User talk:Knowledge Seeker

Hi, and welcome. I like comments (and barnstars), so feel free to leave some. Please add a new section when starting a new topic, and please use ~~~~ to sign your comments.

I may add section headers and attribution for comments, and I may adjust margins and alignment for clarity.

user talk page restore

Hi. A couple of days ago I started going though new pages for the first time to flag articles for deletion for things like db-talk. I found a bunch of them, which I thought was cool, since I'm relatively new around here (2 or 3 months) and I feel like I am still able to contribute even though I've gotten a bit burned out by creating so many articles in the main space in such a short time. So anyways, all of the pages that I marked that day were deleted. Because I wanted to keep track of the deletions to make sure I was doing things right I kept links to them on a subpage of mine and I noticed that one of them, which was a user page came back. So I was about to do a db-repost when I noticed the "View logs for this page" for the first time ever and it looks like this page is getting deleted over and over. I tried to look around to see what was going on and it looks like maybe there is a user that doesn't want the page deleted and is restoring it. I've notice it was restored each of the past 2 nights by the same person (admin I guess?). So am I supposed to list it on AFD or take some other action, or is it just a landmine that I should stay away from so I don't get hit by the shrapnel? --Brian G 03:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

An excellent question. The page in question wasn't restored by an administrator; rather, it was re-created with the same template by the user. I'm not certain what the proper action is here. I actually think that user talk pages should not be deleted when users leave Wikipedia. You might contact the original deleting administrator to let him know the page has been restored and ask why it was deleted in the first place. In general, you should nominated user pages on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, but in this case I'd probably check with the involved administrators for assistance. I don't feel strongly about it either way, which is why I haven't touched the page, but I don't know all the facts, either. Hope this helps! — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Since I've now read more about CSD G8, I've learned that User talk pages are considered exempt, so I guess I shouldn't have speedied it. Also, it looks like there is a lot more history involved in this particular case than I need to know about. I think that I just stumbled into something that I should probably not get much further involved in, especially since I have no personal interest in this. I'm going to just leave a message for the admin whom I think is the one that wants to be contacted, as a courtesy to them, and leave it at that. --Brian G 12:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. You handled the situation very appropriately. I hope you will contact me in the future if you ever have other questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop being a WP:DICK

As I mentioned above, fair-use images are not to be used in user space. Please do not re-add the image back, or place any other fair-use images in user space. If you continue, you may be blocked. If you have questions or do not understand, please ask me rather than restoring the image. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you reverted my user page again. I guess that since you were wrong on the facts about the use of {{User EX-WP}} you decided that you would chase after me for another issue.

You are right about fair use images. However, IMHO your selective enforcement of the rule shows you to be vindictive and petty. Hope you're getting what you want out of wikipedia. --South Philly 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you I will take your grievances seriously whether you express them with hostility or politeness. I am unaware that I ever expressed an opinion on the use of {{User EX-WP}}, though I prefer not to use userboxes in general; if I was wrong about its use, I apologize. Yes, I reverted your page again, for reasons I explained on your talk page, and with which I believe you agree. I was not aware my enforcement was selective; if you know of an instance where I was aware of a fair-use violation but failed to object to the user or remove the image, I'd appreciate you sharing it with me. Thank you, yes, I quite enjoy my work on Wikipedia, both in being able to contribute to this body of knowledge, and also do help maintain the administrative side when I can. Wikipedia's policy is quite clear on fair-use images. I'm sorry that my removal of the image upset you so much. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies

Saw you were on. Just wanted to let you know that this is a brilliant contibution. Cheers -- Samir धर्म

Why. thank you, Doctor! I found out about the nomenclature scheme a couple months ago, and was amazed. I toyed with the idea of writing an article for several weeks actually, but I was busy and wasn't sure if it was too technical for Wikipedia. Ultimately I decided it was just too fascinating and I needed to share it with others. My schedule has lightened a bit so I hope to be around Wikipedia some more these days. Thanks for the comment; I'm really glad you liked the article! — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hydnjo's response to the blocking proposal

I thank one and all - Jarandal, Antandrus, Titoxd, Xaosflux, TenOfAllTrades, mboverload, PseudoSudo, Knowledge Seeker, Haukurth, Deathphoenix, Zzyzx11, Tyrenius, Zscout370, AnnH, Rick Block, Tyrenius (again), Zscout370 (again) and NoSeptember for your support.

