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.

Sosckpuppetry

I've seen your name quite a bit, so I decided to contact you about this. I did look up procedures for reporting this sort of thing, but it's a bit confusing.

You may like to check out Prof Buck Rogers, Prof Bukksk and Prof Bukksksdf. Prometheus^-X303- 19:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow…I’ve had to cut back on my Wikipedia time so I’m surprised you came across me! But I’m glad to help. You’re right; they are certainly the same user. It looks like he’s been warned, so I’ll try keeping an eye on the accounts for further vandalism. If you spot any that I miss, feel free to let me know. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution

I agree completely with the archival, but, er, where is the archive, old chap? Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I just added it to the end of the most recent archive. Was there somewhere else I should have put it? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Weel, might've been good to have changed the link to read October-November, but, arr, sensible enough. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to change any links to it as you wish. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I had wanted to thank you for archiving that material earlier. Would you be willing to do the same again with ken's current nonsense section? I would do it myself, but I've only ever used a bot to archive, and that's not kosher on an article's talkpage. If you would either take care of it or tell me how it would be much appreciated. Since I lack the academic credentials to contribute to the article itself, I'm thinking of appointing myself the "talkpage police" and removing this kind of foolishness as soon as it crops up, thereby leaving more serious contributors free to actually edit the article. Thanks for your help! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion is not relevant to improvement of the article and is unproductive at best. After evaluating the discussion, I did decide to archive it. For future reference, archival is easy: just copy-and-paste the relevant section(s) to the archival page. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks KS! I was trying to use the "move" button, but copy-and-paste sounds easier. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You’re welcome. Moving can only be used if you wish to archive the entire page at once. There are some advantages and disadvantages of using copy-and-paste or move, but I prefer copying and pasting for several reasons. You may be interested in Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The joke's on me. I had, in a rare fit of common sense, read through Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page prior to this. I decided that I wanted to try the "move" technique, having missed that bit about "whole page only". Re: Evolution, I'd like to help minimize these non-productive digressions, and I think it's reasonable to enforce the warning at the top of the page. You're an experienced wikipedian and a long-time admin, and I know you're keeping an eye on the article. Feel free to bring me to heel if you think I need it...just whistle real loud and say "Down Doc, Down" in a firm voice. Otherwise, I'll try to see that the talkpage is used for working on the article, not debating various opinions about its subject. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen carbonate etc

Neither of us is a chemist, but I'm pretty sure that "hydrogen carbonate" full stop (as opposed to, say, "sodium hydrogen carbonate" or "hydrogen carbonate ion") means H₂CO₃. Which is not strictly speaking "carbonic acid" unless dissolved in water, just as anhydrous hydrogen sulfate, H₂SO₄, is not properly called "sulfuric acid" until dissolved in water. I can look this up in my Dad's old inorganic chem texts, if I can find them. --Trovatore 19:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my reference desk post, which I assume you already saw, I would like to see sources for this usage you propose. Though I can easily find references to hydrogen chloride, hydrogen sulfate, hydrogen phosphate, and so on referring to the compounds, I cannot find any reference to hydrogen carbonate referring to H₂CO₃, nor does it match what I was taught (I was a chemistry major back in college). I did not mean to imply that I thought the term was logical or preferable. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Your conmment to HappyCamper about entropy was helpful. Wish you would glance at the WK Entropy article that has long appeared to be the personal property of 'Sadi Carnot', but who is finally being challenged! [65.60.106.148 (talk · contribs)]

You’re welcome; I’m glad you found it useful. I am not very active on Wikipedia these days, but it looks at least like he has not edited the article in several months. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

MOS; Medical articles.

