User talk:Knowledge Seeker/Archive10

This is an archive of old discussions. You may edit this page to fix malformed signatures or to update links, but please direct new comments to my talk page.

United States semiprot

It looks like you semi-protected United States a little over a week ago. Would you mind if I removed the protection? — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I will only mind if you think it will have any impact. It will be semiprotected again, it is simply a matter of time. So try it without, if you must, to see if any improvement is made. --Golbez 23:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I will defer to your judgment in this matter. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Help

Why does the images gallery only show some images and not all of them, see my main usrpage Mollsmolyneux 19:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like they're working well for me. Were you able to fix the problem? Or else, could you specify which gallery isn't working? Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Links

If you are not the user who was adding the link, then the message doesn't concern you; I apologize. I cannot speak about the validity of the link; that is a characteristic many may argue about. On Wikipedia we work by consensus; if one user is making or proposing a change which multiple other people oppose, then at the least the user should explain his rationale or attempt to make a case for it on the discussion page, instead of repeatedly attempting to force the change through. The standards to which I refer are discussed at Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you have any other questions, please ask them on my talk page, as I may miss the comments here. Thanks. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi :-)

This is re your comment about my link being deleted. I think it was the one to the Richard Milton material on alternative science (?)I checked out the Wiki guidelines re links and they stated that entries should contain links with multiple points of view, not just one. The entries on Darwinism and Evolution don't contain any opposing views, that I could see. Consequently they don't conform to Wikipedia guidelines re balance. Also, according to Popper, a valid scientific theory should be capable of experimental falsification. What are the criteria for falsfying Darwinism? If they exist, they should be referred to; and if they don't, Darwinism is (a la Popper) not a valid theory, and is in the same rank as psychoanalysis, Marxism or astrology. One can't have it both ways. (NB I am *not* a Creationist or a biblical literalist. But it makes me uneasy when science becomes a religion in its own right.) 193.1.215.246 14:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your link sells a book puporting to "shatter the myth of Darwinism". This seems to be quite irrelevant to Flying Spaghetti Monster and even to our article on Darwinism, which discusses the various manifestations that have arisen from Darwin's ideas. Furthermore, unless I am mistaken, the web site displays only the preface and first chapter of the book and one is directed to purchase the book for further information. I find nothing in the limited content displayed that could be considered worthy of inclusion. Sites that exist to promote a good or service in this manner in general are poor candidates for the "External links" sections. If you feel the articles are not balanced, the method to rectify would be to to change the articles, not to link to sites containing the information. Evolution is a featured article and has been through numerous levels of scrutiny and discussion. The opposing views are detailed in Evolution#Social and religious controversies, with links to sub-articles exploring this area. As far as falsification of evolution, there are many possible routes. One could show that organisms do not replicate, are not governed by genetic material, that organisms do not pass on their genetic material to their offspring, that there are not random "errors" in the replication, that offspring with different genetic material have different propensities to survive, and so on. As far as evolution as a whole, the classic example is finding the fossilized remains of a rabbit in the Precambrian, if I recall correctly. If you feel these or other examples of evolution's potential falsifiability should be mentioned in the article, a good place to propose this would be Talk:Evolution. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Again :-)

OK, your point about the commercial nature of the link has some validity. I will see if I can source some web material by Richard Milton that isn't advertising a book.

NB who is the "we" implied in your phrase "our article on Darwinism"?

I did a quick check on the Wikipedia entry on "Christianity". There are about seven entries at the end, in a section entitled "Controversies," that contain material potentially undermining Christianity. The material has been left untouched. I suspect that if anyone tried to introduce similar material to the entries on Darwinism or Evolution, they would last about three nanoseconds. Anyway I don't have the time or energy to try.

I'm not even that interested in whether Darwinism is true or not. What does interest me is how adherents of any particular paradigm at any particular point in time believe that it is very close to the Platonic idea of truth, ignoring the fact that paradigms have repeatedly been falsified either in whole or in part throughout the history of science. Richard Milton's writings are particularly interesting on this because he is *not* a Creationist and not even religious, and he details how science has historically operated like a religion. In practice science tends to be intolerant of dissent and ruthlessly suppresses it. I think Arthur's Koestler's term for this was "misoneism," or fear of the new. The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" stuff is funny and important and spot-on in its attack on the absurdities of Creationism, but skepticism that isn't self-reflexive is pseudo-skepticism in the end. That's my problem with FSM--I would like it to be truly anarchic rather than implicitly shoring up the church of Darwin.81.108.23.116 22:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My objection to the link was not so much that the site sold a product; it was that what was included on the site was not very helpful (curiously, it currently is forbidding me from accessing it). A site with more information, even if also selling a book, might be appropriate (though that's not necessarily sufficient). "We" refers to Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community. Since I include myself in this community, the first-person plural pronoun seems most appropriate (saying "its article on Darwinism" or "their article on Darwinism" sounds awkward, to say the least). I haven't read our Christianity article in detail, nor am I very familiar with Christianity, so I cannot really offer judgment on the section's relevance. If there were scientific evidence potentially undermining evolution, it should be included, properly referenced. It is true that as we advance, we find new information and better models. However, it is often the case that the old ones aren't wholly falsified, but instead the new models build upon or expand the old ones. For instance, the Bohr model of the atom is still quite useful for much of chemistry despite being supplanted by quantum mechanics, we still use Newtonian/classical physics all the time despite general and special relativity showing them to be "false", and even the "flat Earth" model is very useful for local navigation and construction. My personal speculation is that even as our understanding of biology becomes more refined, the core tenets of evolution will remain. I think the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" concept is intended as parody, not as skepticism per se. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal was Accidental