To Jeffrey O. Gustafson who initiated this block request I ask why? We have had no interaction until now so how do you come to this requested action at WP:AN? Did you come across my account during your own research or are you acting as a proxy for another admin/user with whom I've caused to be angry with me? In reviewing your contributions I see no such "letter of the law" before now and so I feel singled out by you and I have no clue as to why - that to me is most disturbing. If you've come to this action on your own then should I be always wary of another admin challenging the legitimacy of my account?

For TenOfAllTrades who advised me not to worry and Rick who made me laugh I give special thanks, you've helped me to not take this so personally. And to Jeff, thanks for being courteous in informing me of your action and for letting me feel that your heart wasn't for blocking me.
Except for my one explanation above, I haven't edited for a few days now so as to allow y'all to comment about this based on my history of contribution rather than my reaction to it.

I wanted to say all of this before it all goes to archive heaven. I still have a lingering concern that this may arise again and don't want to go through WP life looking over my shoulder or worrying that I might piss-off some admin and cause another inquiry about the legitimacy of my account. If any of you who have been so gracious as to take the time to support me here have any suggestions to prevent such an action, please drop your thoughts on my talk or by email.

Finally, on a personal note to all, I never ever expected so much supportive response from all of you. I know that I've been moody at times and have spoken in ways that I have regretted the next day. I hoped otherwise but it seemed that those unfortunate responses might end up being my legacy as they were the foremost in my mind. And so far as this being a "role account", I think that I'll let the descriptions of AnnH and NoSeptember (both above) stand as the most intuitive descriptions of this account. My (and our) warmest regards to all of you for your understanding and outward support for the continuation of hydnjo's user account and future contributions. Again, my delighted and humble thanks :-) --hydnjo talk 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was quite pleased to express my support. You are a fine editor(s) and I am glad to have you on the project. I don't think you need to worry about this situation coming up in the future. Should someone express concern, he can be directed to this discussion; further, I fully expect an outpouring of support, as in this case. You should continue as before. I'd also like to express my support Jeffrey O. Gustafson's actions. I think he acted quite appropriately; it is admirable of him to bring up a potentially concerning issue, even if it's a difficult one. You shouldn't take it personally; he went to lengths to explain his concerns with the issue despite your great contributions. He didn't push the issue once the consensus was clear, nor did he get angry or defensive. In fact, it perhaps is a good thing he brought it up so that the matter could be settled once and for all, instead of always remaining a potential problem. Perhaps you should thank him for sharing his concerns and enabling the matter to be properly discussed. I look forward to running into you again. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

addendum: Jeff, I was confused at the outset in that I wasn't aware of the "role account" policy and then after becoming aware I was frustrated that I had made so many edits which could mislead someone to the conclusion that my account was a role account. I'm sorry that in my zeal to understand your actions that I posed the possibility that you were acting at someone else's behest. I have no evidence of that and it was improper of me to even mention that such a bizarre conspiracy was possible. I find myself guilty of "blaming the messenger" and posting an inappropriate comment about your motivation.

As for my account, I want to state that it is not a role account and I apologize for leaving the impression that it is one. "hydnjo" is the signature that I commonly use for much of my correspondence and thought it to be appropriate when I first started my WP account. The portmanteau is an acknowledgment of our shared existence and not an indication that Heidi and I share in editing at WP.

I thank you for your courtesy in informing me at the outset of the discussion at WP:AN and for your compliments about my contributions. The comments in my response were made in the shadow of my own frustration with my having left a trail of edits that could easily be construed as having come from either Heidi or myself. I sincerely apologize to you for making any suggestion as to your motivation in bringing up a legitimate policy question. You have a genuine concern for the orderly behavior of our editors and I thank you for initiating this discussion and providing me the opportunity to explain the nature of my account. --hydnjo talk 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your very well-reasoned and diplomatic response. It is precisely because of this constructive attitude that I was so quick to offer my support of you in the first place. I appreciate it, and I'm sorry for any stress this experience may have caused you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on WP:AN

