really it is no problem. However, please do not delete threads from my talk page. Good luck editing. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

In response to the comment on my page. I'm sorry I didn't mean to be uncivil. I just meant to point out from his edit summary that he had a very narrow range of contributions from which I could guess his personal info. I hope you don't find this too serious an offense worthy of a block. Black Harry 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I repilied on your talk page! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar Black Harry 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He's ba-ack...

There he goes again... get the whack-a-mole ready! Phaedriel - 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

grabs a warhammer.... What? It's my preferred whack a mole tool! :D SirFozzie 20:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

I want to spend more time in Nicktropolis.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonjonbt (talk • contribs) -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Spending 'more' time in Nicktropolis, doesn't have to mean spending 'zero' time in wikipedia. Lsi john 02:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris; may I please use your navbar on my userpage? Thanks Harrison-HB4026 08:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It was designed bu User:Phaedriel. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 10:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ill pursue him :) Harrison-HB4026 04:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Her :) - Alison ☺ 04:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Move Vandal

Could you please move Mike 'The Miz' Mizanin back to Mike Mizanin and merge the histories please? A user named User:Socks 01 maliciously moved the page w/o consent or even asking anyone in the community about the move. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 14:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Haggawaga - Oegawagga (talk · contribs)

Hi. This blocked user believes you can "help him" with his unblock request. Just to let you know. Sandstein 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It never hurts to be a little more civil, pt II.

Frankly, I would have expected someone comfortable with handing out civility lessons to himself avoid characterizing other editors as "idiots" and "pompous asses" for citing a (demonstrated) lack of maturity, recent vandalism, very few edits, no demonstrated breadth of editing and refusal to answer questions about one's admin candidacy as reasons to oppose that candidacy. Without going into pointless discussion of why you feel such characteristics are desirable in admins, such behavior in an admin is both unseemly and discredits any admonishments he might feel emboldened to deliver. RGTraynor 02:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to characterise my behavior anyway you so desire. First off, I 100% respect your right to oppose any candiacy and for that manner anybodys right to oppose, however wish that you do so civilly. My comments left were not meant to describe any particular editor as I feel as a singularity none of us are idiots. However, when a group of people get together to do a common task, it is inevitable that we will all be idiots at some time. To the outside, this may be hard to understand. I assure you that careful thought went into my statement and that In my every day work here i make every effort to be 100% civil. However, being civil does not mean ignoring the facts. My comments were generalisations and not particular attacks on any individuals personality, there is a major difference. There is at no point where I will call somebody or single them oput based on age or experience. We all have room to grow and learn, and offering to help as opposed to puttting them down is ALWAYS the proper course of action. There is NO situation where I ever consider "Not a bloody chance. Middle schooler with 87 edits total, been an editor for all of three months" an appropriate tone. Again, you are welcome to charaterise my behavior however you so choose, but i strongly stand by my statments. Best of luck to ya! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Emerson7

Thank you for your assistance re: Emerson7 (talk · contribs). Sorry for the bother.

Completely unrelated - your user page seems to be a victim of the Internet Explorer box model bug. In IE v.6, several of the boxes are getting cut off on the right side. I'm not a CSS expert or I would offer a clever solution! Usually it's padding that messes things up. WRK (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

yea, i did not design my page. The wonderful User:Phaedriel did. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Phaedriel is a top-notch person here, no doubt. I'll poke around and see if I can find a solution for you... WRK (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem may be more related to the mix of em and width percentages. Getting complex layouts to work across all browsers is one of the more difficult parts of web development and this is why. Your user page looks great in Firefox! I'll ask Phaedriel for assistance since she's clearly more knowledgeable than I in this area. WRK (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not that important to me personally! Thank you for trying though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I figured - but now I'm obsessing! :) I just made an edit to your user page - hopefully you don't mind. It seems to look the same in Firefox but looks much better in IE 6. If it's bad and you revert, let me know and I'll keep hacking. WRK (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WRK

i too, am appreciative for 'someone' stepping in to deal with this matter. yesterday i made a sincere attempt to engage with wrk and was rebuffed by retaliatory warning messages while he made no effort to dialog. further, even while under a 'semi-forced' cool-off having the page on pacheco locked, wrk opted for an wholesale nuclear conflagration. in the spirit of understanding the process, why were my 'edits' reverted as disruptive and his ignored? --emerson7 | Talk 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I found out yesterday that you had actually started the (to use your blatant exaggeration) wholesale nuclear conflagration a month ago when you changed a dozen or so California governor articles by removing the succession boxes. No discussion, no consensus, no attempt to bring any other office types or any other states in line with your personal declaration of deprecation - you didn't even finish all of the California governors! Attempts at discussion on your user talk page and on the one article's talk page were responded to with mostly silence and more reverting on your part. I woke up this morning to find more of the same. WRK (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Pointing fingers does no good here. I have resarched the situation, and have a fairly decent understanding of what goes on. I have no problem if you use my talk page to request assistance, however please do not use it to throw accusation back and forth! (That is what your talk pages are for). Just calm down, remain cool and it will all work itself out! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Subst-ing

Hello. I've replied at my gaff --Dweller 15:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers --Dweller 15:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

you're joking, right?

what the heck are you talking about dude? did you read the entry at all? removing edits that are clearly and explicitly non-standard? alphabetising? where's the controversy? --emerson7 | Talk 17:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

earlier you wrote:

←Also, you have lead us to believe that an IP added the oringial nominations. I looked through the history and believe [3] to be the oringiial additions of the information. Is there another earlier edit by an IP that I should be looking at? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

did you 'mean' to imply that my intent was mislead you, or am i just reading it that way? --emerson7 | Talk 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm going to pose the same scenario and question to you as i did to user:Bzuk several hours ago without a response. i'd like to get your perspective.

just so that i'm clear on your position....you believe that if changes are made to an article that are clearly contrary to guidelines or standards, where the guidelines or standards are explicit and pro forma, and have previously been discussed on several occasions in various forums....you believe additional dialogue is required to deal with those changes? --emerson7 | Talk 20:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

--emerson7 | Talk 11:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Smiley face!

Gdk 41 1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Your a great person! Keep up the good work. Gdk 41 1 19:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

BNP

I know I'm not supposed to be near the article, but I got dragged back temporarily. Can you check the recent history please, in particular this recent edit (made twice), you need to scroll down to see the relevant part. The editor in question already has somewhat of a dubious history. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for spam blacklisting see here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I will look at the BNP tommorow if you have no objection. I am going to fight socks then go to bed! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No rush. Thanks. Given it's non-stop sockpuppetry protection might be a good idea soon. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

At last a moment of peace!!! I need to eat something, I'm starving... Phaedriel - 02:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, Chris! :) Gimme a high five, sweetie ;) Phaedriel - 02:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hero of the Wiki.

Chrislk02, in accordance with your essay, User:Chrislk02/darkside, you give out "Hero of the Wiki" awards to astronomical users. I think you deserve one of these awards for your own work and optimism here on Wikipedia. You do excellent work, and you should have one of the very awards you give out. Thank you for being a great Wikipedian. Acalamari 03:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

co-endorse :) Good call! Esp. given the amount of JB196 socks you've blocked over the last week - Alison ☺ 04:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Co-Co-Endorse Can we give it with Oak Leaf Cluster? You, Alison, and Phaedrial have been doing yeoman's and yeowoman's work The last few days! SirFozzie 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Co-co-co-endorse For the admin that's always there to help, encourage, support, coach and otherwise whack-me-upside-the-head-when-I-screw-up! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Co-co-co-co endorse! Even tho you neglected your admin duties with me and stopped at test3 ;) You are great, Chris! Phaedriel - 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me!

Thanks for helping me, Chris. I'm really glad with you; you saved my account from being blocked! I wasn't even hoping that to happen; I thaught you would give my block a expiry-time, but you lifted the whole thing! Thanks, again, thanks a lot! And the articles which where deleted while I was bkocked from edititing; thanks for restoring those! You are right about the meatpuppeting; I didn't know that, but now I do (as you might have noticed, I don't knew all the rules yet, but I'm reading 'em again soon!). you have made me a very happy user, and I'll possibly never ever forget this. The other blocked users remain blocked, except for Kermashahi, who was obviously not a sock, but a good user having the wrong contacts. Now, finally, things are made up, and I can't thank you enough. But I think, I now did. Most honourabl greetings, from;

-)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 06:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

RE; I´m now at : Wikipedia:Facebook! Nice!

I saw that actuall. I have that page wach listed and saw your edit to it-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a picture of myself yesterday; now, people will now with who their dea;ing here. I heared, stories went around that I was a schoolboy; that deeply insulted me. I have a grandson, who sometimes edits on my pc, and I believe, even under this particular account; my computer has a password-remory, and I think he might abused that. I'm perhaps changing the password. But, now you know the truth. I'm going to tell this to other people, when they think about blocking me again, or accusing me from being someone else than I allways mentioned I was! Cheers, and thanks. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not forget to log out or remove password memory. We have no way of knowing who is on the other end and when an account goes haywire, it will generally be blocked as a "compromised account" Please make sure your account does not get compromised! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I shall make it sure; now I'm going to have a real good conversation with my grandson! I've made this account for creating historical-related articles, of which I think information on several wiki's is requested\needed. Not just for making fun, in a blatant manner; It's mostly meant for being usefull. Sorry for some things happened in the past, but you can now be quite certain, that wasn't my choise! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 12:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

\ Sorry for what happened on one poor users-talk page; I see you reverted my grandsons' edits. Its okay now. Won't happen again. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 13:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Q U E S T I O N

Was my comment not civil enough or too civil?

Award

I have more friends than I knew about. Thank you.--Anthony.bradbury 00:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I really do not know what to say. I was just doing my job. Thank you so very much for the award, and for your kind comments, which I shall always treasure.--Anthony.bradbury 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I imagine that you get just as many complaining messages under the yellow bar as I do. If not, why not??!!--Anthony.bradbury 01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect that we all love User:Phaedriel who is an ethereally beautiful person.--Anthony.bradbury 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong

Because I gave a link to the article where the edit history is. GlassFET 14:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

copy and paste cutting is a bad idea. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's done all the time for article splits and merges. In fact, we would be hard pressed to do splits and merges without cut and paste. It is important to link to the source article though when doing so. Now, for page moves you are completely correct and I have been known to fix cut and paste moves using {db-move} to delete the cut and pasted article and then properly move it. No worries though and thanks for removing the duplications in the synopsis. GlassFET 15:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also attempting to merge the other sections into the prose section. those that were not duplicated. This article used to be FA, i would like to eventually return it to that way and lists are unsightly. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonry

If you are going to merge the text, you are the one responsible for also moving the citations. GlassFET 15:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Socks?