Hi there, again. Just thought i'd drop a message to try to chip in a few things to be added to the MOS for medical articles. [[1]] Cheers :-) James S 20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my lengthy absence. Do you still require any assistance? — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Knowledge Seeker, I admit I've been rather impolite and have not been portraying a good image for creationists. Just wanted to say I'm sorry, and to thank you for being so polite and reserved with me. I'm not going to try to force my beliefs on anyone; there's no point in that. So anyway, as per my last block, I'll be making constructive edits (there are plenty to make). Thanks. Scorpionman 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have behaved quite poorly here. The anti-science sentiments and rudeness you show have probably had a negative impact on many people's views on your religion. I don't know what purpose you are trying to achieve here, but attacking science and being rude to other editors will likely not win you any converts to Christianity. And as you have probably seen, there have been several calls for you to be indefinitely blocked. However, I do feel that you make some constructive edits, and this is why, so far, I have limited my blocks to extended but temporary ones. I hope this will assist you in selecting the productive edits. And thank you; I appreciate the apology—though of course, it is not necessary. If you can cut out the bad edits, I would be pleased. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Break

Hi KS, I noticed you're not one of those petulant, irritable users on here, and wanted to thank you for being civil. Also, though, if you're taking a wikibreak or something could you at least let us know? Thanks, Ratso 03:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. You may consider me on an extended partial wikibreak. I am a doctor and it is difficult for me to predict my schedule; in addition, my free time can be quite limited. I edit when I have time; if you wish to see if I have been active recently, I would suggest taking a look at my contributions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Geofiction

Hi, I was browsing through the "Wikipedians who play NS" category, and decided that you were good for my project.

I was wondering if you would be interested in collaborating with me and some other Wikipedians to create a wiki-based geofiction game. Please contact me for details.--Whytecypress 23:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. Unfortunately, I don't think I will have time to participate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Thanks for responding though.--Whytecypress 21:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hello

Hi, Knowledge Seeker. Thanks for checking in on me. I'm sorry that it has taken me so long to respond. I've not quite resolved my personal issues, but things are looking better and I hope to have things settled by the start of the new year. I've got to make sure that I am taking care of my family and my career, first and foremost, but I would like to be able to be back here again with more regularity soon. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is good to hear from you. From the frequency of your contributions, it looks like you have settled your other matters. I am glad things are working out for you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you have returned after a bit of an absence. I know that your schedule is limited; it is nice to see you here from time to time. Thank you very much for the good wishes. I hope I'll be seeing you around more. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Hello Knowledge Seeker,

Just wanted to thank you for pointing out how to revert vandalism (which I deftly applied to Battle of Saratoga) and the nice welcome. So thanks.

Cheers, broquaint 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome; I'm glad to be able to share my experience. Please let me know if I may be of further assistance. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Boston

Hi! In the past, you've noted support on my talk page for naming U.S. cities consistently with other countries (only disambiguate when necessary). See Talk:Boston, Massachusetts. --Serge 22:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know; I'm sorry I was not active at the time of the discussion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy Zoeller edit controversy

Hello, there. As you may or may not know, the Miami Herald recently revealed that professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller has filed a lawsuit against Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. for adding false statements to his Wikipedia biography.

For data gathering purposes, an SRS of 20 administrators has been created, you being one of them. I would like you to comment on this situation and its possible implications to Wikipedia, the accused company, and the general welfare of the community in general. (To what extent will this impact Wikipedia? To what extent will this impact those who use Wikipedia often? To what extent is the company guilty? Who do you believe is at fault?) Feel free to comment however you wish. I ask that you email me your responses via my emailuser page so as to reduce bias in your responses. (Again, don't post your responses on my talk page.)

The following are articles from various news agencies that you may use to inform yourself about the situation: Miami Herald, Herald Tribune, Web Pro News, The Smoking Gun.

I thank you for taking your time to express your opinion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at any time. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize; I was not active on Wikipedia at the time of your message. In addition, I would probably not have time to participate in this project. I attempted to e-mail this to you, but I was informed that you had either not set up an e-mail address or that you had chosen not to receive e-mail from others. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning -NPSF3000

This edit was inappropriate, as was this one. It is dishonest to change the meaning of a sourced statement so that the sentence no longer matches what the reference states. Furthermore, if you wish to make such a claim, please provide a reference, preferably in the form of a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already been talking to another mod because of this. I wasn't trying to be dishonest though i should have researched the sources more fully. If you want evidence I have right beside me a scientific journal and a scientific magasine + numeorus scientific artivles on my computer that all against evolution - that seems to point towards some scientests doubting evolution. Could i have any help in trying to change that now? NuttyProSci-Fi3000 21:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You modified a statement to say its opposite, while leaving in place the supporting source which made the prior claim. Please be more careful in the future. If you have evidence that there is significant scientific dissent regarding validity of evolution, please present it at Talk:Evolution (or, if you like, you may run it by me first). Given such strong support for the article's current position, you would likely need citations from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Also, please note that you would need to demonstrate dissent specifically among biologists. While physicists may speculate on evolution, or biologists on quantum theory, neither is qualified to make assessments in areas removed from their training.

