User talk:Chemistrygeek

Fictional Websites thing

Hi, I am Andrewrox. I see that you want the article to be deleted. Just a question though: Why does it have to be deleted? It is not advertising and all I did was transfer it from the iCarly article over to a seperate article :) I was gonna do the same with the Trivia/Notes thing :) Please reply soon! --Andrewrox (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that they deleted my article, just as I had changed it :) --Andrewrox (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark H. Johnson (professor)

Could you please explain why you tagged this perfectly innocuous article about a neuroscientist for speedy deletion as an attack page? I would also suggest a very fast and sincere apology to the page's author is in order. nancy ^(talk) 12:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, sorry no. That is simply not good enough. The ONLY justification for tagging something as an attack page is if that is what it is & whether you know the subject of the article or not (and we both know that you don't) is neither here nor there. Please do not do any more tagging until you have a proper comprehension of when it is appropriate to request speedy deletion. You should start by reading WP:CSD. nancy ^(talk) 12:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G10 tagging

You've just done it again at Joshua Hanchett which Was Not An Attack Page. Please desist. Pedro : Chat 12:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not making an attack. It was not notable, but it was not an attack. Anyway, I'm sorry but I believe you are a sock-puppet of and indefinately blocked user. Please desist with this relentless course of action. Pedro : Chat 12:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Chris, you're not a sock of, for example, User:Computermadgeek then? Pedro : Chat 13:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

account

Hi, got one already (since October 2004), but I'm mostly not logged in :) --85.93.199.189 (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, I'd say that's up to you. :) I don't have a static IP, one of the four edits made with my current IP isn't even from me. --85.93.199.189 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad categorizations

You seem to have categorized The Ointment Seller, which is a play, as a "religious festival", and RADlab Software, which is software, as "Radiation health effects researchers". Perhaps you could review some of your recent categorizations and fix any other errors like those? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DC is right. Those are bad categorisations - probably best if you make sure that your first edits today are to fix them - if you are not sure what the right ones should be then just replace the {{uncategorised}} tag. If you plan to do any more categorisation work then perhaps it would be a good idea to stick with topics which you know about - like when you did the albums - then you can be absolutely sure you are getting it right. nancy ^(talk) 07:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have now fixed those categories and have looked into all of my contributions and they all look ok to me. Feel free to tell me if I have missed any but im pretty sure that I havent. Chemistrygeek (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't recall which change started me looking at your categorizations, and I don't really want to go through them all, but here's another example I was able to find quickly: you categorized Touchmail, which is a webmail application, as a "mobile phone" and a "smart phone". Maybe you could take another, more careful look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chemistrygeek. You have new messages at Nancy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Miss Bahamas Miss take?

I don't get it - why do you think it lacks context? --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. OK. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome. I'll take my time and try to do things properly. --Joe Deagan (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"welcome"

Thanks for you welcome, i will make a sig now.

I will edit "gaming" pages at this wiki

Buzz 9 1990 (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Boy vandalism

Hey chemistrygeek, I am very sorry for the vandalism done using my account. I had left the pc without logging out and someone misused my account. Please delete the article created as soon as possible. If you do not mind, I would also like to remove your msg from my talk page. Regards Muhammad(talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Muhammad(talk) 18:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have one...

more message on my talkpage that you haven't responded to. Please respond when you get a chance, I realize you're enjoying your tea at the moment. :-) Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Hello again, I hope you don't mind me asking a question. If while making a comment on a talk page and there is an edit conflict, how do I incorporate it into the conversation withought having to rewrite it over and over again? I have tried to find out on the tutorials but can't seem to locate it. Thanks. Joe Deagan (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interupt, but I thought I might be able to help. When you get an edit conflict scroll down the page some way - you'll see another input box marked "your text". You can then cut and paste what you typed and place it it the box at the top of the page which contains the most recent edit. Does that help? Pedro : Chat 11:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure does! Thanks a million! Joe Deagan (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming Users

