User talk:Chrislk02/toobig

Archives
Jul, Aug, Sept, Oct - 2006 Nov, Dec - 2006 Jan, Feb - 2007 Mar, Apr - 2007

How to respond to personal attacks

You need to spend less time on the internet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.129 (talk • contribs)

I appreciated your concern with my personal life and spending too much time on Wikipedia. Internet addiction is a real disorder. However, I do not suffer from it (maybe I am in denial). Well, take it easy and thanks again for your concern. Chris Kreider 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Chris chris chrisy chris chris. You clearly do have an internet problem. Authoring an article on the USS Hunchback is one of the clearest signs. I suggest you stop, log off, unplug the computer, maybe even throw it away, and try to strike up a conversation with the nearest girl. It will be difficult at first, human contact, but please, just try. It is so much better than reading about girls on wikipedia. AND NO ONLINE DATING THAT WOULD ONLY DRAG YOU DEEPER INTO THIS HOLE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.129 (talk • contribs)

I was first tempted to remove this as a personal attack. But, I really dont care and think it is kind of funny so, this is why it stays

On a random note, here is my response. "As i stated before, thank you for your concern with my personal life, most recently with my lack of human contact and needing to talk to a girl. I generally dont like to throw this information around but, to apease your concern, I do have a girlfriend. (Yes, she is real but you will have to take my word for it). Articles like the USS Hunchback are something to do that is not work related or even people related (some people, including myself, may have Introverted tendancies. In all, i appreciated your concern. Perhaps you might spend less time making personal attacks and more time socializing or even enhancing wikipedia!. If you need any help with this, please let me know. Thanks, Chris Kreider 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)"

Hahaha, I love trolls. Of course, they never realize how much time they're wasting... -- feb^talk 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Block of DieBucheBot

hi

Why did you block my Botaccount? Just because i did by mistake an edit with it? All other edits were done with a pywikipedia bot! --DieBuche 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You need a bot approval flag to run a bot account on english wikipedia. As far as I know, the account had no such flag. The relevant policies can be found at Wikipedia:Bot policy. Hope this helps. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

On RFCN

There was no need for anyone to apologize; no one implied bad faith. I simply said that I had submitted the name in good faith, and I wanted to clarify that no harm was intended. I think in future, whenever I report a username there, I should mention that no bad faith was intented. However, I've made little reports there recently anyway. Acalamari 19:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there was a time when I would report someone there at least once a day; so I try to be careful when reporting names there now. Acalamari 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD abuse

Chris, I'm in no hurry, I just need an answer by yesterday! Uh, I mean I should have sought an answer yesterday. I'm dealing with my first two AfDs against articles I edit, and I'm going nuts! I've haven't been this angry in weeks!

My main question is, is there any recourse agaist editors who frivolously file AfDs against articles as a first resort, just because they oppose that type of article (pop culture lists in this case)? See Air Force One in popular culture; my reasonings for it's creation oare on the talk page. Also, are there appeals available if an article is AfD? SOme of the same users supporting this (not the one who created it) also AfDed two articles creafted by members of the WP:AIR ROtorcraft Task FOrce, of which I am a member. Truthfully, there was a lot of cruft in those two, but the AF1 piece has been vetted over and over for the past few months, and in my opinion everything there is notable. I really resent that thes guys go straight to the AfDs without trying anything else first, and then quote all kinds of guidelines that the article supposedly violates, and that we violate by supporting it. Any comments are welcome, except for the ones about keeping my cool and watching what I say! I already know I failed there, but htese guys have an obivios vendetta here, and I hate just rolling over for these types! THanks again. - BillCJ 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, there is not much that can be done. There is a pretty big divide among many ediutors as to whether that type of information is encylopedic. There are many editors who feel that this type of material does not belong here. I personally am indifferent. It looks like the afd you linked above will be a keep. The important thing is just to make sure there are good solid arguments behind the afd for the Support side. Other than that, theres not much that can be done. Hope that helps at least a little. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So If I start AfDing all the articles these guys work on, even if it's frivilous, I'll be OK? ;) - BillCJ 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, as tempting as that is, it is generally a bad idea. As far as I can tell, the afds are nothing personal against you, just the content of the article. It is frustrating I know but try to remeber that most editors have a problem with content, not you as a person. If you work on a certain type of content they disagree with or feel is innapropriate, it may appear as though they are after you. If you believe they really are targeting you and only you, it may be a case of wikistalking. If you provide evidence of the such, I will kindly intervene. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not believe they are targeting me, but as a serious editor, I do take their non-courteous slash-and-burn tactics of AfDing anything they disagree with personally. It's a violation of "Assume Good Faith", in my opinion, and it should not be a weapon of first resort. THat is what I object to. We aren't allowed to treat newbies that why; why are they permitted to behave this way? As you've said, it's a controversial issue, and there is no consensus on haw to handle it. Maybe this is more common than I know, but it's my first experience with the AFD pocess, and I have to tell you I'm not happy.