Please don't remove others' comments from discussion pages. If you disagree with them, you may note it in your own comment. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not purposefully removing the comments; this was due to carelessness on my part. I had been reverting Wakseenah's edit because in that same batch he copyedited someone else's comment, which ain't kosher. Thanks for bringing the fact that I was also removing comments to my attention; I (sloppily?) hadn't realized same, and thus reverted the copyedit manually while leaving the added comments in. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome; it's important to examine what you're undoing before performing the revert. I might add that while I normally don't correct others' comments, I don't think it's unreasonable to fix up a typographical error here or there—I've done it myself. I know that I'd appreciate someone fixing my mistakes rather than allowing me to look like a fool. In any case, to edit war to reintroduce a typographical error seems particularly unproductive, though I have no intention of pursuing the matter. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Thanks!

Thanks for figuring out what was causing that bug losing large amounts of text. It was driving me crazy! At least I know now, and hopefully Google will update it soon. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Knowledge Seeker. Glad I could help :), best regards --birdy _{(:> )=|} 13:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A reply to your message

I'm a little confused by what you were trying to accomplish in this edit. Were you attempting to revert the page, or perhaps it was some glitch in the software? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(I do hope this is an appropriate place to "leave a message", I could not find a "reply" button anywhere...)

You asked why i made a particular edit on the Reference desk: Science page. I had attempted to add to the "Physics Problem" section, and ran into an edit conflict. In the automatically revised text, it appeared that my addition was erased, and so I used the "back" button to go back to copy, and then pasted my addition. I did not realize that other users had contributed to the page in the time it took me to do all this, and it seems that I unintentionally erased their comments by essentially "reverting" in my novice move. Luckily, it seems that someone more experienced in this stuff has fixed everything.Tuckerekcut 19:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved from your userpage. Master of Puppets ^{Giant Enemy Crab!} 19:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, MoP. Tuckerekcut, I realize it can be a bit confusing; to find a user's "talk" page; click on the "discussion" tab visible at the top of the screen while you're viewing their user page. Or, as Master of Puppets mentions, many users include a link to their talk pages in their signature. I understand now what happened. Do you understand now how the edit conflicts work? Please let me know if I can be of assistance. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I got it now. Thanks for all the help.Tuckerekcut 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

CrazyInSane

Hi, KS, long time no talk. I created two brand new article since we last spoke, and I come here asking that you please review them both and perhaps aid in enforcing any policies that aren't being followed (unintentionally) within my new articles. The articles are "Christmastime greetings" and "Spring holiday". Your opinion would really be appreciated, if you have the time that is. Thanks. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on starting those articles. I'm afraid I don't have time to investigate any disputes right now, but perhaps you could consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Third opinion as other avenues to help resolve this. I also can't help but notice you've been blocked again since we last spoke. I know I've already said this to you many times, but I hope you give some consideration to stopping this behavior. I don't have time to keep an eye on things anymore and eventually it will end up before the Arbitration Committee, if someone doesn't just block you outright first. I don't want to see that happen, nor do I want to see you face an Arbitration Committee case. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of my user pages

Please, can you undelete my user and user talk pages? Yesterday I was in a very bad mood due to the situation going on in Slovenian Wikipedia (three admins left it in a less than a week due to another tyrant and compulsory editing admin - the atmosphere there is really unpleasant and no effective dispute resolution process is available) and wanted to leave Wikimedia altogether, but now I think I'll stay here at least for some time yet. Otherwise, I'll at least keep my personal pages. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It is so much more pleasant to contribute to the English Wikipedia and the users are much nicer. I edited here for a half of year till summer 2005, then left to work on Slovenian Wikipedia, but now my choice is clear. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge Seeker, I've saved you the effort and restored :) Petros471 13:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased that you will be staying with us; I value your contributions. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Petros, I appreciate the undeletion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

re:Obscuring page titles

While I think it's neat how you obscured the title of your user and talk pages with a customized title, I think the consistency of pages is important; users should be able to expect certain aspects of pages or nagivation to always be present. Would you consider removing the absolutely positioned <div>s, or at least move them so they don't obscure the standard layout? Thanks. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing the absolutly positioned div's would not make it the heading anymore and would appear under the original heading. (I previewed it). So if you are asking me to remove the customized heading, I would like to keep it so.. — The King of Kings 02:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I still feel that the standard layout should not be obscured in this manner and am disappointed that you choose to continue, but I will ask others for their opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Devon

