This is Chrislk02's talk page archive for the months of January and February 2009. Please do not edit anything on this page, but direct all coments to my active talk page. Thanks!

January 2009

2009 time!

Your block of ThuranX

Ack! Chris, I'm not sure that the block was the best way to handle it, it was sometime after the initial statement, I, amongst others had left a counseling message on his page, and he hadn't responded. I'm just afraid that this will trigger a belief by him that he's being piled on and harassed, which will just continue this situation. I'm not going to undo it (it wouldn't be helpful at all, the damage has already been done), but I think that we should have let it lie, perhaps with a warning that further actions would be met with a preventative block. Just my two cents on the issue. SirFozzie (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, thank you for your comments sir fozzie. I highly respect your opinions so if you wish to overturn it feel free. Secondly, I 99% of the time agree with you that he should be warned. However, past warnings have done little to stop his GROSS incivility. Had it been anything less than what he said, I would have gladly issued a warning but there is a point where it goes to far. This projects works on people being able to communicate in a civililzed manner, not resulting to gross abuse. Maybe it is just my philosophy but he crossed a line and if you take a look at his block log, it is a line he is used to crossing. There is a point where the interestes of other editors need to be considered as well. Again, if you want I resepect your opinions and if you feel the block was truly wrong, encourage you to unblock him. However, I strongly stand by my actions. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to undo it, the damage is done, I just wanted to give my .02 on it :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I rather concur with Chrislk02 here, both in the need for the block (to protect others) as well as the level of respect I (we) have for you. While the anon is still trying to stir things up, I think the right thing was done. I didn't report ThuranX because I think he's a creep (though I will readily admit that the guy is far too short-tempered for me to edit with him); I reported him because the other guy had been here for only a few months less than ThuranX, and had not once crossed the line. I wasn't involved in the discussion, and felt that this was not something we should condone. We've indef banned folk for less. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would point out that WQA hasn't been an effective tool to address ThuranX' behavior on the two prior occasions when another user had attempted it as part of the dispute resolution process (1, 2). I was aware of both, but was a commenter in the second one (wherein the alert was marked 'resolved' after a warning was issued by Ncmvocalist about incivility). ThuranX' final comment at the conclusion of the first one: "I will not participate in your bruised ego redress seeking behaviors any more. Post this where-ever you like, I've got better ways to spend my time on Wikipedia." The edit summary for this post is even more telling: "i'm so done with this. Don't come around again and tell me about a new forum either"^[1] would seem to doubly reinforce my initial point that WQA is an ineffective step in resolving problems with ThuranX.

It was after posting to WQA (and forming there the idea that this matter was a bit more sever than simply pointing to an issue that ThuranX didn't seem to think was a problem) in a forum that he additionally felt was a waste of time. It was at that point that I decided to open it up to a larger audience at AN/I. It was my error to post to AN (though my question as to the difference between the two noticeboards hasn't been answered as of yet).

I see what Fozzie and Kite are saying about this not being the best solution, especially considering that ThuranX sees this not as an opportunity to reflect on what he did wrong, but rather on what everyone else did wrong. He sees blocking as a personal affront and not a preventative step. I think that ThuranX is a good editor; his only real problem is one that I tend to see a lot of (and one I have been guilty of myself, which makes the behavior so easy to spot) - he thinks he is the smartest guy on the page, and anyone disagreeing with him is either a moron, soapboxer or vandal, and replies accordingly. And that, really, is his only fault as an editor. Were he able to shed that behavior, he would likely be a highly revered editor of the wiki, I have no doubts of that assessment. That is what made reporting him to AN/I a difficult thing for me. I want to respect him, but his behavior is such that respect is colored with...well, pity, - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it is best to move on. Ignore mildly offensive comments and if they are ever as grossly inappropriate as they were last time, let me know personally and I will block him again. I think it is best if, based on what I have seen so far (you are not doing anything wrong) but based on ThuranX's attitude and perceptions, it is probably best to step back from this situation a bit. Again, I would ingore mildly uncivil content, and try to avoid him if at all possible. If it is not possible, you may wish to pursue other forms of dispute resolution (which I feel are currently unecessary). Lets just see where things go. Next time he outbursts like that I am going to block him for longer than 12 hours. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am back, Chris; I was just pointing out why I followed the process I did, as it was challenged on the user's page as disingenuous. I am not planning on hounding the feller or interacting with him if I can avoid it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read the post at [{Wp:WQA]] and it sounds like past interactions may have left a bad taste in your mouth (trust me, there are several editors on this project that have done the same for me). I promise you that there are enough eyes on THuranX now that any future problems will get spotted. I have found that is best (if only for my own sanity), to remove the users from my watchlist and avoid them. Just some friendly advice from somebody whose been through this from both sides before. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Canadian Business Journal page

Hi there. This page I created, The Canadian Business Journal, was deleted for "blatant copyright violation," but I'm not sure why! Could you maybe let me know what the problem was and I can fix it? It's the first page I've created, so I'm really not sure what went wrong. Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Business minded (talk • contribs)

Because several pieces (a good majority) of the article are word for word copy and pasted from this webpage. The web page is presumed to be copyrighted and we cannot accept word for word copy and pastes from web sites without them being released under an appropriate license or into the public domain. you are welcome to re-create the article as long as no portions are copied word for word, and the site is cited as the location the fats were retreived. Hope this helps. Thanks. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. And sorry I forgot to sign the last one. Business minded (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Speed Deletion of Malavera

Hi Chris, I´m new to the whole wikipedia environment so maybe I inadvertedly made some mistake in my article about the band Malavera (The band IS actually important and it isn´t signed because is independent). If you could please let me know why exactly you speed deleted the article or where did I do wrong so I can correct it I would very much appreciate it. Thanks!