Hi there. Don't you think that it is a bit weired that you welcome users before they have made any contributions with a template that says thanks for you contributions (see User talk:ElonBrennan)? Maybe you could wait until they have made some contributions before you welcome them? This is only my opinion and I do not mean to jump on you. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently discussing about making a new template for welcomming users that have no contributions. Ill let you know when more happens on this. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will more than likely just take one of the other templates and change it slightly. I will remove the bit that says thanks for contributions and add something else. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok go for it :> Give me a link once you have! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be nothing there for me at the moment... Are you sure you have saved it ? :D ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry im blind (I was looking at the user page not the talk page). Yep that looks very good. Ill try to implement some new templates soon ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can deal with that. I will make the templates for you and I will message you once I have done them. (Could be a day or 2 as there are many welcome templates to create / change) --·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marking pages as patrolled

Hi there. You have probably already seen that a user had come to me with concerns about your marking new pages as patrolled but not dealing with the problems in them. (examples are on my talk page) If you mark a page as patrolled it means that other new page patrollers (probably) won't bother looking at so - as with everything here - you need to be quite careful. There are two circumstances in which it is OK to mark a page as patrolled:

It is a good article or stub which needs no further action
It is a problem article which has already been tagged (either by you or by someone else)

If you are not sure if the article is good or is a problem then don't mark it patrolled and another editor will be able to check it out. nancy ^(talk) 18:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiuser100 - nearly there

Hi there again. It's really good that you apologised to Wikiuser100 but you still haven't quite understood what happened and so what you said on his talk page does not reflect the edits that he actually made. Wikiuser100 did not at any time make edits to the spelling of Willem/William. The name had been spelled Willem in the article for quite some time and then an IP came along and changed it to William. None of this was anything to do with Wikiuser100. The only editing Wikiuser100 did on the article was to add the words "what is planned as" to a sentence. May be you could go back to his talk page and just say that you got completely muddled up with the page history and thought he had changed a spelling when he didn't. I'm sure he'll understand, he seems like a very reasonable chap. nancy ^(talk) 21:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done...

...for this. How much better does it feel to be name-checked on a noticeboard for doing good things rather than bad? Good stuff. nancy ^(talk) 21:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report

As requested I have looked through your recent contributions.

Mainspace - you haven't been in mainspace much, you tagged a few things for speedy, reverted a bit of vandalism and done some categorisation. Overall there is nothing really troubling but there are a few places where you didn't get it quite right.
- Susan Quinn - you tagged this as A7 (no notability asserted) but even at the time you tagged it the article said that she had won several literary prizes. A7 is probably the speedy deletion criteria with the highest bar to meet - really all an article has to do is say that the subject is notable, it doesn't have to prove it. Even if you think that it might not be true then you can't use an A7 as speedy is only for obvious and non-controversial cases - the right thing to do is to take it to articles for deletion.
- The Great Bletsoe Storm - remember what we said about giving the article creator a chance to get some content posted? - you tagged it "no context" in the very same minute it was created.
- Your vandalism reverts look OK except for on Mao Asada - just because someone removes content from an article doesn't necessarily mean that they are a vandal; I know it is difficult when people don't write helpful edit summaries but remember the motto "if in doubt - leave it for someone else".
- Your categorisation is coming along nicely and is much improved. Only thing to say here is that rather than add a stub category you should add an actual stub tag (which will automatically add a stub category). For example on Kadhal Azhivathillai you should have added {{India-film-bio-stub}}. You can find a full list of stub types at WP:STUBS. Also technically if an article only has a stub category then it still counts as uncategorised.
User talk - lots of welcoming & you have taken User:Addshore's advice and started using a template which doesn't mention contributions. I also noticed that you put a welcome message on a user that you ahd also given a level 1 warning to - that is a really good thing to do (but again make sure it is not one which thanks them for their contributions). I'd say stick with the "plate of cookies" and you can't go wrong.