I'm not sure what you were intending to accomplish with this comment, but I don't think you were very civil, nor do I think such comments will convince others that you are correct. Perhaps this is not important for you. For the record, while I understand that the phrase has a different meaning for you, I, too, feel that your signature is in poor taste, to say the least. Alteripse is correct that the policy cares about the name itself, not the intent behind the name. There are times when a user apparently has a valid reason for selecting an otherwise inappropriate name, and the user is asked to select a username. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not in "happy mode" right now, so I'll simplify it for time and my sanity's sake. No, I probably wasn't most polite, nor did I intend to be while being Ad hominem attacked. I feel my signature is not inappropriate and and doesn't need to be changed. I posted a reason on my talk page in plain sight so everyone could see the reason behind my signature. I refuse to change my name because of a referenece to a Motorhead song. If people have a problem with it, they can always talk to me on my talk page. If they don't want me to post the sig on thier talk, I'll refractor it. I'm pretty flexible upon certain topics, but the ad hominem attack really blew the flexibility out of proportion. — The King of Kings 05:17 July 18 '06

I appreciate the polite response. I have not asked you to change your signature—for several reasons, the most significant being that this phrase does not carry any significant meaning in my religion or culture. I do try to look at matters from multiple points of view, however, and can quite understand why others take offense. Another reason is you tend to make the right decision, and I am sure you will in this case (whatever that decision may be). I would like to suggest, however, that if you are going to keep as your signature a phrase that refers to the central religious figure of a major religion (among multiple meanings), you are going to have to learn to deal better with the complaints you may receive; you'll have to learn to remain polite and not lose your happy mode. I am not unsympathetic; I would be quite irritated if "Knowledge Seeker" turned out to be a reference to a prominent religious figure. Finally, I appreciate you indulging my vanity. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I was about to ask you how you would feel if the name Knowledge Seeker turned out to be a new/old religious meaning, but thought that was a stupid question to ask, but I got to say that was the response I would have expected. :) Understand I'm trying to control the anger problem, it's a hard thing to control really and the happy mode goes from time to time. But hey, I'm trying and its an improvement (?) from the past. And... your vanity was fun indulging in. :) — The King of Kings 06:32 July 18 '06

I see you're leaving Wikipedia again. You already know I disapprove of this style of participation where you repeatedly get involved in conflicts, get angry at other users, make angry statements, leave, cool off, and return. Don't get me wrong—I'm glad you come back, and when things bother me I take Wikibreaks too. But perhaps you could take your breaks without burning all your bridges. And why do you pick fights over such minor matters? If your signature is causing you so much stress, why not change it—especially when it's not even your username? And what do you mean by people not getting it through their head? I think everyone understands that you do not intend the religious reference once you explain it to them, but that doesn't stop the phrase from being a religious reference, among other meanings. I also find it bizzarre that you accuse others of being selfish while inexplicably insisting on using a non-standard signature that causes widespread offense.

Look, I get angry, too. But I try to avoid situations that cause me stress, or I try taking steps to defuse the stress. And if I'm really bothered, I just stop editing for a few days, and if I must use Wikipedia for something, I avoid visiting the policy pages and discussion pages and such. You seem to say things to increase the stress. If you've gotten yourself especially worked up, just step away for a bit. No need to post angry rants, no need to go out in a blaze, just step back, and when you've calmed down, resume editing. And consider trying to modify the behavior that caused you to get so worked up in the first place. I know you long ago gave up the idea of pursuing a position as administrator, and you obvoiusly realize that you don't yet possess the stability for such a position, but perhaps you could make your time on Wikipedia a little easier for you (and others). You may feel free not to respond to this message. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

While the support of anyone is not particularly important as I feel I'm here to do a job and not win any popularity contests, it is still nice to see that someone saw that my intent re:Hydnjo was not harmful and that, although I was wrong about a block, I did nothing wrong in my specific actions. Your kind words here are greatly appreciated, and it reduced the wikistress that had been building. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. You did the right thing by voicing your concerns. I think people are so used to emotional arguments and block wars and such that they overreacted to a simple polite query by you. Keep up the good work! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Resolving Copyright

Well, you said I should let you know if I have questions again, so, here's a situation that I now find myself in....