Can you provide any reliable sources that show your band is ACTUALLY important so I don'y have to take your word for it? Please make sure you read the link for reliable sources to make sure that you do not provbide me with a link to your bands website, myspace, or other unreliable source. If your band TRULY is notable, I will help you with the re-creation. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I did part of this work for you and applied the good ole Google Test to see what I could find about your band. Search hits for Malvera returned only 3,070 an incredibly low number of hits. Adding band to the search only retreived 65 hits an even lower number. For comparison, a very highly notable band (I.E. Metallica returns 59 million hits and a lesser known metalcore band Killswitch Engage returns over 3 million hits. Do you ahve any reliable sources that google did not unearth? If not, then that is why your bands article was deleted. In short, we cannot take YOUR word that your band is notable (of course to you it is). The question is, is it encylopedic?Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Breakin' Dishes

Hi Chris
I can of course get Breakin' Dishes (song) to another AfD, but have you compared the ~~deleted~~ discussed revision with the current one? I had provided the link in the comment box beneath the article, and I'm guessing you missed it since it's still in the article. Here's a diff. If you read the diff you'll see that the changes are in fact negligible. The only additions are that the single was in fact scrapped, a rewording of the "Single release" section, and one additional review:

'Billboard gave the song a positive review, stating: "With no signs of burn yet, a word to the label: "Breakin' Dishes" could break records as the next single." [2]

None of those changes address the concerns from the AfD, and as I said, I think that they are substantially identical.
Cheers, Amalthea 22:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I compared the articles and they looked substantially different. You can re-list it for speedy and see if another administrator thinks differently, I would not be offended! Thanks. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to go adminshopping with this. I've listed it at AfD instead.
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 15:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Bands Against Bush restored and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bands Against Bush

Hello, Chris. A single edit account recreated this, and I sent it to AFD. As the deleted versions were actually better than the one we had, I have boldly restored the thing so it can put it's best foot forward. Please join the AFD discussion. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

TheGreatHatsby deletion

Looks like you speedily-deleted TheGreatHatsby today. Can you restore this and list it at Articles for Deletion, please? It was a long-standing, well-edited article (at least 1.5 years old, according to the Delicious bookmarking history for the page) with neutral, reliable, detailed, and useful information about a fairly common source of confusion. Most of the potential citations I can find are blog posts, but there are a ton of those blog posts and I believe this article qualifies for some thoughtful discussion of whether the subject merits an article. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, sure! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i looked at it and went to nom it for AFD, however realized there was one a few months ago that was a no-consensus. I have no strong feelings on this so I restored it as a mistaken speedy deletion. Sorry for any inconvenience. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd forgotten about that AFD. Would you mind restoring the talk page too? I'm not sure it had much discussion, but if there was any, it'd be helpful to have. I'll also add a talk page tag about the previous deletion discussion to help avoid confusion in the future. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

anderson (band) deletion

Hey Chris, im really REALLY new, so yeah i probabaly made some sort of mistake. Im thinking maybe i didnt finish the page before i submited it? Either way, im trying to finish it now before i post it up. If you could let me know why it is wrong that could help to. We are signed too, just incase that matters.

anderson (band)

Cheers Ollie

Do you have any reliable sources that prove your bands notability? That is the first step. Give me some links to them (Please read the reliable sources link earlier in this statement and know that myspace, facebook, blogs or your bands own personal website are insufficient). Wikipedia is an encylopedia, and to be included the topic must prove notability. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

ah ok. Other than emails etc right now i dont have anything i can show as we are in the process of having our band put on the labels website roster etc. Do you have any ideas as to what i can show you? our band has a few sponsors, but idont see how that helps. uh...? If not i suppose i can wait until we are on the labels website? Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funky0 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your response indicates that your band (while possibly notable to a local scene), is not notable on a global scale. This is generally required for an article to stay on Wikipedia. To prove notability, reliable secondary sources should be provided (did any reliable news sources cover your band, your bands act in an indepth coverage [a concert listing, or a listing on a labels site does not meet this requirement]). Hope this helps and good luck with your band. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Can i upload it as a stub?? Or is it to long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funky0 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point, you need to prove you are notable. Wikipedia is not a band directory for every band that is working on getting signed, or working on an album, or anything at all. That is NOT what wikipedia is for. Wikipedia entries for bands are for bands that are ALREADY notable, not hoping to be notable. So, uploading a stub would not resolve this problem. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Once In A House On Fire I know, i get it, but how are they on here? along with others? That i dont understand. Cheers. Funky0 (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

←That band may not need an article on here as well. I have reviewed it and there notability is questionable. I will be proposing it for deletion through wikipedias [{WP:AFD|articles for deletion]] process.Chris lk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for SeisQuaRe

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SeisQuaRe. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, however that template is not really my style. I also respect the opinions of other editors and should flagged revisions be accepted i would be ok with it. I dont feel a need for me to personally advertise a point of view. Thanks again though. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rock Band DLC article