Hey Chris, I know you're a veteran of dealing with smelly socks, and this is an area I've not yet ventured into, but I'd like to get some advice. I don't know if this really qualifies as sockpuppetry, but User:Fly12go had a name block for spamming One-Two-GO Airlines and Orient Thai Airlines. Now, User:Orient-thai is doing the exact same thing, despite notes about COI on its talk page. IP User:222.153.164.132 has been adding very similar spam. (In case you're not familiar with them, One-Two-GO Airlines is a subsidiary of Orient Thai Airlines.) Besides cleaning up the two articles, which I've already done, what would you suggest? I'm tempted to block User:Orient-thai for the spam, but how does one go about verifying that this is the same person? AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Common edits/targets are generally enough. I.E., a pattern of behavior. Like JB196 edited the samne articles and linked to the same place every time. ANother thing to take into account is history. If it is an established editor, that does not rule out the possiblity of sock puppetry but makes it a much more contetious situation. Accounts with little or no edits or recently registered (i.e. after the master was blocked) is often a good sign of sockpuppetry. Add it all up and it it looks like a sock, smells like a sock, block it as a sock. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

also in this situation it looks like a block for spamming would have been good too. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool...thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hey, man! I hope you don't mind that I stole you navbar. Do you know how I could find different pics for mine? And is it possible to add the "edit" back to my pages. I think my format ruined it.

Thanks! Gdk 41 1 00:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:Phaedriel, the original designer, got to you already. For more icons and stuff, take a look at Commons here and here - Alison ☺ 04:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Aarandir here, please care to take look at my talk page to look at the comment made after you made yours. Aarandir 17:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a good break

I am as utterly frustrated as you are by the way things have been handled at WP:AN. Hopefully you can destress in a good way, and hopefully things will change over there.. I'm not holding my breath. SirFozzie 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This situation is a complete joke, for some reason it bring back memories of Kelly Martin. This guy has got a free pass to do what he likes because he's black mailing us - the office should listen to the community. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny how the mop isn't supposed to be a big thing, but they're saying "We're admins. We know what's best for everybody. You peons shouldn't vote on such things. The community means nothing if one admin is willing to go against it." (yes, I'm blowing off steam) SirFozzie 18:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And wikipedians wonder why sites like Citezendium and COnservapedia are springing up! Bunch of Ostriches! While neither one of those sites is quite what I'm looking for, they at least take vandalism and harrassment seriously, and will take legal action against disruptive users. - BillCJ 18:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, dude. I think you're right about how The Man is handling this; still, I'd hate to see Wikipedia lose two quality admins in one fell stroke, so I hope you (and H, needless to say) will be back before too long. Have a good break. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome page

Hi, Chris. Thanks for the welcome, too! -Dan : Dsm 02:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Melano Supriatna

No longer has any legs to stand on - Merbabu and I have just removed the refs due to not finding any refrence to the hoax character. Strongly suggest sanction for hoax article. At least another admin has been watching so its up to you if you wish to apply something. I find such frauds in the Indonesian project bad enough when we have busy bodies trying to tell us what they dont know about indonesia Satu Suro 11:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ocking Jayat Mayaj

Is sheer imagination - there was never a defence minister of indonesia with a name even close to that. Sorry - there is no evidence anywhere for that Satu Suro 13:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I will have to take your word for it. I did get no G hits. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.thejakartapost.com/resources/cabinets/cabinet.asp - you are most welcome to check my claim and to trawl the lists for 45 - 65 which is the claim in the article. As for G - thats the last I'd ever do for indonesian history - but thats another story another time another place Satu Suro 14:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time on these two articles. I know we pushed you hard on them in the last few days, but i knew you could take it!! cheers. Merbabu 13:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Biman Bangladesh Airlines

No comments yet on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Biman Bangladesh Airlines. Care to take a look? Cheers. Aditya Kabir 14:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not generally review articles. I could start however I might reccomend getting a review as a Good Article. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Charles Abrial

On 8 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean-Marie Charles Abrial, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How much more

Chris, I know you extended good faith to User:Kermanshahi when I block him 24 hours and started a check user but is the this sockpuupet worth the benefit of any further doubt. This Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melano Supriatna has shown that they are the same person, their discussions are now so intertwined that Mrlob doesnt remember who suppose to be who and what their input to the article is. Gnan garra 01:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am actually very confident that kermanshi is not haggawagga oggawagaga. It has been provben twice via checkuser if I remeber correctly. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Haggawagga has slowed down as well. He has created valid articles that are not hoazes. I have EVERY reason to believe this eprson exists in his memory. Creating an article on this is GOOD FAITH. Just because we cant find it does not mean it is a hoax. Yes, WP:V and WP:OR need to be adhered to which is why the article should be deleted. The fact that he has made an effort in the past to adhere to wikiepdias standards, create valid articles Dorus Rijkers, Pier Gerlofs Donia, Hendrick Jacobszoon Lucifer and several others. This editors only purpose here is NOT to disrut this project which is why I feel an INDEF block is innapropriate. They DO NOT understand which i almsot a year ago was in the same boat. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud why do you have such a need to protect clear hoax articles. There is nothing good faith about creating fraudulent articles. There are no people of the ocking or melano names in existence or in any documentation. It is like you are being conned mate. They simply cannot find anything to hang a hat on V or N , so the articles should be gone. And for K... to ask for a redirect of an article that is fraudulent suggests a complete lack of understanding of what wikipedia is about, and that should be clarified. Hundreds of articles with better credentials than these two get speedy deletes regularly, why do we have to drag our feet over these stupid hoaxes? Satu Suro 03:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A very good close read of the talk page of User talk:Haggawaga - Oegawagga as it exists at the moment - should be sufficient for any outside observor to speedily close the two deletes and get them off before some bright spark tries to do something else with them and run with something else. Satu Suro 03:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem speedily closing them as unreferenced. Feel free to speedy close them. I understand why you believe they are hoaxes and in any other situation I would. I will look int it when I get to my main computer for the day. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 11:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for doing the close and delete - if in fact there is some amazing turn around re any evidence of either - I will gladly give consideration to examining the evidence - but in their curent formats - the articles were claims that offend the integrity of the Wikipedia Indonesian project Satu Suro 13:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I forgive you the deletion. You stood in your right, completely, and correctly followed the rules. The issue seems to be settled in a (for me) satisfieng way. I now know, a person from which I've nothing but vague meories from almost 40 years in the past, aren't fit for this site. Sorry. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 14:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad.

I'm glad you came back. :) Acalamari 17:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Over reaction

Ivo said exactly that--it's a quote from his post. KP Botany 20:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

BS

Thanks for the shiny. : ) I made a comment on ANI about the incivilty with a diff but do intend to now drop it. Happy editing. And thanks again, I like barnstars. : ) IvoShandor 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarify: The thread KP Botany opened that is. IvoShandor 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll taxes

You deleted my response to arguments other people made and called me a troll, then closed the discussion shutting me up for trolling, then said that consensus had been reached, AFTER you prevented my arguments from being delivered. I don't really care what anyone has to say after they tell me to shut up and go away you troll. Figure it out for yourself whether or not I'm interested in any further comments from someone who tells me to shut up and not make any arguments because they're worthless doo doo since I'm a troll. KP Botany 20:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

He removed a section of an article you pasted there and then told people where to find it, it was long and in the way, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information anyways. ^(H) 20:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a look and can't see that you did anything wrong beyond the incivility of the edit summary which you have now apologised for. --John 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

username discussion

many thanks for moderating the discussion regarding my username. i appreciate your efforts to act in good faith and to provide appropriate and timely responses. ChicagoPimp 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris, regarding the username discussion, would you be willing to re-open it so we can at least move the pointless ranting from ANI? If someone else closes it in a few days (even if it balloons to huge), it might placate the participants who disagree with the "allow" decision. Just a thought.--Chaser - T 21:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If i felt that my decision was out of process, I would agree too however I feel that my actions were most appropriate action in the given situation. I will ask them to direct themselves here. Every time somebody disagrees with an action is not a reason to overturn it. If there is a consensus at ANI to overturn my decision, I will galdly do so. Until then, I stand by my decision. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It was closed properly, two people disagreeing does not mean it was not closed in line with policy and consensus. ^(H) 21:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Wasn't sure which section above to stick this in, so I figured I'd start a new one. You said if someone had a problem with your closure of the RFCN (You know which one I refer to...) to discuss with you. Okay. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought it was common (read: unwritten [or maybe even written somewhere] guideline/policy) that someone participating in a discussion like RFCN or AFD, etc. was not supposed to close said discussion. Is that not true? Don't care which way you closed it, by the way. Please answer here. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I know in the old RFCN, where it used to be vote based that it was considered bad form to vote and then close. I feel with the new RFCN, it is often appropriate for an administrator to facilitate discussion. I did not count votes, i made a decision based on my understanding of the policy and the discussion. I did not even take my own arguments into account when closing it so no, I do not feel my actions were inappropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But you were an involved party to the discussion, actively arguing for the name to be kept. To close the discussion yourself (even disregarding your own comments [although I am not positive how that is ever truly possible]) seems a conflict of interest. Just seems since you were involved, you could have waited for an uninvolved (unbiased?) admin to judge the discussion. But c'est la vie. Again, mahalo. --Ali'i 21:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RFCN is a tool for admins to reach a decision, since it is not a vote or decision making board it does not matter if Chris participated. The choice to conduct a username block(or not) is an admin choice(like any block), that can be disputed at ANI, but RFCN is not a vote. ^(H) 21:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth

In regards to the whole "ChicagoPimp" thing, in my eyes, you did the right thing. Don't let the 1% of the population making 99% of the noise get you down -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 21:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for deleting my userpage. --SWEETCARMEN♥ 23:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lightbringer sock at Freemasonry

He is way over 3rr... and I am close, so do not want to revert again. I realize that you may have a COI on blocking him, but could you report him so someone else will? You may also want to see Wikipedia:Abuse reports/24.68.249.225 which WegianWarrior started on him. Blueboar 00:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I reported him myself. Blueboar 00:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your friedns on Wikipedia

Wouyld you tell your friends to lay off telling me you apoligized? You didn't and you know it. And you continued personally attacking me after your so-called apology. You want me to shut up, it's obvious. Well, get your friends off my back and you can have your wish, you and the ChicagoPimps can have Wikipedia. I can't believe how nasty you and your friends have been in supporting your "apology." Don't ever apologize to me again, I don't deserve to be attacked like I'm vermin and treated like crap just because I was offended by a user name and tried to use policy to do something. Don't respond, just leave me alone. KP Botany 00:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no cabal. He said he was sorry, if you aren't mature enough to accept it, that's your problem. It's over now, let it go. If you can't stay WP:COOL, I'd advise you leave for something you will enjoy -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As one proud to call myself a friedn, I still don't think you have done anything wrong. Chill out. --John 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you see it that way. I would rather post this on your page but being you have requested that I do not, I will honor that request. Again, you have my sincerest apologies for the bad faith call I made in asserting your actions as trolling. I hope you will not have hard feelings over this slight lapse in judgement, as we all make them occasionally. THanks and good luck on this project,I hope you choose not to leave for good. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you.

Gdk 41 1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I like this template a lot. Gdk 41 1 03:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ping!