I saw a number of edits by a new user User:Dfointadfdlkr that appeared to be copyright violations at Sarah Fisher, Al Unser, Jr., and Dreyer & Reinbold Racing. The prose was "too perfect" so I did some web searching and found the identical material on other websites. I followed the instructions at WP:CP and reverted each page and left Template:Nothanks for each at User talk:Dfointadfdlkr. Now I have received a message (User talk:Brian G#Sarah Fisher) on my talk page from the user with a claim that he is the content maintainer for one of the websites.

So, what do I do next? I don't really want to send a "real email" exposing my personal email address. I'm not sure if I am being naive, but the message appears authentic. Can I ask them to repost their message onto the article's talk page and then I could help them to un-revert the material?

Thanks in advance. --Brian G 15:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize; I was away from Wikipedia for a couple days. Good job on finding the copying-and-pasting—we always have to be vigilant for copyright violations. The copyright holder has two options. One, he may add a notice to the site of publication, releasing the contents under the GFDL. Or, (and it sounds like this will be preferable), he may send an e-mail to permissions at wikimedia dot org from the appropriate domain. To be honest, I am not certain what happens next, but I assume that whoever handles that e-mail address would make a note on the talk page or something. If you don't hear from them in a few days, perhaps you could try e-mailing them yourself. See the third paragraph of WP:CP for more information (well, actually, there isn't really any more information there, but it's where you can confirm what I'm telling you). Let me know if you have any problems, OK? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Earth Hours

What is an Earth-hour? Are there other types of hours? How are they different from Earth-hours? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On Earth, there are 24 hours in a day. Well, the sentence "Jupiter also has the fastest rotation rate of any planet within the solar system, making a complete rotation on its axis in slightly less than ten hours" could be interpretted that hours are split up into one tenth of a rotation on Jupiter. At least, that was my rationale behind making the change. If you think the original wording is better, I won't argue or anything. Sonic3KMaster(鉄也)^(talk) 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense to me. One tenth of a rotation of Jupiter is approximately an hour. Or are you worried that readers might think that an hour is defined as "slightly more than one tenth of the time it takes Jupiter to make one complete rotation" instead of "one twenty-fourth of the time it takes Earth to make one complete rotation"? And if so, wouldn't that be a problem any time one used hours as a unit of time? Since there don't seem to be any other types of hours, and since the term "Earth-hour" doesn't seem to be used anywhere else, I removed it for now. Feel free to discuss this further if you disagree. I appreciate the response! — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I just read the defination of hour, and it's based on the Earth, so it wouldn't make any sense to say Earth hour. Sorry for any confusion I've caused. By the way, having your text as a different color is cool. Sonic3KMaster(鉄也)^(talk) 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmph, well, it reflects my ego and self-importance, insisting on using a special color for my own messages. Actually, I think it helps in both leaving messages on a user's own talk page while also keeping conversations intact. I got the idea from User:GordonWatts. Glad you like it! Don't apologize; I'm glad you brought up the point, and I'm going to try to see if I can think of a way to better clarify that in the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Drug-eluting stent

Another great contrib! I've nominated it for WP:DYK but it looks headed toward GA and FA. Cheeers -- Samir धर्म 09:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it! This was quite a major topic for me to take on, but I couldn't believe there was no article on drug-eluting stents. Please feel free to improve the article or make suggestions—I can use all the help I can get! I'm going to ask for some help over at WP:CLINMED too. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection

Hi, Samir. I was wondering if you'd consider removing the semi-protection on your talk page. I think that talk pages should be rarely if ever protected, only in the face of continual vandalism that blocking cannot thwart. And if user talk pages must be protected, I think it should be on the order of hours, not weeks. Especially if you're actively editing and reverting vandals and such, your page really should be available for others to contact you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't even notice it was still protected -- vandalism was a while ago. Will revert. Thanks for picking it up -- Samir धर्म 03:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I was just getting tired of those "editing a protected page" warnings when leaving you comments! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Headlight/Headlamp