Hey. Just wanted to drop you a note on talk to try and avoid an edit war from breaking out. I somewhat take offense to the claim of WP:OWN, especially since I've been accused of it in the past and have been assured by admins that it is not the case. I confess that I do perform a bulk of the edits on the article, but these are primarily due to me being "first on the scene" when a vandal edit is performed. I think in this situation, having a bit of background on the Rock Band article would help understand why the content in question remains in the article. It's tough to get an accurate history, as the article was split from List of songs in Rock Band, so there's several Talk discussions and revision history items that got lost in the split. I do agree that we can revisit the content at a later date, but I think for now there's enough history behind the source to support it's validity. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 15:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for any ownership accusation. It was not my intent to accuse you, however draw attention to your heavy involvlement in the article that may make objective decisions makine difficult (does not matter who you are, it happens to all of us). It was not meant in an offensive way at all and my apologies if it was taken that way. I ahve been following this article long before it was split from the orignial list of songs in rockband article and understand why it is included. I am glad we can agree to visit this at a later date and hope we can work together. to reach a solution. Just note that I had no intetion of engaging in a full out edit war, however am attempting to encourage a Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle for this change to garner community involvment from those who may be watching the article. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wall-to-Wall

Hi: How do I do a Wall-to-Wall like with Facebook? I need to do this for a case I am working on. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by case? There is no wall to wall. This is not a social networking site. If it has ANYTHING to do with ThuranX, I recommend you stop and leave it alone.Chris lk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? There is NO Wall-to-Wall? But all the information is available to offer such a service. Has anyone implemented it in any form?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been many suggestions. What it comes down to is wikipedia is NOT A SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE. the funcitonality works fine for basic collaboration. It has been used for many many years and servers its purpose. Admittadly it is a bit clunky at times but i think that can be a good thing. I am curious what you mean by case you are working on. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, I have not been offered any new cases and I am still only working the one. It's too bad there is no Wall-to-Wall.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by offered a case? I am unfamiliar with what you are talking about. I see you have no posts related to mediation or arbitration so it is unlikley you are involved in those areas. You need to back off or you will probably get blocked. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all getting too weird for me. I feel like the tables have been switched or something.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are the defense for ThuranX and I am the prosecutor?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

←What are you talking about? There is no trial or case or anything. There is no prosecution. Drop it and move on. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So nothing is ongoing? You guys settled? We can all go our separate ways and perhaps never come across one another again?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know yes. It is done. This kind of stuff happens all of the time and you just go forward. If something happens again, let me know and I will look into it. Due to your recent behavior I recommend you do not directly conffont THuranX about it, perhaps other than to let him know you have expressed a concern to me. Again, just drop it and move on. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So what was it all for? What was the main point?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What was what all for? What are you talking about. Incivility happens all the time. People get blocked all the time. blocked expire and we move on. We dont keep dragging up the dead. I have looked through your edit history and if we wanted to drag up the dead on you we sure could. But, it is in the past. Drop it and move on. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What are some examples of dragging up the dead? Please... Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything from the past that was detrimental that is not CURRENTLY a factor at play. If Thuran was grossly uncivil in the past hour or two, bringing up past offenses would not be dragging up the dead. However it is gone and done. For you, I have seen some page blanking you did and some uncivile dit summaries yourself you made in your early days. I dont care, we all have been there, I even have a few myself. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What are my Top 5 worst? I want to know.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Completley un-important, and not relevant. IT was to draw a comparison and I will not drop that low! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 23:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this case is still ongoing. I have yet to receive word that it is over from the proper channels. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have work to do. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of all proper channels for dispute resolution and you are not currently going through any of them. DO you care to specify what you are talking about? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm now wondering if perhaps I'm acting at the request of an outside party. It is hard to tell what is what anymore. This is a little disconcerting.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am comforted by the fact that you seem to be as confused as I am. If we work together perhaps we can figure out exactly what is going on here. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

←Were you contacted via email? By a wikipedia user? If so, can you forward me the email? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been told to cease interacting with you. I don't want to but unfortunately this will be my final comment on this matter as far as concerns you. I hope you understand. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I will be posting a thread about this at WP:ANI. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Building

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:TheGreatHatsby

You deleted then restored TheGreatHatsby. Thank you for being open minded enough to undo your own deletions. However, the talk page wasn't restore along with the article. If you could restore the original talk page (not the one created and deleted after the article deletion), it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you -Neitherday (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Done - Sorry for any inconvenience and happy editing. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) Neitherday (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alfred C. Finn

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alfred C. Finn. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Something to do

Ok, what to do Reallikeunreal (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything in WP:BACKLOG that you know how to do. Look through articles needing citations/references and see if you can find any. If you cant, thats ok move on to the next article. If you can, add it using the {{citeweb}} template. Good luck. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX

Chris, a belated thank you for your actions there. I thought that you were perceptive and thoughtful and I thank you for taking the time to read up on the incident and get involved. Thanks. --John (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan

Thanks for the note. I don't think I'll contest that block. For one thing, a week off would probably do him good. For another, I'm not going to be around much this week to monitor him, which (as you imply) I'd be kind of honor bound to do if I unblocked. And third, I'm beginning to get the impression that there are so many socks floating around in that little corner of WP:PW that if I stayed involved, I'd feel obligated to try to sort it out, and I don't want to. Anyway, if I wanted my opinion to count, I should have made it more easily found on his talk page. --barneca (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, i got the socky sense too and also did not want to sort it out. I started looking but it looked complex. Sometimes I have this strange feeling that 95% of our problems are caused by the same few people who are just screwing around for shits and giggles. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 01:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Username concerns at User talk:Teancum

Hi Chrislk02! I have replaced my comment on Teancum's talk page. I initially thought that his/her username was refering to tean cum. Not a big deal, so I was hoping to see what he thought about it. I realized that he could be referring to teancum from the Book of Mormon, so I have withdrawn my statement. Let me know what you think, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, I assumed good faith only after I posted the comment, next time I'll make sure to do it in the right order :-) Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan

I saw you unblocked him. SimonKSK is still looking to be his adopter. You may agree with me that he needs a more experiences and wise user to help him along. Someone bordering an indefinite block shouldn't be adopted by his friend, IMO. iMatthew // talk // 20:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, i looked at that and kind of wondered what that guy was doing adopting people. I think you should be sufficiently experienced as to precent the kind of thing that happened instead of encouraging it. That is something that comes with experience (that I doubt his adopter ((no offense)) does not have). I am leaving for the day so I dont have time to address it but you might wanna drop a note by on his page. I dont adopt but I would be glad to mentor him by answering any questions or concerns he has. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, i dropped notes on both of there pages. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I get why you are worried. I understand your concern. I may have not made a good first impression. I will try to the best of my ability to teach Kalajan everything. Kalajan's main problem is that he does not listen. Ask Hazardous Matt. I expect you watch me. I'm cool with it. It's just Kalajan has this thing going where "he wants to be exactly like me and Matt" of get up "to other respected editor's level." As you can see, he has a lot to learn. And so do I. That's why I took up this adoption thing. To learn. Anyway, help is always appreciated. Simon^KSK 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, lets see; I'm fine with SK for now. And Chris, I'll start reading the duck thing, I'm starting to listen! I read the MMORPG or whatever yesterday! Kalajan€·₣ 17:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay thanks. Kalajan€·₣ 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what meat puppets are, but no. It's just, their writing style, usernames and the fact tht Fiddler couldn't do a sig, makes me think that Fiddler isn't in the whole "apple pie". Also, the user pages aren't the same, such as Sin's. He also didn't know what a sock was, he was so confident about using a checkuser though, and he states he wanted to edit SvR09, which is a videogame, while Sin only edited WWE roster and WWE alumni. also "fiddler" means violinist, which makes me think that they aren't the same person, because Sin seems 10yrs old. Kalajan€·₣ 21:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You assume too much good faith. Good sock puppeteers can trick you and play, "dumb" pretty easily to avoid detection and just cause trouble. A meatpuppet is an account that acts as an extension of your own (even though it may not be owned by you). For example if I got my entire family to register accounts, but they only voted on things in my favor and never contributed, those could be meat puppets. Meat puppets can also be sock puppets. It depends on the situation. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, can a blocked user still build a sandbox? I know I'm asking for trouble, but I want to see if I can actually get something creative and wothwhile out of him. HAZardousMATT^toxic 17:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, he can only edit his talk page. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I was going to offer to help him, over the course of the week, to build a non-WP:PW related article from scratch, have him look for sources, etc. It was a last-ditch effort. HAZardousMATT^toxic 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

you can encourage him to cordon off a portion of his talk page for it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I might do that. See, this is why WP pays you the big bucks. ;) HAZardousMATT^toxic 17:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

They do? hmmm, the checks must be getting lost in the mail. I will look into that. ;) Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mecha13

Chris, I had suspicions about him as well, but Kalajan did post that link to his sandbox in WT:PW and asked for people to help edit it for notability and acceptibility. I think maybe a checkuser might be needed since anyone could have been trying to help fix that article. HAZardousMATT^toxic 16:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

a 2 day editor thats account was editing from a blocked proxy, and asking for help with pretty good knwoledge of the terminology. Telltale behavior of a troll. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not gonna tell you how to do your job. ;) Again, I thought it was suspicious (account creation date and the banned proxy) but I ~~like to at least pretend I'm giving someone benefit of the doubt~~ Retracted. That sounded snarky and it wasn't meant to. :) HAZardousMATT^toxic 16:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine, i take no offense. dealing with trolls/socks is dierty work. Nobody appears happy. On the one side you have the blocked account crying ABUSE, ABUSE and on the otherside, you often have uninvolved editors, not familiar with the situation, wondering whats going on. I have a bit more evidence that appears prettysuspicious that I woll post later. I am going to lunch now. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you post the evidence at the time you do the block and tag pages as socks, not later when you feel like it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I do it when I can. I had ample reason to believe this editor to be a sock. Upon scrutiny of the community I reversed my actions and, after that my initial confirmations were confirmed through both checkuser and through a confession. I dont go off half cocked, I dont block people for the fuck of it. I would kindly appreciate it if you would do your part in assuming good faith on my behalf and giving the the reason of the doubt before going off on my actions. If you had required further evidence you could have emailed me. The fact is kalajan was already under a 1 week block (endorsed by several people) that me going to lunch would have had NO effect on the outcome to kalajan. Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

New One?

I saw the contribs for RedRooster96 (talk · contribs) and blinked when he used the same methods as our old friend when replying on talk pages (just using "RE:" with no other heading). He seems to be making similar edits and is following the same image-uploading habits as you-know-how. Just saying. Not a witch hunt. :) HAZardousMATT^toxic 16:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

sounds suspicious however the user you provided does not exist? Did you mean another user? If I get the right name I will investigate it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Updated. It's 96. Dyscalculia. It's a pain. :) HAZardousMATT^toxic 16:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. [3] I might have been correct in my original assumptions. HAZardousMATT^toxic 17:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

What Did I Do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papa Johns78 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For one, you dont even remeber to sign your posts. you have not built the respect of the community. that is why. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 00:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume he's not completely stupid, so evidently part of the game now is to tell us who he is: per his edits to WP:NFL, this is evidently Andrew Weaver, aka Sinofdreams, aka lots of others. I've blocked indef. Next time I get a chance, I'll make a list of all of them and do a checkuser to see if we can flush out any more, or do a range block, or something. --barneca (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#YoMamma6188 --barneca (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the Barnstar. Elbutler (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Chris

Resolved

– sock blocked

Can You Give Me The Link To The Requesting An Adminship Please Thanks Mate —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodBlessAmerica101 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Got Socks? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

Resolved

– gave link to currently open CU request. See following thread for deletion of extra CU request

How the hell do I use a checkuser, help me please [4]. ←Kala jan→ 14:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is already one open here. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Improper SPI request?