Are you around, sweetie? Phaedriel - 14:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, sure am. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a minute to drop by IRC? Phaedriel - 14:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Can it be in 15 mins? I dont have IRC here but will be going to a place where I can get it in about 15 to 20 mins. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For you, I can wait 15 years ;) 'Course it can, baby, I'm already there - tap my shoulder when you hop on, k? Love ya, Phaedriel - 15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Troll.

Chrislk02, the troll is back and is reverting me on my own talk page. Can you please block them for me? Acalamari 17:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Already done. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Reverting me for reverting trolling on my own talk page; the nerve! Acalamari 17:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dont let him get to you! No more than petty childish vandalism. Some people are insecure and feel they must put the rest of us down. Be strong! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave my talk page alone, and your friends won't be attacking me on it

This is in regards to blatant and gross vandalism that I reverted on her talk page and the email following it that she sent me [2]
I wouldn't need luck is so many people didn't have to defend your actions by attacking me. Stop watching my talk page, there are plenty of other editors who can do that. The only reason the comment was posted in the first place, like all the insults you and your friend hurled at me, is because of your continued presence in the vacinity of my talk page. You leave, and it won't happen again, because no one will need to attack me to defend your inexcusable behaviour. KP Botany 17:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, i am sorry you feel that way. I was just doing my job in the best way that I know how. I am sorry that you have to have hard feelings over this. SHould you ever reconsider or need administrative assistance, I will be here to kindly offer you a hand! Thanks for your hard work on this project, i do appreciated your contributions and respect you a valued editor. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then get your friends to stop personally attacking me on your behalf, and get you away from me. That would be a great help. It's pretty curious how many other administrators it took to insult and attack me on your behalf. Now you think you're offering me help? I can't risk being attacked by anyone else on your behalf. KP Botany 17:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of anybdoy other than myself who specifically attacked you. I have apologized multiple times as I realise the judgement assumed bad faith and that I made a mistake. If you can provide me a diff or show further evidence of other people who have personally attacked you (please not that a pesronal attack is not necessarly criticism, however calling you names and other innapropriate uncivil actions such as a troll), I will kindly ask them to address the issue. Please WP:AGF here as I failed to do earlier in this situation. Again, if there is every anything I can help you with on this project please let me know. thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As well, I get no pleasure in having editors at odds with me. I would like to take appropriate action to discuss this and attempt an amicable resolution to your problems with me. I am willing to address it and feel that it is an important part of life to try and make up differences between people. However, if you feel this is impossible, I kindly ask that you do not draw the rest of the community into this issue as I am making personal attempts to resolve this with you. Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:50, 12

June 2007 (UTC)

In other words get over all the past insults you allowed everyone to hurl at me on AN/I, but if anyone does any more they get scolded? So does that mean Phoeba gave you the okay that she got it harrassing me out of her system?

I love this, you define the playing field entirely. You remove my remarks (and yes you did, not matter how many times you say you didn't), call me a troll, close the argument, run out and pat your buddies on the back for the great save, allow everyone to attack and harrass me on AN/I (like Phoeba was allowed to harrass me relentlessly for a definition of Pimp, and continue the discussion, while ExplodingBoy mentioned it once and you told him to stop), then get that closed to shut me up there also, now you offer if I concede that only you have the right to define the playing field (throwing your administratorship around again), you'll what? Undo your allowing me to be harrassed by those agreeing with you, undo calling me a badgerer, undo letting me know that pimps can contribute to Wikipedia but my contributions are worthless?

Is there any end to your inability to see how one sided and biased you are? Is there any point at which you will actually read what people said to me, that you allowed them to continue saying, that you allowed people, as long as they were harassing me, to continue battering me off topic to get my complaint thrown off AN/I?

I didn't bring it up at Ivo's thing. Someone else did, then I got told that any defense of me is bizarre, and you ddin't raise any hackles about that.

Every insutling thing said to me, every bait thrown at me, you allowed, simply because it took the pressure off of your adminsitrative actions. To now suggest that since you've succeeded in allowing people to harass me at AN/I, call me over zealous, call me other names, accuse me of badgering, accuse me of forum shopping, call any support of me bizarre, not what you've succeeded in all that, you're going to what? Offer me an olive branch? What exactly do you want me to do with it?

KP Botany 18:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I don't think this merits any more discussion and I would let KP have the last word. This clearly will never be resolved, and I think you both should move on to bigger, better and more positive futures, both having learned whatever lessons you wish to take from this. But it's time for this issue to die. --David Shankbone 18:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have left what I think is a conciliatory message on her talk page; I hope it does not make the situation even worse. Very best wishes, --John 18:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems no matter what you do at this point it will be seen as an attack. Not your fault, just the way things are apparently. ^(H) 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

David, you've established what you think of me, there's no need to continue--I'm not a complete idiot, as many times as Phoeba seemed to imply that about me, much to everyone's delight at watching.

And there's no way I can ever have the last word, because Chris can and will and has shut me up, but I don't have that option.

And, Chris, since you can't get your friends to leave me alone, don't offer to do anything for me, as you're not able to. KP Botany 18:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

KP, you keep wanting to stir the pot. You haven't been blocked and nobody has shut you up. You have been apologized to by both editors, they have offered to be there for you in the future, and yet you still continue to rant. Your behavior is on the border of becoming trolling. You suggested Chris take your page off his watch list. I suggest you follow your own advice and remove his from yours. You seem only to want to fight. Frankly, I find your behavior at this point completely in the wrong, regardless of whatever merit you initially had in your arguments. Let it die and move on with your life, and stop trolling pages. --David Shankbone 18:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To anyone watching Chris's page - please stop posting on KP Botany's page, regardless of how well-intentioned you are. She clearly needs to cool off for awhile, and engaging her is only causing her to fly off the handle more. Just leave her be. There's no need to say one more thing to her, unless she continues to post on this issue anywhere else, at which point it will be trolling. Until then, may I suggest strongly to leave her alone and let her do whatever she needs to do to bring herself down? --David Shankbone 19:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

don't worry...

I am offended. How about you being an actual player of Nicktropolis?? Trust the people who are actually IN Nicktropolis. For now, I am on KP Botany's sde, against you. So HA! JONJONBT ^{Talk to me!} 19:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I just made the edits that I felt were most appropriate to Nicktropolis. I do not have to be a player to attempt to make it adhere to wikipedias standards. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

On my talk page is why I believe the conversation on gnangs talk page is from one person :) Satu Suro 23:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

I know you like enforcing WP:CIVIL, so I was wondering if you could take a look at this thread on WP:ANI.

Thanks,

BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 06:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Bluebird Greenhouse

I saw your edits to this article and Saintpaulia. I had considered nominating this article for deletion as it seems to be little more than an advertisement for a commercial operation, and not an especially notable one at that. In particular linking to it from the Saintpaulia article smacks of advertising--there are plenty of people selling african violets out there, and based on this edit they could all reasonably expect to be listed in the article! MrDarwin 14:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would personally reccomend prodding it if you feel it should be deleted. I was just doing maintenece work, you are however welcome to remove it if you feel it was inapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I...

don't want your admin coaching
don't want your stupid opinions
do want you to leave me alone

User:Jonjonbt 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the way to become an admin. --David Shankbone 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

i'm gonna go on a wikibreak... I need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonjonbt (talk • contribs)

Ok, have a good break. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We all need a break once in a while. ^(H) 20:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I had to have User:Kuru block me for a month to enforce mine... (now that's wikaddiction!) -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 22:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the above and thanks for the wishes on a good break, but I might not last long... J O N J O N B T
Also, my sig isn't working... I may need some help if you don't mind.

I am not good at sig coding. I actually prefer the good old fashioned sig. I am sure there are plenty of others who can help ya out. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Java7837

Thank you for your help in this matter. --Yksin 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Chris, thanks. YOur and Allie's interventions really seems to have helped. - BillCJ 00:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also...

can you block me from editing so I'm not tempted???J O N J O N B T

if you really want me to. How long? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Until July 14 J O N J O N B T

Hold on, hold on, why don't you just enforce it yourself and block log in from your monobook? I'll hunt for the code. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Trrslimfat

Just dropping by to say thanks for reverting that vandalism on my talk page. That guy just wasn't too pleased with me it seems :) Jmlk 1 7 03:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No he did not. No problem, no problem at all. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Names

Listen. Prescriptivism-vs-descriptivism aside, the primary meaning of "pimp" is still synonymous with "slave-holder". I have friends who are former prostitutes. They speak with anger and disgust of the horrors of the pimp. "ChicagoPimp" is an excellent user, but his username is as unacceptable as would be "Grammar Nazi".

On this, I am unyielding. No pimps allowed, and no NSDAP allowed either. DS 04:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(grits teeth) Have to say, I agree here - Alison ☺ 04:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- First off, can you provide me a dictionary entry that says "pimp" == "slave holder"? I am not trying to be the guy beating the deceased horse, however let me provide a counter point. If a childs parents beat them horrifically when they are younger. A username with the word parent could qualify under the same rationale because they could speak of horrors and disgust of the pimp. For that matter anything that has caused pain could qualify under that rationale. I understand that it can be offensive to some people, I have never said it is not and as a matter of a fact regularly agree it may offend some people. However, so does everything else such as parent, If an alligator killed a family member, that might bring back horrible memories lets ban that too. It is a fine line to walk between what is offensive to everybody and what is offensive to some people. nazi is offensive to almost everybody there is no question that would not be allowed (I.E. in the grammar Nazi). Almost anything, as described above, can be offensive to someone. The question is determining a.) what was the intent because wp is still built on WP:AGF in my opinion and secondly b.) what do a majority of people feel? I will gladly engage in discussion regarding this here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

- - I will grant that I misused the term "synonymous"; "synonymous" is not synonymous with "equivalent", however, it is equivalent with "equivalent". A pimp is, primarily, a person who holds another person in sexual slavery. This is de jure a very different phenomenon from chattel slavery; however, de facto the similarities are overwhelming. DS 13:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    - That is not the defintioin, that is you or a group of people assigning what you feel the proper current definition is and is no different than the group that feels it means "extravagent or flashy" as seen in pimp my ride. The fact is, the current definition is neither of those. Another reason why this situation has become so difficult. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      - This is the only negative issue with the user in question that I can see. I've been considering the case (generally usernameblocking new usernames with pimp in them myself), but what puts it over the edge is the line: Gotta keep the pimp hand strong. Always. on his userpage. The statement is boasting of an intent to maintain superior strength, and the link indicates an identification of that intent with illegal pandering. Despite the user's fine contributions, this statement related to his username is both rude and inflammatory, weakening the argument that it is merely a fashion statement. It doesn't have to be a difficult thing, he just needs a new name. We've other solid users, the former User:ClockworkTroll for one, who have successfully been asked to change their usernames in the past with no ill effect. --Fire Star 火星 13:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        see this. To summarize, I do not believe pimp to always offensive. I assumed good faith when perhaps it was not. I stand by my assertion that pimp is not always offensive and depends on the usage of it but in this situation believe he is actually using it in a derogatory sense and is not appropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        I do agree with your point that in its recent Xzibit sense as a verb for dressing up something or someone it isn't necessarily offensive (I've enjoyed that show, for example). That sense, if explicitly made by context, removes most of the sleaziness for me. --Fire Star 火星 14:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting nomination

I've found a interesting nomination on a well written article. A nomination for FA-class. Whats your opinion on it? I think its great, but I'd rather see your opinion on it, as I don't know much about the criteria. It seems to met those criteria. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 12:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not do much work with WP:FA. I am sure if it was nomintaed it will go through the proper process before being decided on. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay than. I now have read the rules thoroughly. I thinki I'm going to concentrate on rating articles for a while, and helping some newcomers. That seems to be fun! And I'm going to improve my articles even further, intwending to make 'em all from B to Good-class. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 14:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What you need to work on is inline citations. ALso, create yourself a sandbox to work on articles in and expirement. If you need help doing this, let me know. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I shall. And I'll let you know when I'm going to need any help. Thanks for he tip, Chris ! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

You already look like you've been approved???? :-s Ryan Postlethwaite 17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ooops, missed that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

question.