1) See talk:Headlight for prodigious citations regarding terminology. 2) Please explain what you mean by "don't break fractions". Scheinwerfermann 05:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Feel free to revert back to your version, but there are a couple things to take care of. What you should do now is place an appropriate reference as an incline citation in the text to source the claim about headlamp being technically correct. Also, a quick glance at your edits showed fractions like 5¾ being changed to 53/4, which of course, is 13¼; that's the primary reason I reverted you. Please check to be sure you repair any such changes that get inadvertanly introduced. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, gotchya, I see the fraction damage now. Thanks for pointing it out. Any thoughts on how to handle the inline cite for terminology correctness? I could link directly to my lengthy list of cites in talk:Headlight, and I may do that for now, but it'd be kind of clunky, don'tchya think? Also, might you now reconsider your "oppose" vote on the name change? TIA, Scheinwerfermann 05:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A very good question. First, I'd be sure to reword the sentence to precisely match what your references say. Unless you actually have a source stating that headlight is technically incorrect as such, it would count as original research to draw that conclusion from the search results and such. Consider something like "While headlight and headlamp are both used in casual speech, headlamp tends to be preferred [in technical/formal contexts] [by automotive engineers]..." or something like that. Then, using a cite.php-type footnote, I would leave a note saying something like "See, for instance, [1], [2], and [3]." Choose a couple representative links. Search results would probably represent original research here too; perhaps it would be best to include prominent entities using the headlamp terminology. Feel free to solicit others' opinions on this as well. What would be ideal, of course, would be a good authority discussing the difference between headlamp and headlight and why the former is preferable. I am certainly reconsidering my vote; I'd like to a bit of additional research of my own. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User page

Thank you, Wahkeenah. Please note that you don't have to remove all the images, just the ones whose copyright holders haven't given us permission to use. Let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I was getting bored with it anyway, I didn't feel like wasting time trying to figure out which images were acceptable to the wiki-gods, and I don't need any more hassles. Wahkeenah 04:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Blame the lawyer-gods, not the wiki-gods. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So, how often does this site get sued for copyright infringement? Wahkeenah 11:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, we've never been sued. A copyright infringement lawsuit could be devastating, especially if successful, so Wikipedia goes to great lengths comply with the law, to remove copyrighted material and to respond promptly to copyright holders' concerns. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It suggests that they either don't know or don't care about this site. Or that there are so many sites with possible copyright infringement, they don't know where to start. Wahkeenah 16:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Very true. Nevertheless, it's probably better to follow the law, rather than break it until we get caught. Especially for something as trivial as putting images on user pages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done on Drug-eluting stent

