User talk:Chrislk02/toobig

; Archives
	Jul - Oct - 2006; Nov, Dec - 2006; Jan, Feb - 2007; Mar, Apr - 2007; May, Jun - 2007;

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1], 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)[reply]

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 [2] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Thanks

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

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

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.[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - Sorry, sorry. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]