So will my userpage be deleted? (MrsMacMan 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

No, it will get renamed with your new name. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

how long does this take? i mean the name changing.(MrsMacMan 18:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

I do not know, i have never done it. You have less than 300 edits, it might be better just to get a new account and move all the stuff over to the new account. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had my account renamed, it took a day, but it can take upto a week to go through. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Java again

Chris, it seems Java does mean well, but he has damaged the CFL page [3]! I asked him not to do the page, but he did it anyway yeaterday, and then made him aware of it in case he hadn't seen the notice before the edit (which I assume he did not see it). Now today he does the same thing to the same page. How many other pages is he damaging in this way? If if can't be careful after being made aware of a particular page - twice! - I doubt he's paying attention on any others. THanks. - BillCJ 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, he posted an explanation on my user page. He says he reverted his changes, but I think someone beat him to it, so it didn't show up. Easy mistake on my part. Sorry. - BillCJ 19:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Name change request, et al

i left this same message on Dragonfly's talk page but wanted you to have a copy as well.....

i have made the username change request to move from ChicagoPimp to LurkingInChicago for the good of the greater project. now that the username will be changed, the issue should fade quickly. that said, after a few days of cool reflection for everyone, i would like to initiate a discussion with you and other affected admins regarding assuming good faith, summary blocking after being told i would not have to change a username, allowing a single user to dominate an issue on multiple policy discussion pages, allowing a discussion/debate to continue after an admin decision has been reached, personal attacks, etc. there have been strong words levied from both sides of the issue which degraded into multiple personal attacks with an obvious lack of cooperation and civility. admins would not be the primary subject of the conversation, but rather the userbase as a whole. as you noted on my talk page, i have been cooperative and polite, and i would like to explore how we can work together to encourage all users to do the same with the end result being an improved user experience. ChicagoPimp 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

:-)

Here's some magenta for you! Magenta somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Hús ö nd 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, my VERY own Magenta? Ive wanted my own magenta for as long as I can remeber., Husond, thank you for making my life complete by giving me my very own magenta! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, weird choice huh? :-) You should see me in Xmas. Miniature windmills for everybody, whee! Anyway, thank you for helping with a rather awkward situation earlier today. Regards, Hús ö nd 02:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Azarakhsh.PNG

I did find this picture in the Azarakhsh article. That may be where Kermanshahi got it from. It was uploaded by Jan Gadimzadeh as Image:IRIAF-Azarakhsh.jpg. Looking at his talk page, I'm not sure about assuming good faith that he's the creator of all of the images he has uploaded. His Commons talk page also raises some questions. I was planning on looking into Jan Gadimzadeh's contributions later today, but I don't believe anymore that H-O has done anything intentionally wrong. --Onorem Dil 12:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct. That was a slight oversight in my part. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I tagged a few of his images last week. ([4] [5]) I've been trying to keep an eye on it also. When I noticed he changed tags on an image Kermanshahi uploaded, I was curious how he knew the source. I found the other image shortly after leaving the first message. --Onorem Dil 13:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I found the image when I was looking for pictures of it this was the only one I could fine, I didn't know if I was allowed to do it so I put that unsertain thin. The Honorable Kermanshahi

Fattdoggy i am

Hey, i'm still goin on wiki, so i havent been dowend yet!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.199.139 (talk • contribs)

Socks on AIV

I note you removed my listing from WP:AIV, stating that was not the correct place for sock reports. However, it is exactly what is listed at WP:SOCK#Dealing with violations. Cheers --Pak21 17:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Then provide evidence of who he is a sock of and some common edits to show it. He had no warnings and looking at his contribs I had no idea he was an "obvious" sock of. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Dm2ortiz, as was in the AIV report! diff. --Pak21 18:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Now blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Pak21 18:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Wouldn't have had the guts to run without you guys setting an example, and wouldn't have passed if not for your support. Thanks, man. SirFozzie 18:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, no problem at all. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal removed vandalism tag

172.207.86.210 has just removed {{db|vandalism}} on Luke, Estonia that I just placed it. Tell this vandal to stop.--Edtropolis 18:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

- article deleted. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks I tried to undo it but didn't know how at the time.

Chris please restore this it IS NOT SPAM

Chris please restore this it IS NOT SPAM - Thanks. It is an nfo file for the page. Read the first two sentances of the whole page. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Gorgeous-Ladies-of-Warez.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by USRCourier (talk • contribs)

Looks like spam to me? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Me too. ^(H) 02:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies

Can you unblock the user User:mmbabies, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.214.28 (talk • contribs)

<sacrasm>Sure!</scrasm> Um, NO. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

can you protect this userpage please? User talk:75.6.214.28 mmbabies sock vandalizing it after being blocked. Momusufan 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject James Bond

WikiProject James Bond
Collaboration of the fortnight (two weeks)

WikiProject James Bond:Collaboration of the fortnight
The collaboration has returned!!

THE COLLABORATION OF THE FORTNIGHT (6 September 2011 - 20 September 2011) is

Production of the James Bond films

edit this

Please contribute by editing this article, in an attempt to get it to good article status
For more information see the page here or contact SpecialWindler.
Get in and Participate

^Special_Windler 04:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't catch the name of the film which is collaboration of the fortnight? :D – B.hotep ^u/_t• 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Vittorio Ambrosio

On 17 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vittorio Ambrosio, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Neighborhood watch

Hi Chris, I'm heading off to the redwoods for a week of camping...I would appreciate it if you would keep an eye out for things, like folks leaving message looking for help on my talk page. I'm also dropping similar notes for John and Phaedriel. Many thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Emoze

Hi Chris, thanks for getting back to me, and as fast as you did - much appreciated. emoze is one of the main players in the push email and push IMAP market. Could you please advise me of the best possible way of writing a little about the company in Wikipedia (which will not be noted as spam). Alternatively, how can I can get an editor to write a short paragraph, acceptable to the Wikipedia rules and regulations for publication? Regards, Caront 13:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

TheBackpack - Sandbox

Thanks for you message. Would you know why the user name SueHay is no longer active? I was planning on collaborating with her on a new article.

--TheBackpack 13:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your block/unblock

Dang you, I had a perfect record on WP till now (Sob!) Now I'll never get into Harvard! (chuckles) it's all good.. SirFozzie 21:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to block me back if it is that big of an issue! Wheel war over an accidental block! Sounds exciting!. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

heh. Just doin the scut work, trying to confirm open proxies and the like. SirFozzie 21:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's Chris' way of welcoming new admins. He did it to me as well! :D – B.hotep ^u/_t• 21:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I often check diffs before blocking and sometimes, being that I am so fast at the blocking routine, I click block on the wrong person and a second later I realize i made a mistake! Again my apologies! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspeedy speedy delete?

Chris, I don't know if you get involved in deleting articles but, if so, could you take a look at the article Nathan Delaney and see if you can ramp up the speed on dealing with my speedy delete prod. I think it is a clear case of pure vandalism.

FYI - Given that I assume the subject is a "living person" (probably a schoolmate of the creator) I suppose BLP can be invoked. I blanked the article after six days of no action on the prod (not very speedy in my opinion, it probably would have gone faster to do a full AFD nom.). this was what the article looked like before my prod and blanking.

Thanks, Blueboar 14:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

John Cena

That article is the subject of why my talk is being trolled. Thanks for the reverts. This user is violating WP:POINT since some of their edits to the same article were removed by multiple editors of WP:PW as week by week (which is not encyclopedic and would cluster up the articles with way to much non-notable info). So he is deleting this notable info (the only editor who is) as week by week because he is mad (my assumption) that his edits didn't stand, so I guess in his mind, none should. Bmg916^Speak 17:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I researched the issue a bit before I got involved. That is what I saw so i gave him a point warning. Well see if he cleans up his act a bit! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope he does. Bmg916^Speak 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

oi!

Well I think making articles with my name in it is rude enough and jimbo wales is refusing to delete it. This is demafation. I am reffering to the article Barats and Bereta, I am Barats. --Eweridge and Fortitude 18:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked this guy a couple of times to explain a reason why the article should be deleted...instead he insulted Jimbo. At this juncture, I have no reason at all to believe he is who he claims to be. IrishGuy ^talk 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I will agree, i chose not to get involved in that part of it but I agree with your judgement on this. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. He should be blocked. He left this post ^{[blacklisted link removed]} on their message forum as "MrBarats". That is his first post. The actual Barats appears to post as "Barats" as can be seen here.^{[blacklisted link removed]} Additionally, above he claims to be Barats but in his first edit he claimed to be Bereta [6]. Troll. IrishGuy ^talk 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call! Troll-B-Gone! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Errorfighter Tyfool

Chris, could you please semi-protect the Eurofighter Typhoon? There is an ongoing dispute with an unregistered user with multiple IPs who refuses to back down from his position, and is engaging in multiple reverts. SInce he uses multiple IPs, from at least 3 different ranges, simply blocking him will probably not work. There are several lengthy discussions on the talk page, so I won't repeat them here. Do what you feel is best in the matter, and that's good enough for me. Thanks again. - BillCJ 19:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am the user who keeps changing the entry. Frankly Bill you seem more concerned about proper "procedure" than getting the facts straight.

Chris I would suggest you read the discussion and the reasoning behind my changes. In a nutshell I removed claims that needed citations and spelled out ther reason's why the F-22 should not be included in the comparable AC section. The facts speak for themselves. Protect the entry but it should have been protected prior to the changes of the 19th.