In addition, I removed your edit from Talk:Evolution/FAQ. It is not a forum for debate. I would be happy to address the questions you bring up, but you will certainly have to moderate your tone. In particular, a call for the death of Wikipedia editors is certainly grounds for an immediate and indefinite ban. I will not block you at this time (though another administrator might). If you are able to express yourself with more restraint, please ask me your questions on my talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay i will start running things by you. However I doubt that useing logic to say that all non-christions should die in an attempt to show a logic falise should be accounted as death to wikipedia editors - is it? All i am doing is questioning some statments and am met with full burocracy not answers so from now on i will run thigs by you, and that way things should be nice and legal - hopefully. (i almost feel sorry for you :P ) NuttyProSci-Fi3000 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...perhaps I misunderstood the intent of your comment; I certainly am not following your logic or how you were demonstrating a logical fallacy. Perhaps you could rephrase it for me (and perhaps select a less extreme outcome, as well). I will look forward to helping you understand how Wikipedia works. I would like to be clear, though, that you are not required to go through me for edits or ideas. In particular, if you are dissatisfied with my responses, you are welcome to seek the opinion of others. Please let me know how I may assist you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile and Comment

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• I'm sorry if I have been a pain in the ass but I am not going to give up on trying to make wikipedia more NPOV. Just to let you know I am not going to break 3RR and will talk about it on the talk page. I hope we can come up with a compromise that we both can live with. Have a nice week:) --James, La gloria è a dio 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeping Wikipedia neutral is a worthy goal, but it increasingly seems you are promoting your specific view on the way the article should read. Couching your activism under the guise of promoting a neutral point of view will not make it any less unacceptable. I also note that it only took fifteen minutes after you stated to me "I am not going to break 3RR" for you to break it. Honesty does not seem to be a quality you have embraced. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My edits that you removed were uneccesary

I removed your edits to Talk:Evolution/FAQ. It is a talk page, not an article. Please do not use talk pages to debate topics; if you would like to propose changes to an article, do it on the article's talk page (for instance, Talk:Evolution. Please let me know if I may of assistance. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It may not be an article but is definitely NOT NUETRAL.--Peace237 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to place your entire comment in boldface. The neutral point of view policy applies to articles only. The FAQ is not written as encyclopedic content; rather, it is written to answer questions repeatedly brought up on Evolution's talk page. It is not designed to give a full treatment of the topic; that is the purpose of the article itself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it helps get my point across if you don't mind.--Peace237 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to quote some of the text on Talk:Evolution/FAQ: "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis." Minority Views! Unless you're head is in a rock you should know that MAJORITY of the world is against Evolution "To be frank, there isn't any. Most claimed "evidence against evolution" is either a distortion of the actual facts of the matter, or an example of something that hasn't been explained yet." This quote from the section answering the FAQ:What about the scientific evidence against evolution? Is clearly wrong. There is evidence against evolution. So you wrongly reverted my edits and basically said that that FAQ page was nuetral when it is clearly not.--Peace237 03:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not state that the FAQ was neutral. I said the neutral point of view policy applies to articles only, not to a FAQ for Wikipedia contributors. You will find that dishonesty will not serve you well at Wikipedia, since both your comments and mine are preserved precisely in the edit histories. Please limit your boldface usage to less than half of your comment, at most. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see you back in the swing of things, dealing with troublemakers in your usual diplomatic way. What's your field - paediatrics? Guettarda 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Guettarda! I appreciate it. It's good to see you too. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