Resolved

– Delete the duplicate or mistakenly created page

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinofdreams==Fiddler96 - does this need an AfD? I'm not sure how to go about that. It seems like it was submitted without following the correct process. HAZardousMATT^toxic 15:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Its gone! I deleted it. It was a duplicate anyways. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's my place to suggest this, but you may want to consider protecting his talk page. He frequents it way too much during his blocks. Last time he was using it to communicate article changes. HAZardousMATT^toxic 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I will at least give him the option of requesting an unblock and having another administrator reviewing it. While some admins may do that I prefer to avoid situations hwere I am the judge, jury and executioner and prefer to get another, impartial administrator to review the situation. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, I applaud you for not just doing so without consideration, in fact. Anyway, it was just a suggestion. Comes with a grain of salt absolutely free. HAZardousMATT^toxic 16:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and trust me. Ive thought about it. And, even in some situations I do (but usually for known and blatant sock puppets with the purpose of denying them the attention that they seek. Thanks for the advice. If you need anything administrativeley please feel free to contact me in the future. Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm having a content issue with a familiar editor,and would like to have my conduct evaluated.

I was adding (or re-adding someone else's) info regarding the Dendermonde nursery attack to the articles for the Joker (comics) and The Dark Knight (film), and discovered sudden and rather over-the-top opposition by ThuranX. I did not seek him out, and was not aware that he was on two of the pages, watchlisted for at least six months. He has made numerous accusations about me policing him, preparing 3RRs and AN complaints, etc, and I am thinking that it might be time for someone to step in and suggest he simmer down before some of that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't want to take him to AN/I again, but he is making this very personal, and it needs to stop. I certainly cannot suggest it myself.
Initially, ThuranX supported the material about the Dendermonde nursery school attacks, wherein the suspect supposedly wore makeup like the Joker. I re-added (15:21) a relevant paragraph to the Joker article and the aforementioned support was voiced(21:46) in discussion.
As the material specifically addressed Ledger's Joker as the source of the comparison, I added (15:31) a modified version of the paragraph to the Dark Knight film. That prompted comment from ThuranX on the discussion page (section here). When ThuranX changed gears and suggested that the matter was a BLP issue, I decided to get some input on that (section [Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Not_sure_how_to_proceed_-_Murder_suspects here]). Here is where ThuranX went pretty much over the top, starting with a comment with the edit summary: "all i'm allowed to say, or else I'll be reported". His next comment isn't much better: "bring on the blocks, I'm fine with it", with a great deal of incivility in the actual posts.
Look, I'm not seeking to get him blocked. I'd prefer him to simply avoid me, as I do his edits. At the very least, he needs to tone down the personal attacks before it goes too far. Bringing his anger at me to every discussion, and seeking out discussions (as he followed the conversations to the Dendermonde article) is unsettling, and not in keeping with his professed desire to "cross the street to avoid me". He is turning a simple content issue into a battleground. I need to know if my behavior has been as bad, and I will trust your input. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont have hours to wade through all of this. Are there reliable sources and consensus that back your position? While thuranx could be much nicer, I believe his is acting in good faith (not stalking or out to get you) and may just be frustrated. These situations it is often best to reach a compromise that falls within policy and guidelines. For example, if there are no reliable sources, it may be best to concede this point. Dont look at it as an editor attacking you, look at it as another editor wanting to ensure only the most accurate, reliable, and relevant material be included (a goal I have no doubt that you share). However, with different personalities and different points of view comes different opinions on how this should be implemented. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I sometimes forget that an overview of a problem is often not a magic bullet, and that is what a lot of folk want. The content issue isn't the problem - as I said, its the introduction of unrelated attack statements ([1, 2, 3) which serve to poison the well of the discussion, making it difficult to resolve issues. Who wants to weigh in on a discussion where one of the participants are adding toxic commentary? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I dropped a note on his page about making content disputes about the content, not the editors. It is a very common mistake that a lot of people (even myself) make in a content dispute. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As do I. I came to you, as I was nearing the end of my patience, and needed some help. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan's talk page

Hi Chris, I was about to do this myself, but I'm on my way out the door, don't have time to word it politely, and don't have time to stick around for the inevitable firestorm. I suggest you consider either protecting Kalajan's talk page while his 1 week block is going on, or ban everyone except him, and you (and me, if you think that would help), from the talk page. I like option 2 better, as it gives you a chance to discuss with him, calmly. He needs help if he's going to stay here, and the bickering and kicking-him-when-he's-down that's going on right now is doing no one any good. If our goal is just to indef block him, let's do it. But all the "helpful" comments by all these other people, especially people showing up from out of the blue, appear to be specially designed to look helpful, while actually engineered to make him over-react, so we can indef block him self-righteously. Sorry to drop this in your lap and run away, I have to go. I'll check in tomorrow. --barneca (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was 2 seconds ahead of you! i just modified his block to prevent talk page editing as well. When the block expires well sort it out. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but then protect his talk page too (if you didn't already, no time to check); a lot of the comments from others are really unhelpful. --barneca (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I left a note about that too. Ill keep watching it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will post here, then