Wiki is now far too large to be factually inaccurate. Further, facts are not established based on consensus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.59.228 (talk • contribs)

Re: 3RR

I've added links. He has indeed violated 3RR. Exploding Boy 20:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, today was the 19th and it is almost the end of the 19th. Why are you providing diffs from 24 hours ago and even days ago? I will not retroactivly block for that. He has not been edit warring today over this article do not report him for past infractions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I added them to show that he has a history of edit warring on this page. The fact that the last time he reverted was yesterday is irrelevant. He's continuing the exact behaviour of reverting without discussion or explanation. Nearly all his most recent edits to that page have been restoring his preferred version of one particular paragraph. Allowing a little time to pass before making exactly the same reverts doesn't mean it's not edit warring. How long will this be allowed to continue, exactly? This user has an obvious pattern of disruptive edits -- indeed, you acknowledged as much yourself when you protected the page. Exploding Boy 20:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It takes 2 to edit war. In otherwords somebody else is reverting back. I have protected the article anyways to give it time to cool down and for discussion. I dont see why either version is better than the other and it is probably a good idea to just move on and work ons omething productive. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, clearly this user is banking on exactly that type of response. I've tried repeatedly to engage him in discussion; it hasn't worked. I've reverted only after providing rationale for doing so. Quite frankly, I don't see why this user should be permitted to get away with his disruptive behaviour simply because he's savvy enough to just avoid violating 3RR. He very obviously deserves blocking, since his first three blocks haven't had the desired effect (ie: stopping the disruptive behaviour), but at the absolute minimum he should receive a warning. There is absolutely no reason for him to restore his preferred version of the paragraph, other than it's the one he likes better. We don't allow users to revert factual, good faith edits willy nilly just because they happen to prefer a different way of presenting the same material. Exploding Boy 20:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am really uninvolved and could care less about the article however I do not see anything wrong with his version. What is the big deal here? Why is it worth edit warring over? You are just as guilty You are just as good at staying under the 3rr rule and you also have a previous 3rr block. Dont go pointing fingers when you are close to as guilty as he is? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, as far as I can see, you were the one who came in and started it. Is there a really good reason and I mean really good reason why your version is better? It looks like here you make the first change. From there it just goes downhill. While you were being WP:BOLD, it is apparent the changes were at least somewhat controversial. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's like the lunatics are running the asylum here.... I'm really just flabbergasted. Either you're for some reason in support of this user or you're just unwilling or unable to see the problem. this version is simply better written. But that's not even the issue so much as the fact that this user is persisting in restoring his own preferred version only because it's the version he likes better. Frankly, I find it somewhat insulting that you clearly haven't bothered to research the issue properly. If you had you would see that I have been attempting discussion all along; this user simply doesn't care. He goes right ahead and does whatever he wants anyway. As a recent example, he removed another request for him to stop edit warring from his talk page without responding.

And by the way, my previous 3RR was during removal of vandalism. Like you, that admin didn't bother to properly research the issue.

As for your most recent comment, above, are you now telling me that it's inappropriate for a user to edit an article? Because it certainly seems that way when you say "you were the one who came in and started it." As I told TWTTATL, the relative age of an article has no bearing; any article can be improved. Exploding Boy 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, and i appreciate your attempts at cleaning it up. Again, i think this is a lame edit war and personally you should drop it. It is not that big a deal it is one passage with a bit different wording. It is not worth all of this trouble, it really is not. Wikipedia is not about who wins or loses or who is right or wrong it is about making compromises. It looks like he may have comproised on some of the other cleanup with you just n ot that passage. It is probably a good time to just move on. Be bold but also ask yourself is fighting over this going to really enhance this article that much? The effort put into defending your version could be better used elsewhere. Personally i think you should just drop the issue because this is really not something to be sseriously edit warring over in my opinion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, the only "controversial" part of my edits (if you can even call it controversy) was the removal of a particular claim based on a dubious source. TWTTATL actually agreed with me on that one, and nobody reverted that change, not even him. Exploding Boy 21:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. My concern, as I've said, is this user's disruptive behaviour. I've asked him to stop it, but I'm not acting as an admin here since I edit the page. He needs to be issued a warning so that when he engages in similar behaviour in future, he can be given another block. Exploding Boy 21:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not about having stuff on the record for future arguments. In the future, if he acts disruptive and he is reported he will be blocked. However I see no merit on this current issue blocking him. He is making a concious effort to enhance this project just like you. YOu see things differently and that is OK, that happens. I will NEVER take blocking of a contributing editor lightley. Somestimes we all get heated up and can be a little disruptive, I am sure I am guilty of it as well. If he is disruptive in the future over a different article, let me know but dont egg him, it is not about getting the proper punishment for actions, blocking is never supposed to be punitive, read WP:BLOCK. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's clearly not the case. He's been reported twice for his behaviour on this article (by me), and he hasn't even received a warning when clearly a warning is warranted. He's not making an effort to enhance the article, he's repeatedly and unnecessarily restoring his own preferred version, refusing to discuss his changes, and reverting without comment and without reason. How much more disruptive must he become before he receives a warning? Exploding Boy 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well surprise, surprise. The user has been blocked for 72 hours for 3RR violations on 2 other articles. Exploding Boy 22:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok? Point being? Again, I will not block somebody because that have been and therefore have the future ability to be disruptive. If they were blocked for activly disrupting I have no problem. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained repeatedly, it wasn't "future ability to be disruptive," it was current, ongoing disruptive behaviour. We'll see if this new 72-hour block has any effect. Exploding Boy 22:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple blocking rarley addresses the issue. I will offer to work with them and see what I can do to help them understand the wiki way. Thanks for your patience with this matter. 22:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of warnings

Regarding [7], users aren't prohibited from removing warnings, though archiving is preferred.--Chaser - T 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was prohibited, only that it's one more example of the user refusing to discuss the issue. Exploding Boy 21:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

hello

As it seems you are one of the nicer people on here, thank you for the concern. Im having a hard time with some things. How do you archive? Ive been to the page but I coulndt make heads or tells. Also I know I seem like a bad guy but Im not I just try to make article better. Some times people disagree with me and somehow i get banned everytime.TheManWhoLaughs 14:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! TheManWhoLaughs 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah its pretty easy once you get the hang of it lol.TheManWhoLaughs 14:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR

I have determined User:Mariam83 should be blocked for massive editwarring. At first I closed it as only warning, after which I found a much earlier warning for 3RR. Therefore it was too lenient and I believe a 48h block is needed. Can you do the job for me (I'm not an adminstrator)? Evilclown93_(talk) 14:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I need evidence. Is it current edit warring? I.E. in the last 24 hours. If so, can you give me the articles edit warred at? I need a little more information before I block. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Following discussion at the noticeboard... There are two reports. Anyways, she's just got blocked for 24 hours for incivillity and harassing. Evilclown93_(talk) 15:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd have blocked my self if I could. Evilclown93_(talk) 15:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope this doesnot offend you, and it is not that I do not trust you, it is just that I have not worked closley with you. In every dispute, I have both parties coming to me to try and get the otherside blocked. I am always leery about somebody popping up on my page asking me to block somebody. I always to my own research before a block because if I block the wrong person, it is on me, not the person who recomended it to me. Hope that helps! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Race and genetics

Hi, Chrislk02 I was wondering if you could look at my 3RR notice on the board. Thank you. XGustaX 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I rarley get involved with WP:3RR. Another administrator will probably get to it before I have a chance to. Sorry. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. XGustaX 16:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually did look into it. If the other guy has 5 reversions, you have to have at least 4. I have protected to article to encourage discussion and precent edit warring from both sides. Remeber it always takes at least 2 to edit war and in the past 24 hours it appears you are the only 2 editors on that page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I E mailed you what has been going. XGustaX 16:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Got it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please check your email once more. XGustaX 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could he only wants things his way. XGustaX 16:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page it appears you only want things your way too. Why is that better than him? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I left some of his information on the article, to be fair. XGustaX 17:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is that fair? Did you include all of your information that he had a problem with? Again, it is about a compromise, but not one just you want, one both of you want. I looked at the talk page it looked like he was willing to make a compromise and you shot it down prety quickly. That is a good start (the compromise) but quickly shutting down an argument is a quick way to shut down effect communication. Try offering another compromise dont just say NO I dont want that. Hope that helps. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I really do not know what else to do in terms of a compromise. if you look at his reverts and what he said about my sources he says they are not reiable and shoots them down pretty quick. So of course I will respond the same way. Do you think that is fair? XGustaX 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Youve heard the old addage, "If everybody jumped off a bridge, would you." Responding the same way you were responded to is NOT the way to solve a problem. This is a problem, use some problem solving skills. You are effectivly saying his source is unreliable. He probably feels the exact same way you do. Reverse the situation, put youself in his shoes. What are the two sources? Post a request on the talk page and try to get a consensus as to which one is best. If there is a strong consenusus for one over the other then use that. More reccomended is try to find a way to incorporate both. If I remeber correctly, the other editor made that offer to you which you quickly shot down. Again, this guy is not out to get out stop painting it like he has not made any efforts to compromise because he has. In short, just because it is done to you does not give you the right to do it back. Rise above it, be better, do more dont stoop to lower levels as the only resort because there are so many more. Also, this is not about fair. Life is not fair that is what compromise is for. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Tell me what you think of my compromise. XGustaX 17:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, i have no interest in this article. That being said, I have started in depth research into this issue. My research can be found here. Please do not edit it or modify it as I read through edit histories and talk poage histories trying to put this whole thing together. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to say Do you think this a good compromise. XGustaX 17:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't be a judge of a compromise. It has to be between you and the other editors involved. I can commend you for making efforts but we have to see what the other party says. Maybye drop them a line explaining you are trying to work through this and you would like there input on a compromise? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note saying I am willing to compromise and please check the talk page. I really hope this works. If this doesn't which I am fearing it won't. What else should I do. I mean I am really trying and will try to get a compromise. XGustaX 17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am researching the situation. I will make a reccomendation after some research if the compromise does not work. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Frisians Proposal WikiProject Frisians

I want to ask you about this project. It has been requested weeks ago by Benne, who seems to be currently inactive. But I was highly interested, and want the whole thing to get started. I don't know much about creating a project yourself, but can you teach me to, or give me the name of a user who does understand that? Your help is requested here, Chris ! I wait your answer, take your time for it. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not that active in starting wiki projects, I just try to contribute when appropriate. Sorry I cant be of more help here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

sock puppets

65.34.207.171 (talk · contribs) another amusing troll using an open proxy. Bmg916^Speak 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be blocked indef. as an open proxy? He'll just come back later with that IP Bmg916^Speak 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it is an open proxy? The who is says it is part of, "Comcast Cable Communications Holdings" which is an internet provider? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't JB always use open proxies? *shrugs* no biggie Bmg916^Speak 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me look at at it.. I'll show you a couple tricks I've learned to check for Proxies, Chris ;) SirFozzie 18:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah.. lots and lots of proof of an open proxy [8] SirFozzie 18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How to Check IP addresses for proxies

What I usually use is the "CheckIp" template.. like this..