File:Hand with thumbs up.jpg

I wish I had more hands... So I could give Drug-eluting stent four thumbs up! Good writing. Damn good writing. You're like a fox... a fox that can write articles well. ~ Booya Bazooka 07:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I really appreciate the feedback; it's nice to know I'm doing something right. And no one's ever called me a talented fox writer before! This one's going on the user page. Thanks for helping me to keep the article accessible; it's an essential skill for any doctor, and if you have any further suggestions or comments, I'll be happy to hear them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Hello, Catamorphism. I'd like to offer a couple thoughts on your recent RFA and explain the reasoning behind my vote. First, I couldn't help but notice your comment on User talk:Samir (The Scope): "...should an editor be judged on how they respond to comments that should never have been made in the first place?". My response is absolutely. Wikipedia users all receive uncivil or inappropriate comments from time to time, but administrators really get a lot of rude, sometimes shocking, comments. (See my talk page archives for some examples.) In my opinion, a good administrator must be able to respond clearly and courteously, even to those who don't treat him the same. Second, on userboxes, we obviously disagree; you didn't seem to have questions about this but I'd be happy to explain. Finally, "the pronoun". It doesn't matter to me what gender you feel you are; male, female, both, neither, or whatever. It's really irrelevant. But for the record, I find using the singular "they" awkward, and try to avoid it. I don't intend to use any neologisms, and using your username all the time is awkward as well. I'd have no problem if you had a polite message on your userpage explaining your preferred manner of address, or if you explained to people who were confused. But what really got to me were comments like these: "For me, it's a matter of basic civility. (Thus, I find it disrespectful for you to refer to me as "him" when I am not a man.)"; that crossed the line from having a preferred style of address to making demands on how others should address you, going outside standard conventions of English. I was later reconsidering my vote, but what really irked me was how you turned opposition over these demands into discrimination against your gender. You don't have to reply, and I don't wish to be rude or insulting. I just wanted to explain how people can be comfortable with your self-identity and think you're a good editor, but still disapprove of your insistence on an idiosyncratic form of address, and how obession over this can lead people to think you might not make a good administrator. I hope matters work out differently the next time you're nominated to become an administrator. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your comments. For me, people objecting to the grammatical use of "they" is a red herring, as I made it quite clear that any gender-neutral pronoun was acceptable to me (for example, "ze"), not just "they"; however, some people still insisted on using "he", which is the case in which I don't find it unreasonable both to take it as a sign of disrespect, and to think that some people's votes were based on transphobia rather than my qualifications. Catamorphism 14:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ze is a neologism and does not appear in my dictionary. He, on the other hand can be "used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified", which is how I and many other people use it. It is certainly possible that some people opposed due to lack of comfort with your gender, but dismissing everyone's concerns as "transphobia", like playing the race card, led me at least to remain opposed to your candidacy. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"He" isn't really generic, regardless of what the dictionary says; would anyone write "If a person is pregnant, then he should seek medical care"? Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion. To me, showing respect is more important than upholding one's own linguistic purity. I just don't think that what I ask others to call me is within the realm of things that people are entitled to express "concern" about when they are evaluating my fitness for adminship. Catamorphism 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right; he shouldn't be used when the subject is obviously female (of course, I don't think they works there either, and ze just sounds silly). but you're right about being able to ask people to address you the way you wish, and I'm sorry I wasn't clear. My objection, and that of several others, was that you suggested that people were incivil or disrespectful if they didn't want to use a special, nonstandard term when addressing you. I'm not trying to convince you that that sort of intolerance is bad, nor do I wish to prolong this discussion; it's just that you seemed mystified by people's opposition and I wanted to suggest why so many people disapproved of that behavior. I understand your frustration with English not having a proper gender-neutral pronoun. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK on stents

On 26 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article drug-eluting stent, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Syrthiss 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for letting me know! I hope you have a chance to take a look at the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That would probably be a bad idea. I get freaked out when I see surgery-things. ;) Syrthiss 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, stents are placed to avoid surgery! Nothing's cut open. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A link to restenosis is suggested there. -- PFHLai 00:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Er, I'm not certain to whom this comment is intended. Where was the link suggested? I didn't see it. Drug-eluting stent already links to restenosis, if that's what you meant. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Knowledge Seeker. Sorry for being unclear. I meant a link on DYK, as per the section heading. And "to prevent blockage by tissue when placed into arteries" seems a little funny to me, but I don't know how to phrase it for laymen to understand it. -- PFHLai 12:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. DYK just got updated. Never mind. --PFHLai 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree; my suggested wording was actually much simpler: "...that drug-eluting stents are devices used to open blocked arteries in the heart?" but it was not used. I thought that would make more sense and be more appealing for laypeople. Anyway, you have my permission to edit DYK entries on my articles whenever you like. Wow, DES was on the main page for over 24 hours! That's the longest any of my article's has been up; good thing that this is probably the best DYK I've ever written. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I tried to tweak the line on DYK yesterday. I didn't like what I wrote, so I didn't save my changes. Anyway, it's off the MainPage now. Your article is great, BTW. Keep them coming, please. Happy editing. -- PFHLai 04:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirects

Steve, I changed the redirects from your user and talk pages; I hope you don't mind. As you may know, in general, redirects shouldn't cross namespaces. In addition, I think that redirecting your user page and especially your talk page could be quite confusing, especially if editors with to contact you. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought it was only cross namespace redirects which originated in article space which were discouraged. Part of the point was that I didn't want to be contacted. Still, I understand what you did and no hard feelings, I'll do it the proper way this time. Steve block Talk 10:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, although I think that in general any cross-namespace redirect is confusing. Hmmm...I do understand about not wishing to be contacted, although it's a bit awkward to cut off communication on a collaborative project like this. Perhaps you could redirect your talk page to a temporary subpage so that people could leave you messages, but you wouldn't get the yellow notice? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:DAB