archiving

I am concerned by your recent comments on WP:AN/I; they are becoming increasingly wild and I've seen editors self-destruct in this manner. As I've explained to you, the proper course will be to continue via Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In my opinion, further complaints on the administrators' noticeboard will only result in additional criticism directed as you, and this will be counter-productive. If it's all right with you, I will prematurely archive the section. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do. -- TedFrank 01:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- TedFrank 01:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wish you luck resolving your dispute. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge Seeker, I noticed you removed my comments from the discussion. Given the extenuating circumstance of having posted my message a mere two minutes after it archived, I feel my comments merit their inclusion, as they are important notes to be viewed. ~ UBeR 03:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that my premature archival is out-of-process. However, I think there is little benefit to continuing the discussion, even though I'm sure there are people on both sides who wish to get the last word in. I do not mean to trivialize the importance of your comments, but rather, I think that the archived discussion is not the proper place for them. They would better be placed as part of a productive discussion, perhaps as part of the dispute resolution process. Do you think that's reasonable? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution 2

If I was pushing my point of view on the evolution article I would say that evolution is the way all life was created. Have a nice week:) --James, La gloria è a dio 18:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I said you were promoting your specific view of the way the article should read, not that it necessarily reflected your personal views on science or religion. As an aside, I believe that others who call themselves “creationists” generally hold different views than the one you expressed here. However, as I also remarked to you earlier, I am not interested in whether or not you accept evolution or any other area of science. You may believe what you wish. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a doctor Jim, not a...

I'm a doctor, not a...

:) Guettarda 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha...did you like that? I just couldn't resist! Though I suppose it was slightly rude. Hope he didn't mind. You know, though, he has a point. I'm going to post another comment there. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not too rude and well worth the fun...especially since you conceded his point overall. It's always a fine line between educating and spoonfeeding, but mya is probably better than 10^6 for general audiences. Guettarda 05:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

hi

sorry i will behave now. [88.105.65.32 (talk · contribs)]

Thank you. If you have questions about our encyclopedia, or are interested in helping us improve it, I'd be happy to assist you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Medicine

Hey KS. Have you completely abandoned medical articles? The fun is just starting. I even managed to get coeliac disease featured! JFW | T@lk 22:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, JFW, nice to hear from you! I rarely make major edits these days; I've been too busy to really work on articles (medical or otherwise). In fact, there were several months where I wasn't on Wikipedia at all. If residency eases up a bit I'd like to get back into it more. Congratulations on celiac disease! I'll have to read it now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

??

Hi. I've apparently committed some kind of faux pas against you. I apologize for any offense, but don't understand what the problem is. Please leave a note on my talk page so that we can straighten this out. -- Writtenonsand 05:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

On your talk page, you list conditions one must follow for communicating with you, with the following warning: "By attempting to communicate with me, you agree to this license. If that doesn't work for you, then don't try to communicate with me." I do not agree with any such restrictions and therefore am not interested in communication with you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

improvement to article

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles, not as a forum for debate. Please do not use them to propound your beliefs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All I ask is that the theory of evolution be spoken of as a theory in the first line. that is an improvement to the article.Kljenni 12:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You did ask that, and your request was rejected. This is because the word theory doesn't apply in this context. Theory has a scientific meaning that is different from the lay usage of the term. The Human evolution article discusses the observed and inferred sequence of and relationships among human ancestors. However, there is little or no discussion of evolutionary theory; that is, (roughly) the model of how evolution occurs. That article discusses the evolution of humans without going into the mechanisms behind that evolution. "Theory of human evolution" doesn't really make sense. See, for instance, Talk:Evolution/FAQ#Why is evolution described as though it's a fact? Isn't evolution just a theory? and Evolution as theory and fact for more information.

However, the reason for my rebuke was that that was not all you asked. When others disagreed with you and politely explained why, you go quite off-topic, debating the validity of evolution in general, objecting to portions of cosmology, and insulting other editors (such as in this edit). This is not an appropriate use of article talk pages, and further misuse of them may merit a block from editing or other restrictions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise

Technology has advanced beyond typewriters to render the starship in a better form. The graphics software Freehand & Illustrator are good at that. I would recommend agaisnt depicting any space ships though. It looks very juvenile & puts doubts on your credibility. I wish I had something positive to say. Wikipedia is great & I use it often. It's rare for me to make comments & until this, I've never seen a use talk/profile. Kudos for editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.180.38.41 (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Freehand and Illustrator have several disadvantages compared to simply using a keyboard. One, I have no wish to download or obtain them; two, I have no wish to learn how to use them; and three, I have no wish to purchase them (assuming they are not free). Nor do I wish to take the trouble to produce such a drawing when I already have a text version. Furthermore, while they may be able to render the Enterprise more realistically; this does not inherently imply a better version. I don't know if you are old enough to remember ASCII art (especially on BBS's) or if this sort of thing ever appealed to you, but I still look back fondly on the simplicity of those renditions and have become quite attached to my Enterprise. Furthermore, a near-realistic depiction of the Enterprise would likely give rise to copyright issues, whereas my ASCII version is probably safe. I appreciate your recommendation; however, I must decline it. I have not noticed any difficulty with or challenges to my credibility, perhaps because I am careful to extensively document my changes and cite my references. Perhaps having the picture makes a small negative impact on my credibility, but the pleasure it gives me far outweighs any distress I might feel at the former and I am quite happy to accept the tradeoff. Please sign your posts, using four tildes. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:DRMN 01.jpg

Hello, Knowledge Seeker. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:DRMN 01.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Knowledge Seeker/Archive10. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As the image in question is part of a user’s communication with me, I am content to leave the placeholder as it is. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Three-level Chicago street map

This is an awesome map. I noticed one small error, though: Lake Street should be a two way street in the half-block between Wabash and Michigan. Few drivers are aware that there is one lane running west in this block, providing a convenient route from northbound Upper Michigan to northbound Lower Michigan (via Garland Ct). Lake St then becomes one-way again in the final block between Michigan and Stetson, as shown correctly on the map. Google maps clearly shows the westbound lane. Mtford 01:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! And you are correct! Unfortunately, I have no way of modifying the image. The map was created by User:SPUI; I only assisted by driving around the city and supplying information on problematic ramps/intersections. As it appears he is no longer active here, I am not certain how the map can be changed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Chicago River Green

Hi

Chance we could use your #River Dyed Green# photograph on www.st-patricks-day.com?

Slan, Danielle [81.109.228.132 (talk · contribs)]

I apologize that I was not active on Wikipedia at the time of your query. I hope you saw the licensing information on the photograph’s page and were able to use it on your web site. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

MCOTW

JFW | T@lk 12:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, old friend, I still do hope to return to more active writing at some point. Right now, all I can hope to do is poke my head in here and there and do some cleaning. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi buddy

When I saw that nickname I felt I could have used it too :). Well, I'm writing just to say that I'm also a knowledge seeker (I can easily say I'm interested in everything) and, well, I guess it would be good for both to share sources of information, learning tips or whatever, if you like. I look forward to hearing from you soon :) --Taraborn 10:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It’s always nice to meet fellow knowledge seekers on Wikipedia! I apologize for the lengthy delay in my response; I have not been active on Wikipedia for quite some time. Even now, I’ve been popping in more to say hello than to do any serious editing. I’d be happy, though, to discuss tips and whatnot with you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota Meetup

---

Minnesota Meetup

Sunday, 2007-10-07, 1:00 p.m. (13:00)
Pracna on Main
117 Main SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Map

Please pass this on! RSVP here.

---

Spam delivered by Jonathunder 17:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

History of the Earth

Is on the contest list for reaching Featured article status. Why did the Geologic Clock concept get booted? It's what NatGeo and Discovery Channel programs always use in the last 5 years. What is left to get it to featured article status? Its a very large amount of information.. the History of the Earth... Alatari (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words; I worked very hard on that article. Perhaps creating History of Earth and the Medicine Collaboration of the Week will be my most important legacies at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, even though I was quite attached to the clock analogy, it appears a number of other users did not appreciate it, judging from their comments on the talk page. I think, though, that there would still be a lot of work to get the article to featured status. It covers, as you point out, a great deal of information, spanning multiple disciplines. I’m really not qualified to write about any of them in much detail. I’ve done my best to synthesize what appears to me to be the most well-accepted and up-to-date information. Still, I’ve had to focus on biological trends, since that’s what I know best. I think the article would require dedicated attention from several people with specializations in different areas to get the article to featured status, and unfortunately, I lack the time these days to attempt to coordinate that. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Guettarda! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seperation Of Human Organism

