User talk:Chriskraus1/Archive 4

Headline text
I have reported the reverting of metroPCS for resolution by administrator.Erikev (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC).

Concerning...
I don't understand why a creationist's complaint of how (horse) evolution didn't occur, or the link to a creationist website, would be considered a legitimate comment on a talk page, which should normally be about improving the article, only, unless someone intends to take the creationist's suggestions to rewrite the article to be more Creationism-friendly.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading it again, It really looks like a religious rant. Removed from talk page-My apologies. --Christopher Kraus (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Maybe we should put one of those tags that remind people to discuss about improve the page, and not arguing over whether or not the subject has been scientifically proven or not to it, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

ACC Account
I requested an account on the ACC account creation interface. Username chriskraus --Christopher Kraus (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Christopher, thank you for your interest in helping users creating accounts. Your request has been approved. I advise you to read WP:ACCG before you use the system.


 * At this time, you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day. You won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user. However, if you have reached the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:RPE.


 * Again, thanks for your interest in the account creation system. Join us on IRC at wikipedia-en-accounts and subscribe to the mailing list by going here. Willking1979 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Royal Rumble. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  TJ   Spyke   18:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry..I must have gotten confused. I thought I was reverting that.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 0af61869ce5fdef48a6a50815e8bcc94
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Netbook: Opinion on this Revision
Is this going too far - Should this be reverted?--Christopher Kraus (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked it over, WP has a policy about reliable third sources, WP:THIRD, that they cannot be blogs. This could be reverted under WP:BRD, then talked about. So really there is no Bright Line on this. We do want to maintain a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) though. I would personally not revert because of the sources, but you could put something up on the talkpage. I am going to let you take whatever edits you feel are neccesary, I won't touch anything. Let me know on my talkpage if you want more help. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 23:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

World Reuse Repair and Recycling Association
Not sure if this is the right way to solicit help. I have tried to submit links to articles referring to WR3A.org, which received a grant from Consumer Electronics Association in 2009 and from EPA in 2010. The association has had several articles in Recycling Today, Resource Recycling, Recycling International, and has been a source for EPA consultants. I have asked for help how to spot where the article on WR3A submitted to Wikipedia looked like a reflection or essay. It does not make claims to be "definitive" (as Basel Action Network does) and generally the English reads well. Should I submit more links to more articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retroworks (talk • contribs) 18:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to help you where I can. After looking at the article today, I feel that it is in a lot better shape then when I tagged it. Let me see what I can do and I will leave you a message in 15 minutes.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I cleaned a lot up, It would help if you could make the history section sound a tiny bit less promotional.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ACC requests
We've all accidentally opened up a request marked Checkuser required; however the comments clearly indicated that checkuser intervention was required and had been sollicited. Please be careful when handling requests, especially when the request has a number of comments on it. If in doubt, ask on IRC. Thanks --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 16:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 08:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.