User talk:Chrislk02

Main     Talk     Userboxes     Contributions     My DYKs     Awards     To do     Other     Email

Archives Jul - Oct - 2006 Nov - Dec - 2006 Jan - Feb - 2007 Mar - Apr - 2007 May - Jun - 2007 Jul - Aug - 2007 Sep - Dec - 2007 Jan - Feb - 2008 Mar - Apr - 2008 May - Jun - 2008 Jul - Aug - 2008 Sep - Oct - 2008 Nov - Dec - 2008 Jan - Feb - 2009 Before you ask why I deleted an article, please see if one of the following FAQ's applies Band (Band Article Deletion FAQ) Notice: If you are here because I speedy deleted your article, please do not email me about it unless it contains sensitive or private information that you would not like to discuss here. I WILL NOT reply to run of the mill emails answering your question, "Why did you delete my bands page, we are not signed yet but we really are notable," or other similar complaints. If you have a problem, post it here so everybody can see, and review it themselves if they so desire. If you post a complaint here please make sure you link to the article in question (even if it is a red link). I sometimes delete hundereds of articles a day and unless you tell me what you are talking about and make it easy for me to find it, it is unlikley I will address your concerns. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:17, 12 June 2008 (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. SimonKSK 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. HAZardousMATTtoxic 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. HAZardousMATTtoxic 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. ;) HAZardousMATTtoxic 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. HAZardousMATTtoxic 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. :) HAZardousMATTtoxic 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) 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 [1].  ←Kalajan→  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. HAZardousMATTtoxic 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. HAZardousMATTtoxic 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. HAZardousMATTtoxic 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 [2]. 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, Húsönd 19:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 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.Chrislk02 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" [3]. 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 [4] and the title page that i used to cite it [5]. 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)