…1:53 P.M. E.S.T. David George DeLancey 1-3-2008 happy new year

My first search was a user talk to see what i had floating around, i came across user talk llkali lead me to Origin of Life through this i researched Amphiphiles along with Natural Selection both from the paregraphs of The Origin of Life while on natural selection i went to the left search box and searched Seperation of Human Organism this was to see if anything related to my theory of how we came about, i am 48 in my early 20's i thought we came from the ocean or a body of water, i have no science tecnology in the matter for i am only an artist and a truck driver though polotics are of a great concern to be president is just a thought as well,anyway my theory is the formation of our male and female structure the nose the knees the showlders the escape of the elbows and such in a degree of strength and the escape of certain ereas of weakness though may strongly be related to a steady seperation of delicatness and security such as the back of the knee and the softness of the breast and the groin parts wich consist of matter wich is a bouyancy matter for the breasts being of same sortness bouyancy a flaoting being of matter wich is left astray and or flamboyant though i guess another word could be used. anyway my thought was a period of time as of one seperating in the air of light or just a period after seperating and let the rest take it's course though by now in true i've recognised that air and light are a preferd matter in a seperation of some sort i've read,just do not have the material here to rectofy it.2:09.p.m.e.s.t.David George DeLancey (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not able to follow most of what you were saying, nor do I understand the purpose of your communication. Perhaps if you grouped your thoughts into sentences I would have an easier time understanding. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status and move your entry to the Active list. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I had previously requested candidates to coach and was ignored or declined. In any case, I’m afraid I am not on Wikipedia frequently enough these days to serve as a proper coach. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NP, I understand, hopefully such things (as asking for and not getting a coachee) will become a more infrequent occurance with more active coordinators. MBisanz ^talk 07:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for the revert to my coachee's page. Malinaccier (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You’re welcome! I’m glad I could help! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks!

May I ask why your signature does not link to your user page? This makes it difficult to communicate with you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea my signature didn't link to my user discussion page. Thanks for telling me. Casull 08:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I’m glad I mentioned it then! Thanks for fixing it so quickly! — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Adrian Fletcher

You blocked this user for “vandalism and severe personal attacks”. The only edit I see that matches either of those criteria is this one. Are there any others I should be aware of? — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been clearer in my definition of "vandalism" - he created a nonsense article disparaging Jimmy Wales. It seems clear that he is an obvious vandal and disruptor by both his creation of the CSD'd article and the comment he left on the user's page. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Further review leads me to believe that if the user does indeed promise to refrain from such behaviour, that an unblock should be fine, all circumstances considered. He should be watched though, and, in truth, his actions really are blockworthy, considering. However, I am happy for an unblock if you think so. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there’s still hope! He’s expressed some contrition on his talk page, and another administrator has removed the block. Let’s hope! — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please don’t edit others’ user pages. This is considered vandalism. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the barnstars from your user page that you copied from User:Deathphoenix. Since these are signed comments, it is misleading to place them on your page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. My ex friend got a hold of my password and decided to go on a vandalism spree. I truly am sorry. Fishback666 (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Fishback666

Ah, that’s good to know. I hope you have changed the password. He created a user page for you; would you like to keep it or would you like me to delete it for you? — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

COI tags

Ha! I was toying with the idea of working on some medical articles and thought I’d look back on some of the old ones I’d done. Apparently, though, I’m being accused of having a conflict of interest. How wonderful to see recognition of my work and assumption of good faith. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed your exchange with Orangemarlin. I think he placed the {{COI}} tag in good faith - or rather, because he genuinely felt that the article was slanted due to interference by the stent people. But I agree some scrutiny of the edit history would have helped.

Have you anything to comment on rhabdomyolysis? I worked on that a bit last month together with WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs), and it is now a good article. I also have some plans with Henoch-Schönlein purpura. JFW | T@lk 09:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don’t doubt that he meant well when he placed it. But it's a pretty poorly phrased template when you think about it. We tell people to “comment on content, not the contributor” but then use a template attacking not the article, but the editors who have worked on it. We tell people they don’t own articles they create and that others will edit them, but then use a template naming the creator prominently as a troublemaker. (The template essentially would be read as “Knowledge Seeker or someone else may have a conflict of interest.”) — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi There

Thank you so much for having enough faith in me to allow me to be unblocked. Best Friends Forever.