65.34.207.171 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

And check the RDNS and RBL's tabs on that template.. if it's listed in multiple Realtime Blackhole Lists, that's proof it's an Open Proxy SirFozzie 18:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

82.74.9.15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) another one that just trolled on my talk page. Bmg916^Speak 18:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow.. I've never seen that many red marks on a page (the ones that mean it's wide open) before. SirFozzie 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Retro meatpuppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hope you don't mind, but I change the above users block to a hard block - look at the contribs, fairly shocking if you ask me, it looks like he's a sock anyway by the similar usernames that appear on the gistory of articles he's edited. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I have to say, I particularly like this one! Ryan Postlethwaite 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, i did not look too far into the issue, just recognized the name was not going to cut it here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TheManWhoLaughs

Thanks very much for your help before. Shortly after the block expired, he has gone back to reverting ways that are contrary to WikiComics editorial guidelines, etc. Please help. Thanks very much -- Tenebrae 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Race and genetics

Hi Chris, While I definitely appreciate your intervention in the matter, the table that is under dispute has been removed and the article is protected. By doing this it is taking the side of User:XGustaX which is precisely what he wants. He does not want the material in the article. I found the materials using google scholar which says they publish peer reviewed scholarly information. The link to the article in question is here, and here on the National Institute of Health official government website. He does not agree with the results of the study, so he wants them deleted. He claims his alternative source from 2001 disputes this [9] and I am agreeable to us using both sources in the article, on one side a claim I put forward and on the other hand a counterclaim that he puts forward and then let any readers decide which they think is true. He does not accept this comprise as he wants the results of the study to disappear. I hope you would then consider placing both sources in the article as an acceptable compromise. This version has both claims [10] Muntuwandi 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note, my protection does not endorse either version. Can you get a consensus on the articles talk page or perhaps from a related project? That would be very helpful in this situation. I agree you have made an effort to work with the editor which is comendable. Start a discussion with other editors and I can unprotect the article and the appropriate changes can be made. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

At the moment we are the only two editors interested in the article, this is part of the problem. The previous editors are now inactive so I cannot find anyone independent to review the information. Muntuwandi 02:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We can solve this muntuwandi ok. We can do this by tonight. I have left a reasonable compromise for both of us. XGustaX 02:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we can work this out. I want to work this out. I have left a Compromise on the talk page. Basically says we keep the African DNA studies and remove the Native American studies. XGustaX 02:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to rush it. I will spend some extended time tomorrow studying the sources and making a reccomendation. In the meantime, I have a quick question. You say "we keep the African DNA studies and remove the Native American studies". Do the african and native american studies come from different sources? If so, which ones repressent each source? IF they are from the same source then your compromise is illogical. FOr both of you, is there conflicting data in each study? I.E>, does one study get results the other does not get? If so, then it becomes an issue of which is more reliable. If it is just that one discredits the other that is not necessarily a reason to not include it. Just some poinst to think through. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they are from different sources. Yes, that is the case. One gets results the other does not. It explains why also others do not get the same results, pretty much. I think we can compromise tonight Muntuwandi. XGustaX 02:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well judging by Muntuwandi's last post on the talk pages, he doesnt seem he wants to compromise, he is still dening all my sources even after all this time. I am really trying here Chrislk02. XGustaX 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The table is copied from this source [11]. This article references the individual studies that took place in various latin american countries such as brazil and argentina which I followed up as well and included. So it does not make sense to split the table because it is a comparison of all three lines of ancestry, native american, african and european.Muntuwandi 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris, He is still denying my sources. Please read the talk page to see what you think. XGustaX 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added my independant analysis at the articles talk page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect there. [12] this is the orginal source. If you click on Jonthan Marks it lists a few of the people who helped, it is clearly peer reviewed. That is why I think it should be removed, this source as another user on the talk page has pointed out is a good source. I am willing to compromise but just putting both sources isnt a compromise because I had to right to put the source there all along with no ones permission. XGustaX 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. There is no way that [13] or [[14] is more scholarly than these[15], [16] these. If I were writing a college credit paper, your sources would very likley not be accepted. I am not going to argue over this. You asked me to look into it, I did and that is what I feel. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

in the lack of better sources it would probably work. There are clearly better sources in this field. What source do you want removed? You state, "If you click on Jonthan Marks it lists a few of the people who helped, it is clearly peer reviewed. That is why I think it should be removed,..." Do you want your own source removed or Muntuwandi's source removed? There is NO WAY that the sources you are listing are more shcolarly than the one Muntuwandi is using. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess thats your view. Your entitled to have it. Thank you. XGustaX 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to gain a consensus I have asked another respected editor to review the sources and give there opinion as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no You stated before that "FOr both of you, is there conflicting data in each study? I.E>, does one study get results the other does not get?" And that is the case here. So I do not understand why you are saying that I explained to you earlier all of this. "No, they are from different sources. Yes, that is the case. One gets results the other does not. It explains why also others do not get the same results, pretty much. I think we can compromise tonight Muntuwandi. XGustaX 02:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)" XGustaX 14:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the source you are providing does not provide any information on the study. From the source it is just there theory. [17] gives all teh appropriate sample information, methodologies etc expected from a scholarly study. [18] gives none of that. What you are saying is that an article with no associated study trumps a peer reveiwed scientific study? Can you link me to the study that your soruce is dervied from? WIth samples sized, metholodiges etc etc? That would make your source much more credible. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. This is pointless. Thank you. XGustaX 14:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you asked me to get involved here. I am going to help solve this dispute now. Do you or do you not have a link to the study that substantiates your source? If not then clearly hands down it is not reliable in relation to the above pdf link. IF there is no such link, I support Muntiwandis version and his source. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It does it says:

The markers are principally analyzed in two locations in people's genes‚ in their mitochondrial DNA and on the Y-chromosome. On the mitochondrial DNA, there are a total of five different ÒhaplotypesÓ, called A, B, C, D, and X, which areincreasingly called “Native American markers,” and are believed to be a genetic signature of the founding ancestors.ÅÅ As for the Y-chromosome, there are two primary lineages or “haplogroups” that are seen in modern Native American groups, called M3 and M45. Some scientists maintain that up to 95% of all Native American Y-chromosomes are from these two groups (with the rest being from either Asian lineages or non-native haplogroups). It must be pointed out that none of these markers is exclusive to Native American populations‚all can be found in other populations around the world. They simply occur with more frequency in Native American populations.

Both females and males inherit their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) only from their mother. This line of biological inheritance, therefore, stops with each male. That means that, if you think of your 4 great-grandmothers, you and all your brothers and sisters have inherited your mtDNA only from your maternal grandmother's mother. Your other 3 great-grandmothers and your 4 great-grandfathers have contributed none of your mtDNA. If you are female, you and your sisters will, in turn, transmit that great-grandmotherªs mtDNA to all your children, but your brothers won't transmit it to their children.Å In other words, your mtDNA isidenticalto that of your mother's mother's mother, but does not constitute a biological line of descent from your other 7 great-grandparents. If that great-grandmother happened to have the genetic variations that have been labeled as either A, B, C, D, or X, then by having the same mtDNA yourself, you will have inherited a ÒNative AmericanÓ mtDNA marker.

Section Break

Males inherit a close copy of their Y-chromosome from their fathers. Females do not have a Y-chromosome. So males could also be tested for ÒNative American markersÓ on their Y-chromosome, but the analysis has similar limitations as testing mtDNA. Here again, the test only traces one line of ancestry, and misses most of the subjects' ancestry because the vast majority of the ancestors are invisible to the test. If a man has 15 Native American great-great-grandparents, but his father's father's father's father was non-Indian, that person will not appear to be Native American under this test. So, almost 94% of that person's genetic inheritance may be from Native Americans, but under this test he may be identified as “non-Indian”.Å And, like mtDNA analysis using the purely maternal line, using Y-chromosome analysis to determine Native American ancestry ignores a greatly increasing percentage of a person's ancestry as you go more generations into the past with the analysis.

All those genes and markers are a part of Muntuwandi's source. XGustaX 15:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok? Point Being? What does that mean for the article? IF this has merit for the article, discuss it over there. I am just judging reliabilkity of sources. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok now that we have that out of the way. I am willing to compromise. Since I cannot find much on African DNA testing and I am willing to compromise, with what I said before we should do. XGustaX 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And what is that? Whta is the compromise based on? As far as I see, all information included by Muntuwandi appears to be supported by his sources. WHy should it not be included then? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't we trying to compromise here? As I said before Keep the African DNA studies remove the Native American ones. Since the article is about genetics this should be a good edition to how Genetic testing for at least for Native Americans is not reiable. We cannot seem to agree upon adding my sources, so I think this is fair. [19] XGustaX 15:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We do not compromise just because somebody wants something different. The basis of any article should be its sources. Why the heck would be keep one DNA study and not the other? That just seems absurbd to me. Your original argument was it should not be included because your soruce was more reliable. Now, it should just not be inclided because you do not want it? That does not make sense. If it is in the reliable source there is no reason it should be omtted. Do you have a really good reason why it should be omitted? IF not, I cannot see a reason why it should not be included. You need to provide a good argument as to why it should not be included which I do not think there is one based on the reliabliluity of the source. --

Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is not ultimatley up to me, you need to work it out with Muntuwandi. Propose that compromise and see what they say? They may not iummedately respond but whats the hurry? The article is protected for ever until this dispute gets resolved or one side gives up. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why Do I feel you have been attacking me from the beginning and are not being very neutral about this. I provide the information you wanted to prove it was related and reiable to what we are talking. I purposed a Compromise, I have respectfully tried to talk to Muntuwandi and i still get treated this way? XGustaX 15:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you will look, i have objectivley reviewed this issue, weighted both sides of the argument and have made an attempt to understand the root of the dispute. Me feeling your source is wrong is not attacking you. I have not made this an ad hominem and kindly ask that you do the same. You have yet to provide a a convincing argument as to why the information should ne be included other than you dont want it there. Why should information about one side be included and not the other (african american vs native america). It does not make sense? Again i ask that you make this discussion about the article at hand and not the parties involved. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I never said I simply dont want it. Yes One is more reiable then another since one clearly mentions the flaws of the markers some sciencist use. I said that it should also be deleted because we cannot even come to concensus to even how to add my information! I added it and he just changed things that were related to the article. So Like I said since we cannot come to agree upon even that we should compromise. XGustaX 15:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What information were you trying to add? All i have seen is you trying to remove his content. Is this in retaliation to him denying your content? It is generally a bad idea to cause a disruption to make a point about something as silly as that. What content do you want included? Because it appears your main issue is about not including other content about native americans. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add the Native American DNA testing section and he could still not accept certain things the article made clear. Here is the Link Native American DNA testing section I made.[20] XGustaX 15:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Section break 2

I do not see him removing anythere, actually adding more in? he also trying to make your addition more NPOV. I see nothing wrong with that edit. He is not trying to remove anything there however edit and add more? I am confused as to what your problem is then? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC) He removed the recent discovery part. XGustaX 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not in the link you gave me. He rewords it to say, "Recently in the scienific community, DNA testing to prove either some Native American Ancestry or even tribal affliation has been criticized. The reason for being it once thought that most Native Americans have certain markers that are unique to other "races". However it must be stated, that all the Native American Markers are in fact found in many people all around the world{{fact}}. " and requests an appropriate inline citation? He did not remove anything, he actually added a section heading for you too. Is there another diff you are talking about? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to check to left of that in the yellow section it said before he removed it and in bold red letters what he removed, it said "Recently in the scienific community, it has been discovered that DNA testing to prove either some Native American Ancestry or even tribal affliation is flawed. The reason for being it once thought that most Native Americans have certain markers that are unique to other "races". However it must be stated, that all the Native American Markers are in fact found in many people all around the world. "

No, he does not remove it. He rewords it. He removes a phrase and clarifies another. please show me a diff where he actually removes that paragraph or stop complaining about it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He does indeed [21] My version to left and his to the right on the very bottom of the Native American DNA section. XGustaX 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You must be having difficulty reading diffs. He in fact does not remove the native american dna section. Just rewords it. [22] is a link to the revision above showing the section not being removed. Please be careful what you accuse people of. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if you misunderstood me. I am well aware that he did not removed the section. I said he removed a key part of the of "it has been discovered that" that part. XGustaX 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that all this disagreement is about? A simple phrase being removed that does not seriosuly affect the meaning of the sentence? There is no major difference between the two versions. Actually, I think the phrase "it has been discovered that" is extreanous as it goes without sayiong. If it is in this article somebody had to discover. Come on man, that is a pretty lame thing to argue about. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, Why I am bothering? Now John agrees that his source is not peer reviewed. XGustaX 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But he also says your origniail source is pretty uinreliable as well. WE are so close to a compromise here. You like the version here - his additions to your prose? Is that correct?