All in all I think you are definitely going in the right direction, you are not quite there yet but your change in attitude and approach is very marked and if I compare your edits now with those of a week ago I can hardly believe they were made by the same person. Well done & keep up the good work. nancy ^(talk) 16:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiRgihts

would you be the User:Chemistrygeek on wikirights? «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marking pages patrolled

Further to the discussion about marking pages patrolled, you seem to have marked The dusk as patrolled when it should very clearly have been tagged as WP:CSD#A7. Are you sure you're here to be constructive? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not so happy to see that someone has had to come here to complain about bad page patrolling. What did we say about when in doubt leave it for someone else? You have come such a long way and I would hate to see all your hard work (and all the time and effort other people have put in to helping you) come to nothing. nancy ^(talk) 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User:Nancy talkpage. Chemistrygeek (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP Block Exempt

Hi - I've put that flag on your account for you. Pedro : Chat 10:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I did know about the differing levels of titling, but I didn't spot that I was ignoring the convention. It's clearer if things are separated of with the h2 titles as you suggest. Thanks.

RentaCenta (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello, Chemistrygeek. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Steve Crossin (contact) 09:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chemistrygeek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I never said that I was a sock on this wiki I said on another wiki. Why the block? Ask Pedro or Nancy what is going on.

Decline reason:

The evidence that you're Chris19910 is serious, editing patterns look familiar and username is way too similar to Chris's Chemistryboffin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after all. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hm, first, since when do we block users for abusing multiple accounts on non-foundation wiki's? I would like to see some more evidence of abuse and a clear link between Chemistrygeek and User:Chris19910. Second, indef seems a bit harsh to me, I mean this users good contributions need to be looked at too here, and not just the possibility that they have abused multiple accounts. Before I make any decisions I would like to hear from WOBSITG. Tiptoety ^talk 20:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's WBOSITG. Secondly, the user has before used the sock User:Chemistryboffin; bit of a link in username there. Regardless of sockpuppetry, many off wiki legal threats have been thrown around at anyone who dares to talk to them - I have logs if you wish to confirm. Some may also claim that this is also a legal threat. This was in response - I presume - to this other wiki comment. As much as I appreciate the good contributions these are very serious statements to throw around. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a legal threat to say that I would go to the Ombudsman which I am perfectly entitled to do arent I? As for the legal threats off wiki thats a load of rubbish. Chemistrygeek (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't retracted legal threats made by your previous accounts yet. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts on wiki and on other user accounts. Would help from looking at them if they werent protected. Chemistrygeek (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chemistrygeek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Independant unblock review sought. Want someone who is not involved to deal with it.

Decline reason:

Per the above. I have nothing new to add. You cannot abuse multiple accounts. — Rjd0060 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chemistrygeek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request an unblock I dont know what has been going on in recent events. I know that my offwiki issues have spilled onto wikipedia and for some reason I dont know why they did. I was wrongfully blocked for an offwiki event which has been sorted out. Can someone shed some light as to what is going on. Many Thanks.

Decline reason:

Your first unblock rationale claimed your account had been hijacked. Per my CU investigation, I see no evidence to suggest hijacking and considerable evidence to suggest continuity. Given the sockpuppeting I also see, I can find absolutely no reason at all to unblock here. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Chemistrygeek (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unblock 2