No one is stalking or trying to intimidate ThuranX; I just didn't want you to get blocked for something stupid like 3RR. He is indeed at three reverts 1, 2, and 3. These are not successive edits but reverts. He said he hadn't, and that implied he felt free to do it again. I was trying to help him calm down in notifying him; I do not want to see him go off the rails. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd love nothing more. Don't lie. You've emailed at least two admins to come and get me now. Knock it off, stop stalking me, stop running around trying to get me blocked. Stop acting holier than thou, or like you're concerned about me NOT getting in trouble; everyone here knows you said you were out to get me. ThuranX (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are wrong. I don't like your behavior, but I don't want to see you blocked. I really don't. At the same time, I don't want to be repeatedly attacked when you disagree with my edits. If someone can help you stop that, more power to them. I've addressed the matter with Chris, as he suggested I bring conflicts with you to him. While I might have done it before your comments got out of hand, I make no apologies for seeking help in an issue too hot for me to resolve.

You have stated on numerous occasions how you "cross the street" to avoid my edits, yet you haven't done so in either this instance, or anywhere else. While I think that we can (and have) coexisted on the same watchlisted pages, I think it might be better if yu try very hard to avoid my posts and edits - as you ask me to do with you. I am not stalking you; you reverted and commented me, not the other way around. You have claimed on at least four different occasions that I am trying to get you blocked, and yet I haven't filed a single complaint anywhere, and contacted Chrislk02 to help defuse the situation. I don't want to fight with you, but I am not going to accept a sustained pattern personal attacks from you or anyone else. How you choose to proceed at this point is up to you, but unless you escalate the personal attacks and accusations, I have no plans or designs on filing any complaint. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, fuck it. I'm unwatching those articles. Ruin them to your heart's content. I know that since you watch my talk page, my contribs list and everything else, you'll soon be at all the other pages I edit 'Just trying to help'. However, that will be the only way to prove that you are unable to stop yourself. So sick of dealing with your nonsense. ThuranX (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

More about ThuranX

Resolved

– sock blocked

Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I found your talk page by following the behaviour of User:ThuranX.

In the past few days, he has littered my talk page with insults and accusations, and repeatedly reverted my edits to the Gratin article, giving either no reason or reasons that are, as far as I can tell, gibberish.

Assuming that I'd like to continue making a positive contribution to Wikipedia, how can I avoid ThuranX's unwanted attention and irrational behaviour?

Often Stranger Than Fiction (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet. ThuranX (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mecha13 & Kalajan

To be blunt, I don't think one edit is anything like enough to prove sockpuppetry. Secondly, to block someone for using the expression "I'll have your guts for garters" is overkill. It's a common or garden expression with no threatening element in my experience, expressing rather frustration. I think you have become over involved on the Kalajan case (I'm not suggesting he is unproblematic, just that maybe you should step back). DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

He just confessed [5]. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just dropping in here. If I note any SPA's round WT:PW or Talk:List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees I'll drop a note down here. It might be worth droping a note at ANI saying you've blocked him indef to see if others endorse the block indef. D.M.N. (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, you are the 2nd person to recommend that I reduce the block for kalajan which I will do. I do not feel over involved, however if enough people feel that I am i will leave it alone. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the block indef should stay.... the above wasn't intended as a suggestion to say "I dislike the block"... D.M.N. (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Other editors expressed concern over my extension of kalajans block. I have reduced it back and reverted my edits to his userpage and user talk page. Now mecha on the other hand I will not do anything different with. Sorry if this caused any inconvenience. However, there is something fishy going on. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey I noticed you at WT:PW, we need more admins to rely on for problems likes socks, edit warring, and etc. Is it possible to refer to you for future problems like this? Since the project is lacking admins.--TRUCO 16:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail

feel free to delete this, just pinging you. --barneca (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, i just read it. ill reply in a bit. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan said "noone cares what you think" on a discussion page (no way out 2009) and I told him not to be a prick. We both said mean things and I just want to let an admin (you, particularly) know, that I am just goint to avoid talking to him in the discussion pages from now on because we are becoming unvisil. I dont even edit pages I just like talking in the No Way Out 2009 discussion page. We wrestling fans get passionate over dumb things sometimes. Okay, have a good day. 24.160.145.53 (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe (just maybe) you should consider bumping Kalajan's block back up to indefinite? iMatthew // talk // 00:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep,

Done. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 00:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re. Independant Review

Hello Chris. Actually, I had noticed what was going on at Thuran's talk page just a couple of hours ago. I have his talk page on my watchlist as I monitor his instances of incivility since I blocked him for that last year. I am about to go out, but will add my feedback to the ANI thread as soon as I get back. Thanks. Regards, Hús ö nd 19:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Porchcrop

They've requested an editor review, which will answer any questions. It would appear that despite this person's initial apology and my polite response, if you go through the history of his activity on my talk page, none of the 40ish edits are productive, or have anything to do with Wikipedia. It appears that the person most likely holds a grudge against me for reverting his vandalism as an IP. *shrug* Ariel♥Gold 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ill keep an eye on this Ariel! I warned him and next thing he does that is unconstructive I will block him! Thanks for the background information Ariel and glad that you eventually mace it back! (I remeber a long window without you. I was afraid we lost you as well as Phaedriel. 2 editors that make this project a better place just by being here). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going nuts without a computer, too! I missed you and Wikipedia and everyone here, and I'm so happy I'm back. ~*Hugs*~ Hope you have a super day, dear! Ariel♥Gold 15:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ariel, I'm not holding a grudge against you. But you were not friendly to me like you were to the others, though you were polite to me. If you wondered why I sent 40 unproductive messages to you on your talk page, I apologise for doing that, I only didn't know what kind if messages to send you. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Email from Manhattan Samurai