As I said. I had the right to add my section since it was sourced anyways I do not see that as a compromise. If it were up to me I would remove all Genetic studies from the article. But I am willing to compromise get some lose some as they say. XGustaX 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And nobody removed your section from the article. It was modified. You do not OWN your additions to an article. I see that Muntuwandi made an effort to work with your addition, fixed it for grammatical clarity but DID NOT REMOVE IT. Is your only issue with this revision his rewording of your addition? That is what you have lead me to believe? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, its everything really, I just gave you that as an example. It says in the WP:NPOV in the bias section under Scientific that we must present both sides unless its a scientific related and since this is and since one is more reiable then another. One should stay one should go. Now since we both disagree on what is what that why i said keep some loose some. XGustaX 17:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in an analysis of the sources, both of yours were deemed to be the lest reliable most likley. Does that mean all of your stuff should go? What I am saying is you do not have alot of bargaining power based on the strength of your sources. You are going to have a hard time getting content from studies removed with content from pressure groups? Do you have another reason why content should be removed other than your sources? If not then you dont have a good argument for it. I dont think the other editor has a problem with your inclusion of that paragraph on the study. That would seem to be an acceptable compromise to me. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Section break 3

I am confused what you are asking me exactly? Are you saying Sources do not matter in this case I am confused? XGustaX 17:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you know very well what I am saying. Your argument has changed several times but from what I am guessing, this is the base issue.

- There are conflicting sources
- Being there are conficltcing sources, one must be chosen as the corret source
- My sources are better so the other information must go.

Is that basically what you are trying to argue? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok. No I did not understand what you were getting at. Yeah it is. XGustaX 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so your argument is that your sources are better. Your sources are by pressure groups as denoted in the analysis by User:John. There is no associated study tied to them. It appears that your sources are the weaker of the four provided. According to the above statements and your desire to remove the lesat reliable source it would appear the appropriate storyline woud go.

- There are conflicting sources
- Being there are conficltcing sources, one must be chosen as the corret source
- THe sources provided by pressure groups do not appear reliable in this context so the other sources are reliable
So all YOUR information mus tgo.

However, I do not like this solution. This is my ideal soltuion.

- There are conflicting sources
- Source are confilcting. It is ok to provide information on recent studies though
- Provide information from both sources as seen in this revision. (Note the wording can be changed, I am ok with that but the basic concept is good).

Does that sound like a fair compromise? Just letting you know there is pretty much no chance you are going to get the other 2 sources discredited enough to have the information completley removed from the article. Also, it is not a copy paste job, you either accept the reference or you dont as relibale. You dont take the parts you like and leave the parts you dont, especially in this situation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ok. XGustaX 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you are willing to accept a compromise on this? An inclusion of both? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If not, I have no problem unprotecting it and reverting to that version and working from there. If you do not reply, I will assume it is cool with you. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Naw, Just remove my part entirly. XGustaX 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Ok. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC) This verison seems seems like a fair compromise. I hope he stays true to the compromise. Thank you. XGustaX 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Section break 4

Hi Chris,

Sorry to drag you into this, but our dispute has arisen again.Muntuwandi 02:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

hey

just figured id let you know that user Tenebrae is trying to use your name to get me blocked. TheManWhoLaughs 00:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Service ceiling merge

You recently (well, several months ago) edited service ceiling, which i just proposed be merged with absolute ceiling. Almost nobody edits either of these pages, so I'm telling you as a recent editor. Pdbailey 01:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi Chris.

You asked me to evaluate some sources. With the proviso that my degree was in Chemistry and my post-graduate diploma was in Education, and therefore I have no specialist claim to certified knowledge in the area of race and genetics (although I do keep up with developments in this fascinating area of science), let's look at them.

Source1 Gene Watch is a pressure group funded by donations, advertising and book commissions. The writers both work for the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism. The article you referred me to seems to make sense. I would regard it as a fairly credible source, but in some arguments the writers' credibility might be affected by the partial nature of the organisation they work for. It would depend on the context.
Source 2 This appears to be a paper of some sort, possibly a dissertation. While it seems to make sense, I lack the specialist knowledge to judge whether the methodologies employed were robust. Importantly, there is no indication that the paper has been peer-reviewed or published in a reliable source.
Source 3 This seems to be the most reliable of the four. While we cannot always assume that governmental sources are sacrosanct, the National Library of Medicine would be regarded by most as a pretty good source.
Source 4. As with the first source, although it seems to make sense to an intelligent layman, as a publication from a pressure group, this source might have less credibility in certain contexts than number 3.

It was difficult to evaluate the sources without knowing the context of the argument you were (presumably) having about them. I hope this is nonetheless of some benefit to you; please let me know if I can be any further help. --John 16:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Most recent block of TheManWhoLaughs

Chris, what was this block in regards to? People are guessing at User talk:TheManWhoLaughs that it was an edit to Monarch [23], but there doesn't seem to be a pre-existing dispute over that issue. If that's it, we can't enforce WP:V that harshly. There at least has to be some challenge to the unsourced material before re-adding it warrants a block.--Chaser - T 17:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, it was in relation to the edit at the monarch here. It was very similar to edits he was warring over earlier at Electro comics with edits such as [24] which were added without appropriate sources. I will unblock him however ask that he carefully watch what he adds. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration, Chris.--Chaser - T 17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I am not out to get that editor and actually have tried to help him several times. I have no problem giving many chances because we are all volunteers and probably have the best of intentions. I think he is still learning the wiki way and will gladly help him if i can. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about his departure. I predict he will be back.--Chaser - T 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock. Good to block, but I'd suggest shortening to 24-48 hours. That seems to be more in line with the scant guide at WP:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks, which suggests to me 24 for vandalism (per person, so both accounts), plus 24 for sockpuppetry. Also, we might actually lose him if he's blocked for a week (though I won't shed any tears; it's been nothing but headaches the last 18 hours).--Chaser - T 19:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Shortneed it to 48 hours and will watch closley after that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, good. Indeed, the next block may well be indef. That said, it might be a good idea to find someone else to place any further blocks. His behavior is so blatantly bad, it won't take another sysop long to decide if this continues.--Chaser - T 19:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves

Chris, I have a sandbox at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Sikorsky S-61 that is ready to go live (I hope!) Can you move it to Sikorsky S-61 over a redirect, and delete the sandbox? Also, since I've spun of two non-naval Sea King versions (including Sikorsky S-61R, the H-3 Sea King page now focuses mostly on the naval ASW varison. As such, I'd like to have it moved to SH-3 Sea King, also over a redirect. If you'd rather I did a propose-move first on this one, that's fine. Thanks again! - BillCJ 18:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my userpage! RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unrightful ban!

Admin:ElinorD has unrightfully banned user:Chuffer for being a vandalism only account. The account only made 'one edit and it wasn't vandalism! ElinorD is kinda abusing her/his power. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 21:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC) I urge you to investigate.

A look at the edit history of the article shows the same editor again and again using different accounts, posting the same "Noah's wife" commentary. Just sayin' ... - Alison ☺ 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- There are very few administrators who will block like that without a good reason. There are many who may specialize on an article and its disruptive editors. Such as the JB1965 socks I was blocking, it was because I understood the guys MO. Other administrators understand and recognize other ones. It is not a good idea to run around crying admin abuse without understanding the whole story. If you suspect an administrator is acting innapropriatly, feel free to contact them first but do a little research first. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Sorry, sorry. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Free The Hops AfD

I've renominated Free The Hops for deletion and hope you can comment. We had a shortage of comment last time, ending in no consensus. -- Rob C (Alarob) 04:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mail on priv

Chris, I've sent you mail on priv to disscuss some issues which shouldn't be disscussed here. Did you received it? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 21:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Back!

Hi Chris, I'm back from my walk in the woods. Thanks for handling the Emoze issue. Hope all is well with you, so sad to hear of Sharon's daughter's illness. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Block???

I was wondering if you could block Ron Becker because he has made 7 edits, most of which are vandlism relating to West Plains, Missouri's Radio Shack, ironically enough. Can you take a look at his contribs? Also, my wikibreak is going great. Thanks! Jonjonbt on a wikibreak

PS... I think he might work at Radio Shack. Jonjonbt on a wikibreak

It's okay. They were blocked indefinitely back in 2005 - Alison ☺ 20:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Supersid the brave

Please be more careful with unblocks. I realize that the user posted a nice unblock request, but no good faith user targets an admin's userpage on their first edit, as real new users don't even know that userspace exists! --Rory096 21:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It my my mistake for blocking without a warning. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

de Havilland Tiger Moth

M. Chrislk02, a curious and curiouser note for your behalf. I spotted some supposedly innocuous edits in this article under the "minor" editing notation (but without explanation) by a "newbie" editor. The amount of changes did alter the article somewhat and would, at the very least, warrant a major revision notation, but it was the kind of changes that tweaked my interest. They seemed for the most part to be stylistic and "good faith edits" but they did subtly change the context of the passages. I did a quick check back through some of the aforementioned editor's other "work" and found the same pattern. He edit/corrects the article in question in his own interpretation and in the Douglas DC-5 and de Havilland Hornet articles, for example, I found his changes alter the subtext of the submissions, not a lot but enough to change the actual context/intention of the original posting. Not a big deal for now, but keep an eye on this. FWIW Bzuk 14:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

help me please

Sesshomaru is trying to say that im a sock puppet and hes trying to get me banned can you help me? TheManWhoLaughs 15:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That will get you nowhere. See discussion here. Lord Sesshomaru

I just want to let you know ive ended this and if i get banned i want to thank you for helping me. Goodbye.TheManWhoLaughs 15:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Award