Hi CG. Pedro, Nancy, and I have been chatting about you on my talkpage, please read our thoughts here. We are all disappointed to see you blocked again, and are all inclined towards an unblock in some form or another. Please read that discussion. You'll notice that the real problem we are having, is that we are disappointed with your "unblock request reason", as it strikes all three of us as untruthful. Please help us help you, we'd like to see you back in action. Keeper ǀ 76 15:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Sam Korn, User:Pedro, User:Nancy, and myself were all very aware of the sockpuppeting issue with Chemistrygeek (and between the three of us, blocked most if not all of them ourselves upon discovery). This account is his "last chance" account, and was closely monitored by us three admins. He admitted the sockpuppetry, and his failings at this point really seem to be simply being untruthful in his unblock requests. Do you have evidence of ChemistryGeek using sockpuppet accounts after ~~July 1st~~ June 7th of this year? Keeper ǀ 76 15:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After 7 June, yes. Meus Nomen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), QoH Stuart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Stuart Victor Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just blocked, and a bunch of anonymous stuff too. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's discouraging. The Meus Nomen userpage says its a "legitimate sock", not sure what to make of that. The QoH Stuart and Stuart Victor Smith accounts haven't made a single contrib/deleted contrib, but both were "welcomed" by ChemistryGeek, which is tacky. Has any of the anonymous stuff been vandalism/disruptive? (disruptive in the editing habits that is, outside of block evasion). Keeper ǀ 76 16:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to sam in an IRC chat I know who Meus Nomen is it is my friend Billy Graham. Sam recons that my IP was used to create those accounts but I know different. Billy often borrowed my laptop which Sam finds hard to believe. But I am telling you I welcomed the users as I thought they were legit I wouldnt want to welcome my own socks that would draw too much attention to me. Chemistrygeek (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask, did you just happen to welcome the user? I find it difficult to believe that you welcomed a user confirmed as your sockpuppet without any knowledge of affiliation. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, how many accounts, right now, do you hold the password to and are able to edit with? List them here. This CG account (the one where you've got a solid editing history of good edits, and a good reputation to be proud of) hangs in the balance. List them here. All of them. Even if they are your "friends" accounts that are using your laptop (if I had a nickel for every time....) Keeper ǀ 76 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are non that I am able to edit from. They have all been added to the draw or have been blocked indef. So there are no outstanding warrents for indef blocking if you wish to put it that way. Chemistrygeek (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, IP address 212.219.59.241 is a gateway IP, so checkuser will bring up users who Chris may have never met. Anybody who has used Wikipedia from Bridgwater College or Cannington College will show up on a checkuser of that IP. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the mind of not unblocking right now Chris. Frankly, I just don't believe you. You created new accounts, didn't edit with them, but "welcomed them?" In the past, when you were pleading to get unblocked and a second final last chance, I, and Pedro, and Nancy, agreed, and stood up for you, because we thought you were being honest. I don't believe you've been honest here at all. You haven't "been on vacation" for 2 months, CG. You edited, from this account, a month ago. I don't know why I'm bothering with this, except I still, for some reason, believe you could be a positive contributor. List out all of your accounts. List out all of your roommates accounts, your friends accounts, your friends' friends accounts. This GW Simulations guy sounds just like you, right now, I think it is you, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Everything is tying itself back to one person, you, with too much time on your hands. Keeper ǀ 76 17:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Keeper, I thought that they're the same person too, but a usercompare check indicates otherwise. I think its likely that Chemistrygeek is not GW Simulations, well, thats what I get from UserCompare. So you can see for yourself, here's the report. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I am not the same person, although we are friends, checkuser will prove that we haven't used the same IP for months. I stopped editing from college after I provided information in a previous case of sockpuppetry. I can provide more information confidentially by e-mail. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the whole case again, I would say that Meus Nomen is probably not Chemistrygeek, although probably is GW Simulations. However, I strongly feel that this is not {{unrelated}} -- there is a strong connection which borders on the abusive. I do not feel minded to unblock Meus Nomen or Chemistrygeek -- this is not a case of two editors on the same IP. The connections run much deeper than that and the on-wiki interaction is extraordinary. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling pretty much the same way right now. If not sock, meat. And lots of evasions, halftruths. I've seen Chris be very honest about his past accounts, and I've seen him make a good stab at reform. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing it here. Keeper ǀ 76 18:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now of the opinion, due to checkuser evidence, that we do not unblock. This edit [1] to my user talk may or may not be related as well. Whatever, my patience is exhausted with this. Sorry Chris, but you've abused to much trust and good faith to be welcome here for a rather long time. Pedro : Chat 18:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chemistrygeek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes me and GW go to college together and yes I use the college IP address but havent been able to edit for a while now because of my account being blocked. I will provide information regarding who I am to the admin should they require it to show you that I am who I say I am. I will email you from my college account and provide all details of exactly what is going on.

Decline reason:

Declined for now pending the outcome of our email conversation. Please don't post any further unblock requests in the meantime as it could be seen as disruptive and you might end up getting your talk page protected so you can't edit it — nancy ^talk 08:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chemistrygeek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request an unblock after a wikibreak I believe that I have reformed and also I have been monitoring the wiki from being on holiday and seemed to have seen what the right thing to do is. Can I have this one last chance in order to prove myself.

Decline reason:

If I'm reading your discussion above correctly, your 'one last chance' has already passed. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

}