I like transparency, this is one of the reasons I dislike the email function in most situations. I will/do post emails that are harrassing, disruptive or non private. The following is an email from indeffed Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs). I also have a maintained copy of this email should anybody request it.Chris lk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 01:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chrislk02: Guess what? I've been sock puppeting all over the place for the past few years here at Wikipedia. Look into User:BillDeanCarter. That's me. Look into User:Smith Jones. That's me. Look into User:Deathdestroyer. That's me. There are many many others. Just the tip of the iceberg. It's been a fucking wild ride and I've got lots more coming. Toodles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manhattan Samurai (talk • contribs)

Guess what

Hey, guess who. Its Kalajan here. Now I need to request an unblock, no, a shorter block. Maybe 1 month? Please, I'm really sorry but 6M was too much. Please discuss this with Barneca. Ps. Don't block this IP, it 's my school's. But I've got to pay 1,50 every half hour. Sincerely Kalajan. 80.58.205.45 (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

well, guess what. you just got your schools IP blocked. you are unwelcome here. go away. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

JEAF

I'd like to work on the article, Joint Expedition Against Franklin. You were the first editor to invoke the primary sourcing for the article "United States. US Navy. Report of the Secretary of the Navy, December, 1862" [6]. I wanted to know where you had access to this enigmatic, non-specific document so as I could refer to it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I found it on google books searing for, "Joint Expedition Against Franklin." Here is the specific content on the JEAF [7] and the title page that i used to cite it [8]. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged. I looked throughout Google Books, but could only find glancing references. Thanks for the specificity. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, sorry i did not cite it better. Being I have a web link I probably should have included that in the citation. This was one of the earlier articles that I wrote so I am sure there are a lot of things that could have been done differently. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

can you help me understand the confusion

please look at my last few edits, and tell me if I am violating any policy. thanks! 212.200.240.232 (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any edits that you have made that are in question? Can you give me some diffs of specific situations you would like me to review? I will gladly do it but it could take me a while to do a full review. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

this and this thread. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if you use any other IP's so I can only do this based on this IP. I looked and realized you did not have that many contribs (<100) under this IP so I will look through it. The answer I give you is what would go through my mind if I had performed this analysis independantly (i do understand you are a somewhat experienced editor editing as an anon, which I respect, so comments regarding that may be ignore.) Here is what I have so far.

If I did not know you had prior history, I might suspect you of trolling. You are predominatley active on wikipedia/policy pages with little mainspace contributions. This can be suspicious if new/anon editors show this editing pattern.
Looks like you are being accused of exactly what my first insticts would be. Not anything you are doing wrong specifically, just the fact that you are untrusted and that little creedence is paid to anon's and new editors that are trying to change the way wikipedia workds (policies and guidelines). Whether you are trolling or not, I cannot determine because I do not know your true edit history. If you could reveal to me the account you used to edit under and confirm that it was your account, I could step up to bat for you. Outside of that, anything I do will have little value in quelching the concerns shown by editors at those pages. Sorry. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So here is my confusion: other than the fact that anon/ip is "untrusted", where from my arguments do you get impression of trolling? All I did was request community input on two policy/guideline issues, and then I was being forced by an editor to reveal details about me, in spite of not doing any wrong, and of the request not being supported by any policy that i know of. I could have told the editor immediately everything about me, as I would be neither ashamed, nor scared, nor have anything to hide, but, because of principle, I didn't want to, as he had no right, nor justification in Wikipedia rules to ask me such questions. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally do not understand the history he is referring to. Jechomnan has reason to believe you are another, known and disruptive, editor. I do not know this and without more information cannot decide myself. You mention that he has no right or justification to ask such a question and that is true, He however does have a right/justification if he believes you to be a past, disruptive editor. Again, i will not make judgement/decisions on an area I am not familiar with. I understand you are doing it on principle but sometimes, compromise is important for the good of everybody. As I have said, I will gladly review your previous account and, if all is in order vouche for it and this IP without ever revealing the the base account. Outside of that, there is very little I can do. I understand it is frustrating be EVERY day we deal with trolls/vandals who just try to mix things up. Sometimes we start to assume bad faith, and see things that arent there but being I know little about this particular situation and who jechoman purports you to be there is little I can do. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. There is no need to 'vouche' for account/ip, as no wrong is done by me or others yet. Anyhow, if you are interested, they mentioned my account in the second thread linked above. Cheers... 212.200.240.232 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I cannot be of more help. I make every aspect to maintain neutrality in all situations, that goes to both sides. That means I have to assume good faith from all parties unless evidence shows otherwise. I have nor eason to assume bad faith for you but i trust jechoman so to me it is a draw. I recommend changing the way you go about things and perhaps starting small and building a reputation as an editor under the IP (if you know you an maintain it). Reputation is important on wikipedia (whether the policies say it or not) (much the way it is in real life). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, tell me about it....