I find the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools‎ to be extremely biased against conservativle Christians, and to present a very limited POV. So I tagged it as such,a nd listed my problems on the talk page. The creator of the page responded briefly a week late, but I missed his response. Three days later (today), he's removed the tag because no action has been taken to change the article, and no discussion has occurred. So I will continue to engage him in discussion, and hope to solve the problems that way.

But I did not just AfD the article because I thought it was biased, or I didn't agree with it, or whatever. That is what these guys are doing! And they are hiding behind Wiki policis and guidelines to do it!

I'm sorry, but it's not right! But, if that's the way they are allowed to handle controversional issues, why I am trying to do things the right way?

I hope you understand my frustrations here. And thanks for listening :) - BillCJ 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I absolutley understand your frustrations, I have been there many times. I agree assuming good faith is important and there are many deletionists who may be a bit trigger happy on the afd. However, you cant assume good faith against an inanmiate article so I dont feel it applies in this situation (although I know what you mean, there are other ways to address issues with an article, ask for clarification, cleanup, etc etc and there are places that actualyl reccomend you do this before nominating for deletion). It is kind of unfortunate but there isent alot that can be done about it. It is just one of those situations where I take it as a challenge to rise above the other side. Try to be nice, friendly, and feel free to confront them with your issues. If they ignore you or are uncivil, ask a friend to get involved (I would kindly offer to get involved). I personally feel though that it is important to express concerns to the directly related party first though. and, you are welcome to vent/comment/anything you want on my talk page and I will gladly help if I can! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: Personally, I don't like pop-culture referenses of any kind in serious aviation articles. I think we could do without it. But until it's all banned, we have to put up with the notable stuff. The problem is, when the notable references get too long, it needs to be split off, just like we do with the History, Variants, or other sections. Why should we be prevented from splitting off the notable items because these guys don't want any pop-culture list pages, notable or not? Eventually, we'll end up with an article with just an introduction and a pop-culture section, with everyhing else split off! If I can help it, I'm not going to let that happen. - BillCJ 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That has been a recurring argument in several conversations I have been involved with and a few AFD's that I have closed. There are arguments on each side of it. The one side is saying, if it cant stand alone, and its not supposed to be in the article then lets just axe it all. The other side says, it is notable but the other people dont want it in the article so lets pull it out. These sides often contradict. I am personally for limited pop culture references section. I.E. topgun and the airplane in that movie, and other popular references. Every time and place that it is used by anybody in my opinion has no place in articles, or even outside an article. The problem with this is many people on here want to see in Black and White when in all actuality, there is plenty of gray shades in between. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand. My real problem over the AF1 article is, if this guy would have just TALKED to me, he might have convinced me to put the material back in the main article. But he didn't even TRY. (Caps for emphasis, not shouting.) And I feel that's against the spirit of Wikipedia. They aren't even trying! - BillCJ 17:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I feel ya :(. There are some sides of Wikipedia that arent as pretty (I see plenty of it daily). I just remeber the real reason I am here, to learn and help others learn and that helps me get over it! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mess I created

I messed up something when setting up an AfD for Finda ... and now my initial entry is blended with an unrelated topic. See here. Hope you can help ... Thanks. Keesiewonder ^talk 14:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have fixed it. You need to place the {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ at the top of the afd. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! For my understanding, you're referring to section II here, right? I thought I did that ... the option before the "OR" ... maybe the first option does not work well on 2nd nominations? Or maybe I got jumbled up with 'finda' vs. 'Finda'? Anyway, thanks for bailing me out! Keesiewonder ^talk 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Glad I can help. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks a lot for the barnstar, much appreciated. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion

I posted it on the talk page for RFCN. Hopefully, it will continue to develop into a useful tool for our processes. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks too. And point taken, whether it was intedend or not :) - BillCJ 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation

Hi Chris, I'd like to report myself for an inadvertent violation of 3RR, [1] [2] [3] [4]. At issue is an editor who keeps changing the lead paragraph of this article. The text of the lead was decided on by draft/discussion/consensus a while ago. Because of the concerns he's brought up, that consensus is being rediscussed in detail on the talk page. Rather than waiting for consensus to be reached, he keeps adding the material back in (in violation of the earlier consensus), and I've been reverting. My 4th edit missed the 24 hr period by about 3 hours, so I'm in violation, and thought it best to report myself. Akradecki 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Was it reported to WP:AN3? If you dont revert it again, I do not think it will be an issue. If there was a 3RR report opened, let me know and I will look at it. It is close and it is obvious that there was no intention of violating it, especially due to the gap between the 1st and the last 3. I would not have even noticed unless you had brought it up. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of WP:AN3. I just reported myself there as well, with a note as to your involvement. Akradecki 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Its ok, I went ahead and closed it. It was inadvertant! We all make mistakes, you are not a regular edit warrer so, a block here would be innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I had just typed on this page "FYI see User talk:Akradecki#Extraordinary rendition" when I was notified that there was a message from you on my talk page. You have not trodden on my toes. I never act as an administrator when I am directly involved in a dispute, as I think it could be construed as an act of bad faith. The reason I did not post a message to WP:AN3 is because I thought a warning sufficient. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Self revert done, and I left a message on Philip's page. However, I also included a note that said, "I must say, I was really disappointed in learning that you're an admin and yet are unwilling to wait until a new consensus is reached before going against an existing one. Yes, I understand consensus changes, and it's perfectly valid to bring an issue back up. But when you're informed that the current state of things was based on a lot of work to build a consensus, I would expect that you would respect that, especially as an admin, and follow the correct path of discussing first before repeatedly insisting on your way." If I understand things right, I'm not out of line as a mere editor in holding an admin to following correct form, am I? Akradecki 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Today's activity

Just going through my watch list after a daytime of inactivity from yours truly and it seems my page was hit today. Thanks for the revert, and I wonder what their problem was? Could be anything nowadays I suppose! Cheers. Bubba hotep 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you get the note that I accidently blocked you instead of the vandal? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Help

Greetings. I think I need serious guidance.

Where to start? Let's start at near the end. I asked Jimbo for help. User:Keesiewonder responded that I should try you. There.

I'm having a problem with user's User:Guettarda (GT), User:FeloniousMonk (FM), and well, some trouble from User:Jim62sch. I have recently figured out the most probable source of their ABF (assuming Bad faith). It's because for whatever reason, FM thinks I'm a sockpuppet of several users that were banned from the Jonathan Sarfati and "related" pages (AiG, Creation Ministries International, Ken Ham). Two days ago, FM filed a checkuser on my account: CHECKUSER#Otheus. It'll come up negative of course. I live in Austria, the offending IPs are all from Australia. 2 letters, but thousands of miles apart.

Okay, so what I want is someone who does not have significant ties to FM or GT, nor to the bulk of creationist debate or the club of Australian users, to objectively look at the actions of User:Otheus (me) and give me an honest, unabated criticism. If you feel that my actions have been in bad faith, or if I have violated policies/principles of Wikipedia, I would like you to tell me so that I can take corrective action. I would like you to report your findings to users FM, GT, and also to SlimVirgin, ElinorD, and JzG (who supported FM's requests for deleting articles in my userspace). Combined with the checkuser results, I'm hoping I can establish good faith with these users.

Please respond that you will or will not help me. If you cannot help me at this time, perhaps you can help me find someone who can. --Otheus 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I will do what I can to help you. However, it will be tommorow morning for me before I can take a good look at it. Is that ok with you? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Here, I am doing dispute research on this issue. Please do not edit this article as it is a work in progress as I put all the pieces together and try to figure out exactly what is going on. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing

I see that your into, well, machinery in a general sense. I tried copyediting the Motion_compensator but between the technical jargon, the main contributor's poor English, I'm lost. :) --Otheus 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Im not actually into machinery as such (Im more into programming side of things). I however will take a look at it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Still Need Help

Hi, thanks for the info on those box things. I found some that I wanted and put in what I thought were the codes for them but they are not appearing as boxes on my user page, they are still codes. How do you make them appear as boxes? I need help Chris! Arrrgggh! TamTammiMagee 10:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Change of name advice

Hi Chris, Following an RFCN [5] that ended up allowed - and discussion on my own talk page - I'd like to volunteer to change my username here. Is that something you suggest? Is it easy to do? Thanks. Poweroid 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)