Adrian Fletcher (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Joy

Adrian Fletcher (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Most certainly

I saw that you requested protection of User talk:Oh wiki your so fine your so fine you blow my mind for abusing talk page edit rights. Would you mind sharing some of those edits you consider abusive? — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the Unblock request on User talk:Adrian_Fletcher. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what I meant was, could you share the “diff” links to the specific edits you consider abusive? Are you referring to the unblock request to which I responded several days ago? — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Give me a minute to procure said diffs Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[2] Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That edit was inappropriate. However, it was two and a half days ago and he was already blocked for it (a block which was later removed). This is now well “after the fact” and I don’t believe that it is sufficient justification for protection. I’ll wait to see, though, if the protecting administrator can produce a better reason why the page should be protected. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I should have mentioned earlier, said user was still using his page to contact and communicate with other users despite the block, also, other users were trying to get him to communicate with them...Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the block on User:Oh wiki your so fine your so fine you blow my mind? That block was a (somewhat questionable) username block; it was not issued for any wrongdoing. Did you consider simply explaining to him that he should use his new username instead of his old username to reply? And why does it matter if other users were trying to get him to communicate? He is free to communicate if he wishes. If that’s all there is, then I’m going to remove the protection.

On an unrelated note, I notice that on your user page, you state “This user believes that every Wiki edit should have a summary”, yet very few of yours do. Why is that? — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well, but should the user start to use the page for innappropriate edits like the diff provided, I will request protection, and, the summary thing is a target I am working on. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Though if he makes edits like that, it would probably be better to block him rather than protect the pages he vandalizes. Let me know if you encounter any problems with him. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[Protection rationale]

I saw that you protected User talk:Oh wiki your so fine your so fine you blow my mind because “user and sockpuppet are vandalising page”. Would you mind sharing some of those edits? Both the vandalism and the sockpuppet edits would be helpful. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the requesting editor may have misjudged the situation. I’m going to remove the protection for now. If you have links to the vandalism or other information I should be aware of, please let me know. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As above, the diffs presented by Joshua is that which is the most enlightening. Telling us to "go rot in hell [...] fuctard" is hardly the most productive of measures users should conduct whilst in the quest for an unblock, or in this case the follow up of a review (which had incidentally been carried out by other administrators). If this was any other user which had been username blocked, I highly doubt that the page wouldn't be protected (especially in the presence of another account making controversial edits). I'm dismayed you find this case any different, and the unprovoked attack he made on his talk page is the manner in which administrators are to act against, and certainly not something to be endorsed. I would not wish for unprotection at this time, and would call for more administrator consensus before any action doing so. Rudget. 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully someone else might come along and we can discuss this further. Rudget. 20:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a single episode of vandalism from over two days ago. I do not think this demonstrates that "user and sockpuppet are vandalising page". Furthermore, if Adrian is vandalizing a page, then he should be blocked; protecting the page he is vandalizing doesn’t really make sense to me. Now if you’re suggesting that because his old username is under a username block, his talk page should be protected, that’s a different matter — one I didn’t see in the protection rationale nor made clear to Adrian. If you are going to protect it for that reason, I would suggest first placing a prominent notice at the top directing users to his new page. It’s quite an amusing name — blocked for length, not for inappropriateness — and other users may wish to contact him. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Who may wish to contact him? It is clear from that talk page alone that the Adrian Fletcher is his new account. Rudget. 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My Hero

Thanks, you have always (in my mind at least) done the right thing. You are a most honourable WIKI-HERO.

Adrian Fletcher (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

122.106.75.195 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To WIKI-HERO

File:Victoria Cross Medal Ribbon & Bar.jpg

I User: Adrian Fletcher hereby award you with the WIKI-Medal for Valour and defence of the oppressed. Congradulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fletcher (talk • contribs) 05:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

== Hi There, I was wondering if you could help me out ==

you see there is this editor called User talk:TharkunColl who has a racist image on his user page, can you do me a favour and give him a warning about it or delete it.

thanks

Adrian Fletcher (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Oh dear

I think you need to address this and make a decision - don't worry, I wont say I told you so ;b Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you help???

this is a wiki that I made. Can you please help me with this project?? thanks.Sternhe (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sternhe (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)