User talk:Chrislk02/toobig: Difference between revisions

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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:33, 24 June 2007

Removal of warnings

Regarding [1], users aren't prohibited from removing warnings, though archiving is preferred.--Chaser - T 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

hello

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

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

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

WP:AN/3RR

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, Race and genetics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Frisians Proposal WikiProject Frisians

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

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

sock puppets

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh yeah.. lots and lots of proof of an open proxy [2] SirFozzie 18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to Check IP addresses for proxies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:TheManWhoLaughs

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

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

Race and genetics

Hi Chris, While I definitely appreciate your intervention in the matter, the table that is under dispute has been removed and the article is protected. By doing this it is taking the side of User:XGustaX which is precisely what he wants. He does not want the material in the article. I found the materials using google scholar which says they publish peer reviewed scholarly information. The link to the article in question is here, and here on the National Institute of Health official government website. He does not agree with the results of the study, so he wants them deleted. He claims his alternative source from 2001 disputes this [3] and I am agreeable to us using both sources in the article, on one side a claim I put forward and on the other hand a counterclaim that he puts forward and then let any readers decide which they think is true. He does not accept this comprise as he wants the results of the study to disappear. I hope you would then consider placing both sources in the article as an acceptable compromise. This version has both claims [4] Muntuwandi 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The table is copied from this source [5]. This article references the individual studies that took place in various latin american countries such as brazil and argentina which I followed up as well and included. So it does not make sense to split the table because it is a comparison of all three lines of ancestry, native american, african and european.Muntuwandi 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I think you are incorrect there. [6] this is the orginal source. If you click on Jonthan Marks it lists a few of the people who helped, it is clearly peer reviewed. That is why I think it should be removed, this source as another user on the talk page has pointed out is a good source. I am willing to compromise but just putting both sources isnt a compromise because I had to right to put the source there all along with no ones permission. XGustaX 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way. There is no way that [7] or [[8] is more scholarly than these[9], [10] these. If I were writing a college credit paper, your sources would very likley not be accepted. I am not going to argue over this. You asked me to look into it, I did and that is what I feel. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

No, the source you are providing does not provide any information on the study. From the source it is just there theory. [11] gives all teh appropriate sample information, methodologies etc expected from a scholarly study. [12] gives none of that. What you are saying is that an article with no associated study trumps a peer reveiwed scientific study? Can you link me to the study that your soruce is dervied from? WIth samples sized, metholodiges etc etc? That would make your source much more credible. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It does it says:

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

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

Section Break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I tried to add the Native American DNA testing section and he could still not accept certain things the article made clear. Here is the Link Native American DNA testing section I made.[14] XGustaX 15:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 2

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

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

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

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

He does indeed [15] My version to left and his to the right on the very bottom of the Native American DNA section. XGustaX 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section break 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hey

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

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 [17], 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 [18] 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]

@@ Line 283: / Line 283: @@
 Sesshomaru is trying to say that im a sock puppet and hes trying to get me banned can you help me? [[User:TheManWhoLaughs|TheManWhoLaughs]] 15:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 :That will get you nowhere. See [[User talk:Yamla#Likely sockpuppet|discussion here]]. [[Special:Contributions/Sesshomaru|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.[[User:TheManWhoLaughs|TheManWhoLaughs]] 15:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)