Hello Knowledge Seeker. I'm back with another question. It has to do with cleaning up links when creating/moving DAB pages. If I am reading the guideline correctly (especially the code of honor), we shouldn't leave links to the dab pages. One of the pages that I watch got moved to make way for a DAB and the user left all the links pointing to the DAB instead of moving them to the article. I tried to leave them a polite message on their talk page, but received no response. A few days later, I left them another message and still no reply. I know they have been online because they have been editing, and in fact have created more DAB's that need cleaning. I really don't know what to do here. Should I keep trying or get some help from someone (like you or another admin), or just let it go and hope that other users clean up the messes that this user may cause? Thanks in advance. --Brian G 03:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone moves the page, he should update all the links. If he does not wish to do so, instead of moving the page himself, he may suggest the move on Wikipedia:Requested moves (always a good idea, anyway). In fact, I prefer moves to be announced and discussed rather than being done on a user's whim. That being said, since the user is continuing in this behavior, I would be happy to work with him. Let me know if I can help. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to wait it out over the weekend with the hope of some action on their own. I'll get back to you to let you know. --Brian G 11:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oi, it is just a break right? :)

Enjoy it! I know, they can be very refreshing lol. KOS | talk 08:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

your abuse of the admin power

Per your:

Pat, I feel that your approach to Wikipedia is needlessly incivil and disruptive, and I see no sign that you have improved since your RFC. Furthermore, your arguing over unrelated points and misinterpreting Wikipedia policy is counterproductive, at best. I don't believe your style of confrontation works well with the collaborative atmosphere here. I'm going to block you from further editing, and will seek feedback on WP:AN/I. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on the advice of fellow administrators, I have removed the block for now. Please remember to remain civil and to treat other editors with courtesy. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I selected WP:AN/I and did a search on pat8722 and didn't get a hit. Where is this latest evidence of your abuse of your admin powers? pat8722 13:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have discovered what happened to it. "Automated archival of 6 sections with User:Werdnabot" deleted it at the Revision as of 08:04, 28 July 2006 [[4]], shortly after someone had vandalized it at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=66311389 (by putting the (unjustified) block about me under a nasty header about someone else (now who would have wanted to do that?))

Thatcher131 reverted the vandalism at Revision as of 06:19, 30 July 2006 (edit) at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=66646365, by restoring the complaint about me to its appropriate section (i.e. as totally unrelated to the complaint about someone else which preceeded it). Thatcher131 then later archives it in that corrected form at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=66647814, while simultaneously deleting it from the current WP:AN/I page, before I could respond there.

While I haven't got time yet to file a formal complaint against you for your abuse of the admin power, make note that no one supported your block of me. I have now seen you blatantly abuse your admin power twice against me for political purposes. I look forward to the day when you are rightly stripped of your admin power for using it as a political weapon against those whom you recognize as political opponents, destroying the quality, accuracy, and credibility of wikipedia by blocking those who adhere to all wikipedia policy, and who have demonstrated that their opponents don't. pat8722 15:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you card!

Open your card!

Dear Knowledge Seeker, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.
Dear KS, this is the perfect opportunity to finally speak to one another after reading your words for months and months. I am sure that we'll be able to talk often, and trust me, it'd be my pleasure. Both your contributions and, most important your warm way to deal with others made me notice you long, long ago; and being supported by a person I look up to, like you, meant the world to me. I sincerely hope this is but the beginning of a friendship, and such thought fills me with joy. And btw, thank you so much for sharing your selection at the Wiki Soundtrack - but please, be brave and choose a few more, there's plenty of space just for you down there! Enjoy your wikibreak, and come back soon! :) With a big hug, your friend,

Phaedriel ♥ tell me

Pat8722

Please note that a request for arbitration has been made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Pat8722. Your input would be most valuable. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois -> Chicago vote

There is another vote to change the name of the Chicago, Illinois page to Chicago. This time, reason and logic seem to have the upper hand. See: Talk:Chicago, Illinois. --Serge 23:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd inform you that Knowledge_Seeker finished contributing to Wikipedia on 29 July 2006 with the edit comment "It's been fun", and may not return for a long time (or ever). He's a great user, though, and hopefully he returns. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` [discl.]} 23:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)