User:Jonjonbt/Candy

Assistance with problem editor

Hi. I'd like to take you up on your offer to assist resolving issues with problemmatic editors. Please take a look at talk:Space music, noting the threats, personal attacks and general incivility posted here and here by Milomedes. This editor has been trying to facilitate the insertion of eccentric non-mainstream definitions into this and related articles for some time, and invariably responds with name-calling, incivility and personal attacks whenever he is challenged to cite his sources. My patience for tolerating this behaviour is at an end, so I'd appreciate it if you could nip it in the bud. --Gene_poole 07:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking into this. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

you do have a histoyr of tenditious editing and edit warring. Your best bet if you feel you are right is to go forward with a RFC. While The other editor was probably threatening you with the RFC and his tone could have been better but there was no blatant personal attacks in there that I saw. It also looks like there are more editors who disagree with you. This is often a sign that you need to change your game plan or something. Hope this helps. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your coments here are not really helpful - nor is your assertion that I engage in "tendentious editing" or "edit warring". If you have evidence of this produce it. If not stop propagating the lie. You offered to help - so help. What's going on here is that we have one editor using at least 3 sock accounts to try to push a wacky, non-mainstream unverifiable POV on a range of articles. You can see clear evidence of his creation of yet another sock account here. Note this diff (only the 5th edit by this new account), where he reverts all the changes made by 2 other editors to his preferred version, removing a whole pile of cited references that just happen to disagree with his POV in the process. Obviously Miss_Bea_Haiving should be blocked as a sock engaging in vandalism. That would be a good start. --Gene_poole 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you're aware I've now invited outside opinions via a Request for Comment, so hopefully the dispute can be resolved once and for all. --Gene_poole 01:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, your block log says alot about your editing style. I need for information before I can block somebody as a sock. If you are sure they are a sock, feel free to request a checkuser at WP:RFCU. I cannot do anything without that in this situation. I will again review the evidence tomorrow. If you could list everbody you suspect as sock puppets, I will analyze them and try to make a guess in my opinion if they are socks. IF they are socks, then this situation will be alot easier however I always assume good faith unless i hvae evidence to show otherwise. Im not trying to be unhelpful, you just did not provide a lot of background information or other pertinent information to help me get involved in this. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond with the appropriate level of detail today, so I'll have to get back to you tomorrow. Appreciate the interest. --Gene_poole 04:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris - I am one of the editors Gene Poole is accusing of being a sockpuppet. I thought you would like to know that he has made this accusation in the past and there's already been an RFCU. The checkuser determination was "unrelated." Here is the link to the archived RFCU page: [25]. Since Gene Poole was the one who filed the RFCU, it's clear that he is aware of how it turned out.

Because the checkuser has already been done and it is known that Milo and I are not the same person, Gene's accusation is not in good faith. He has posted this accusation in several other places already as well, including here on the talk page of the article and at least one more editor's page, here. He even repeated the unfounded accusation in the RFC he posted, which I edited in the interests of fairness at this diff.

If there had never been a checkuser determination that Milomedes and I are not sockpuppets, then there might be some room for assuming good faith here. But since Gene already knows that we are not sockpuppets, that shows his activity in a different light.

If he believes the checkuser was mistaken, let him file another report. I have nothing to hide. But it is not in accordance with WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF to post unproven accusations on article talk pages during an RFC (or at any other time for that matter). It seems to me the right thing would be for him to remove the accusation from the article talk page so it does not prejudice the RFC or demean the reputation of the unfairly accused editors (who have already been cleared by checkuser anyway).

Although he contacted you to ask for help with what he calls "threats, personal attacks and general incivility", that's a description of his own methods, certainly not mine. Here is example of his post on an editor's talk page on June 25 in which he calls me "schizophrenic". Also at that link is my polite response, requesting that he stop the insults, and then his further response in which he accuses me of vandalism, another unfounded accusation.

That's just one example of his lack of AGF and violation of NPA, there are plenty more. In my contribs, you won't find anything like that, or any history of conflict with any other editor. If you need anything further, please let me know. Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 11:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be emailing you concerning the above in the next day or so. In the meantime, you might want to take a look at this, which was posted by --Parzival418 in response to the warning I posted here, following the wholesale rollback of my edits without discussion or an edit summary here. Isn't it funny how Miss_Bea_Haiving's only edits since the account was created 10 days ago just happen to be almost exactly the same as the changes that Parzival418 tried to make to the Space music article 2 days ago. Apart from that the only edits Miss Bea Haiving has made are 1-word wikilinks. Quite extraordinary that some new editor would just appear out of nowhere and go from adding 1-word wikilinks to articles about China to removing a whole pile of cited content from a music article in a way that just happens to be in perfect alignment with Parzival418's opinions, don't you think? These sorts of amazing coincidences seems to occur quite frequently whenever Parzival418 and his friends get into disagreements with other editors - and I'm certainly not the first person to notice it. --Gene_poole 01:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I request that if Gene emails you about this issue, that you please keep these discussions on-wiki so his allegations can be addressed fairly. There is nothing happening here that would require secrecy. What reason would there be for him to discuss these issues with you in private, unless he has something to hide? Or unless he wants to make accusations without the accused having a way to respond?

The edits I made on Miss Bea Haiving's user page that Gene mentioned were specifically to defuse the effect on a new user of her first talk page message being a strongly worded uncivil warning from Gene. I placed a welcome template, explained the context of his comment and why she does not need to fear being blocked for editing in good faith.

It seems to me that Gene's stern warning on her page, with threat of being blocked and accusation of vandalism, is a perfect example of WP:BITE and another violation of WP:AGF, as you've noticed in his overall editing patterns.

I have a lot more information I can offer about all this, but I don't want to clutter up your page with stuff you don't need. If you do want any more details, please let me know.

I have no desire to be involved with Gene in any way. I would just ignore his false accusations and threats, but when he brings them to an administrator's page as he has done here, I guess I have to respond so you have the whole story. Please ask him to stop talking about me and the other editors. If he wants to discuss anything, discuss the content of the articles and the sources. Isnt' that the point of Wikipedia, to improve the articles? So far, he has not addressed any of the content points I mentioned on the talk page, he's only gone straight into attack mode as you have seen. I don't want to be talking about Gene, and I'm sure the others don't either. We want to be editing and discussing the articles. Please ask him to stop attacking me or the others every time anyone does an edit on the articles he WP:OWNs. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I generally do only discuss things on wiki. There are a few exceptions but this does not appear to be one. I kindly ask that if Geene poole have any issues to address, he address it on wiki if he chooses to have me involved. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice how Parzival418 completely ignores the hard evidence of sockpuppet abuse, and just launches into an unsubstantiated personal attack on the person posting the evidence? As you've probably figured out by now this is his stock standard response. Are you planning to do something about it? --Gene_poole 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris, there's no sockpuppet abuse. I've already been cleared by checkuser from last time he did this. If he thinks there is evidence, let him file a report. Not one other editor will support his claim, and the checkuser will clear me again, because I'm not a sockpuppet.

Gene's made it very clear that he doesn't like my edits and consensus-directed discussions at the music genre pages he WP:OWNs. My guess is this is his way distracting me from editing. I'm not saying that as an attack - just trying to understand why he's so focused on making trouble for me. I have no interest in him at all. I'm only replying here to defend myself due to his allegations.

Hopefully you have a clear picture of this now and you don't need me to continue. I would much prefer to return to editing and not be involved with Gene.

Would you please let me know if that works for you? If you need more information from me at any time, just ask and I'd be glad to oblige. Thanks a lot, I appreciate your help. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can you take the wikibreak script off of my other monobook.js? I have enjoyed my wikibreakand I have finished it, so please take it off!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonjonbt96 (talk • contribs)

Ok, will do. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - dont forget to clear your cache. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Image thumb size...again...this time with an interesting twist

Would you mind flying wingman for me and making sure I'm getting all this right? Background: my response to Piotr's request and my comments to the editor in question after I removed the image from the article as "non-free". I've also dropped a not for Lar, since he's an admin at Commons to get his input over there, but he's on wikibreak, and I don't know when he'll get the message. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sock question

Hi Chris, I've not gotten much into the sock fight game, but I'm a bit suspicious about a connection. In this DRV, User:Cableguytk and User:71.206.96.186 who signs as "sleepm" make such similar arguments that it raised my suspicion. For my edumacation, how does one go about investigating if there's some smelly socks involved here? AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it will affect the outcome of the DRV, wait until it is time to close the DRV then request a check user. If it will not affect the DRV, just ignore it unless it starts getting involved in other areas. At least in AFD, it is generally ok to discount ANON's comments anyways esepcially if it appears to be a SPA. You can also look for a connection between the articles edits. I.E. if the IP has edited 5 articles that the other guy has edited in the last day, there is a 1 in a trillion chance (give or take a few million) probability that the IP randomly found the same 5 articles the named editor edited. This usually means it is some sort of puppet (meat or sock, your pick). Hope that helps. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It does indeed, thanks for the time (and thanks for the help earlier...looks like things are resolving). The DRV is definitely not in question, I've even suggested it be closed for snow. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

That's the fifth one in the chain. All in the same IP range. Obviously it's a dial up or cable customer who's bored.. maybe we need to slap a range block on them. SirFozzie 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

ALready slapped a quick range block on the range. short enough to make him give up for the day hopefully but not affect too many opthers. I have my eye on unblock cat because has the potential to cause a fair amount of collateral damage. It was blocked for the /16 range. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is curious: at User talk:65.215.83.3 there's an unblock request from an IP which obviously falls outside of the blocked range. WHOIS the new one, it's not even the same ISP as the other ones. One other point, in this case a small one since the block is pretty short, the whois also seems to indicate that the 69.225.* IPs can be covered by a smaller CIDR of 69.225.32.0/20 (a /16 is signigicantly larger, as each bit doubles the size of the range). Mainly, though, letting you know about this second IP (a /24 range, by the looks of it) in case anything pops up on that. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, i will keep an eye out. Next time I will check the whois before jumping to conclusions about the range. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is he another

Hi Chris I think Haggawaga has returned with Randalph P. Williams (talk · contribs) since you have a better understanding of these guys would like to look into it or should I just block and be done with him Gnan garra 13:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it. you do appear to be correct. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

He is either him or somebody very closley related. It appears he is not going to go easily either. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

what a relief

Thanks for doing that Satu Suro 13:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

this edit here assures it. He has had the same conversation with me before as haggawagga aboput sharing an IP with Mrlob. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject James Bond, Collaboration of the Fortnight

WikiProject James Bond:Collaboration of the fortnight (two weeks)

The new collaboration for this fortnight is (June 30, 2007 - July 14, 2007) is

Live and Let Die (novel)

Please contribute by editing this article, in an attempt to get it to good article status
For more information see the page here or contact SpecialWindler.
CHECK OUT THE TALK PAGE, FOR THINGS YOU CAN DO ON Live and Let Die (novel)
Dr. No (film) failed for GA status, mainly due to little contribution to the article.

SpecialWindler talk 00:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)