I know, I have that strong feeling. He seems to know about sources and reliable sources on his fist edits. Checkuser? Simon^KSK 17:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser won't do much. He is probably IP hopping. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate it when it gets to this point. I sometimes feel like it is more of a witch hunt than anything. I have several suspicious accounts that I am monitoring. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, when will it all end? I have a few accounts that I have to monitor too. This is what I don't like in Wikipedia. Oh, well. Simon^KSK 21:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing to remeber is, there is a point where it is not worth our effort to care unless they are disrupting the project. While we would not like sock puppets, sometimes enfocring it is a stupid use of our resources. For example, if kalajan came back and we could NEVER EVER detect that he was a sock. I wouldent care because it would be impossible to know. Now, if he comes back and is stupid and gives himself away, it becomes much easier to enforce the ban and worth it. In short, dont worry about it unless it is blatant at this point because it is not hurting anything. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wise words. Simon^KSK 21:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to make an essay to that affect. I will prob start on it this weekend. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You do that and I'll put it on my userpage, I'm not joking. Simon^KSK 22:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:RedRooster96 made this edit to Sinebot's page here. At the end he underlined "Go 4 tildes", and made it small. This is very similar to what CFountain used to do. Also, I notified him about it, but he deleted it. IMAtt is suspicious too. He also left me an email, but I can't look at it right now. I can wager that it says, "Yeah, I'm Kalajan. Please don't tell." I don't know what to do. Mind you, if he gets blocked, I am going to offer him to join Simple English Wikipedia, so that he can prove that he can edit constructively without socks. Ideas, Chris? Simon^KSK 22:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I will review it all in the morning. very likley to be a block unless he gives me a damn good reason otherwise! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 01:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohh, looks like deskana already did it! Thanks deskana. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 01:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Well, I know it for next time. Thank you for explaining all that, by the way, the photo of my dog had yellow eyes, so I edited the picture, and made them black with a white wisp in them. Is that all right? Red Rooster 96 17:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks very bad and it is very obvious that you are unskilled at photo editing (no offense). I would not be suprised to find that the image gets replace and potentially deleted at a later date however there is no policy violation. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Okee. Thanks. Red Rooster 96 17:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Do I know you from somewhere before? If so, you might want to come clean. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not unless you live in Limmerick. Red Rooster 96 18:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI Help?

Resolved

– blocked the sock Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey there.

I saw someone who was making edits to Kalajan and Sinofdream's pages requesting speedy deletion saying they won't be back. On SimonKSK's talk page they admit to knowing Sinofdreams but claim to be someone else. The name is User:WeaverKid194. I recognized the name as Sinofdreams used several "AndrewWeaver" aliases from a previous investigation. Might you be able to give me a second opinion on this? I don't want to be wrong and go on a witch hunt. HAZardousMATT^toxic 19:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this smell like a sock?

Resolved

– blocked the sock Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the contributions of WeaverKid194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He seems to be placing {{db}} tags on the pages of users who were flagged as sockpuppets of Kalajan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Sinofdreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and others. I'm not sure why a supposedly new user like this would be interested in the sockpuppets of users who were involved in the wrestling fan fiascoes. This behavior looks fishy.

On the other hand, let me know if I should be minding my own business and if I shouldn't be concerned about what other people are doing. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

...or, I could have just read the section above. Geez. I'm not paying attention. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether you know Chris, but Kalajan is now socking on multiple Wiki's. He's been banned from the Simple Wikipedia, and their RFCU page makes for interesting reading. D.M.N. (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So far, Kalajan only has one sock at simple. Kalajan also send me an email, saying he invited Sinofdreams to simple. Simon^KSK 20:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Despite the fact that he originally said he didn't. I think Simple is in for a nasty sock-storm. HAZardousMATT^toxic 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a conspicuous edit to Simon's talkpage here. Might be worth investigating. HAZardousMATT^toxic 14:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done - I blocked the obvious sock. thanks for the heads up. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to tell you about that edit.... Simon^KSK 15:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The duck test would tell me these are also socks of Kalajan/Sinofdreams based on 's page:

YouAreTimeZones1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - registered Feb. 20; check log

I've volunteered you for something...

No pressure, though. Mind taking a peek at User talk:Xeno#EB? =) –xeno (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I will review this tomorrow morning. I spent a wonderful weekend in D.C/baltimore with my girlfriend and just got back tonight. I have no problem mentoring though! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 01:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

you have the mail. . . –xeno (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bam, got it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I see your notice on the top of your talk page. But I find that notice even when I edit your talk page (to add comments). How did you do that? -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Such notices can be added by creating the subpage /Editnotice of the desired page. –xeno (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then how to create that subpage? -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 22:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh no worries, there is no need to tell me how to create the subpage, I only thought there would be a way to create it, but you must create that subpage like any other page. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 23:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion of the American Civil War

Noticed you have edited American Civil War articles before. Could you take a look at this article I wrote. I am working to improve it to G.A. status. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

DC Meetup Events: You're invited!

Wikipedia Loves Art! (February 27)

The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be holding a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. This is a photography event involving Wikipedians, along with Flickr users and others, to generate content for Wikipedia. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) si.edu. There also is a signup list here, along with detailed information. The museum is conveniently located across from the Gallery Place-Chinatown metro station.

DC 6th Meetup (March 7)

The DC 6th meetup will take place on March 7th at Pizzeria Uno's at Union Station, one level up from the main floor. The meetup will start at 5pm, and people usually stick around there for several hours. You can RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 6.

This has been an automated because you your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Mentorship

Sure mentorship sounds like a great idea, i could use some advice right now. The Cool Kat (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you need advice with? Do you have any specific questions. I can spew advice but lets target it at what you need? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

After the incident at AN/I, no-one trusts me any-more, how do i regain their trust? The Cool Kat (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would start from scratch. Create an archive, archive your talk page (not hiding it, make sure a link to your archive is available) and start performing anti-vandalism tasks, write articles, expand articles, anything that will better the project. The way you regain respect is by showing that you are a valuable asset to the community. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, that's all the advice i need for now. The Cool Kat (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)