This user is back and requesting to be unblocked. I have removed the unblock template from his page as it triggers the vandalsim bots. Please review the situation and make it clear if he is to stay blocked or not. Thanks. pschemp | talk 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this. Unfortunately, he almost immediately resumed posting copyright violations and I was forced to re-block him. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think someone knowledgable should review Hurricane Devon's image uploads, as these two appear to be rife with copyright problems. Just from a brief check myself, I see Image:Maffei.gif which claims to be PD, but with "unknown" source (the actual website from which it comes make no mention of copyright, so I think we have to assume this is a copyvio. Secondly he seems to assume that everything on a NASA website is PD, when a bunch of it is co-authored by other institutions and thus are possbly or probably copyvios - for example there's Image:Plutonianmoons.jpg, which is marked as NASA-PD, but has an ESA co-credit. Ditto for Image:Newneptune.jpg, which is co-authored by someone at Michigan Tech, and Image:Ssc2006-10b.jpg co-authored by Caltech. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Help?

I (and some others) are in a nasty situation, and we require help. We have gone to the Mediation Cabal several times, and have received either no response (because the situation looks too thorny, I guess), or frankly unsatisfactory knee-jerk responses, not in our favor. See, it is a case of several relatively inexperienced editors vs. an experienced and generally respected admin -- an easy call to make, right? But I'm convinced it's not: in this case, I believe that it is the experienced respected admin who is utterly, decisively, provably in the wrong. But understanding this requires looking at the case in more than passing detail -- looking beyond who is doing the arguing, and trying to understand what they are are actually arguing about. Thus far, we have not been able to get another admin to do so. It will require both intelligence and (most especially!) great patience (with both parties, I'm sure) to sort this issue out. Of all the admins I've seen on Wikipedia, you posses the greatest quantities of both. Particularly the patience bit, where I'm frankly a bit in awe of your abilities (I myself can be a bit of a hothead on occasion, and have exacerbated the situation accordingly). But, I know you're on a partial Wikibreak, and I don't want to intrude. So, before I go any further in describing the situation: are you willing to take a look at this? And if you don't have the time, can you perhaps recommend any admins who could? Thanks in advance, either way. Skybum 14:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my participation on Wikipedia is extremely low right now; I don't think I'll be able to invest sufficient attention to your conflict (nor am I certain how effective I'd be). I must certainly thank you, though, for the very nice things you said about me—that's probably the highest praise I've ever gotten here. Let me think about any other good administrators (I can think of a few, but they all seem to be similarly busy at the moment). Good luck with finding resolution! — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the consideration in any case, and best of luck in your endeavors beyond Wikipedia! And I was quite sincere in my praise: some of your discussions with Creationists, in particular, would have had me (and most other people, I suspect) hauling out the good ol' verbal flame-thrower. It was just mightily impressive that you managed to stay respectful, under the circumstances; that isn't something that I see frequently online, or on Wikipedia. Anyhow, if you do manage to think of any other admins who might be able to handle this in the near future, please let me know. The aggrieved editors and I have other options that we can pursue, but mediation under the guidance of a watchful, intelligent, and patient admin would definitely be the preferred and most compassionate way of resolving the conflict. Skybum 02:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Some advice for you...

Next time you visit a user's page do the following:

1. Identify yourself as an administrator.
2. Only find fault if you were a participant in a discussion.
   1. Otherwise your actions conform to those of an intruder or troll.
   2. Your comments will be taken as though you were an "eve’s dropper" or "peeping Tom"
3. Give the particulars or details of the specific item you find fault with.
4. Don't drink or take drugs before you leave messages.
5. Be sure a bureaucrat knows ahead of time of your planned visit.
6. Be prepared to defend whatever comments or point you are trying to make.
7. Be aware that stalking is as much of an issue on the Wikipedia as it is in the real world.
8. Drop the idea that being an administrator gives your the right to operate on the basis of your own opinion.
9. Apologize and back up your comments with citations to specific Wikimedia policies.
   1. Be prepared to answer for your own misapplication or misinterpretation of Wikimedia policy.

...IMHO (Talk) 08:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And why precisely should he do any of that? 1 is not necessary; 2 is contrary to community obligations; 2.1 and 2.2 are absurd; 3 is a reasonable request, did he not do so? 4 is a borderline personal attack; 5 is complete crap, B'crats don't need to be notified and have better things to do anyway; 6 is argumentative; 7 is not accurate, and furthermore a sysop (or any editor) checking contributions of an editor who has made problem edits is not stalking; 8 own opinion, no - own judgement, yes, regardless of whether an admin or not; 9 apologise for what? 9.1 what misapplication?

You are clearly trolling with this message. Lighten your tone and attempt to be civil. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, KC, for helping me explain. IMHO, I think you have strong ideas about the way online communities should function, but unfortunately, they are not consistent with the way things are done at Wikipedia. Should you wish to change these practices, you would have to change several policies and work to change the culture here, which would be difficult. It would be inappropriate and pompous of me to always assert my administrator status in conversations. I realize you may be used to other practices, but it is appropriate and expected here for disinterested parties to comment on situations; I'm sorry if you feel that this makes me an "eve's dropper" or "peeping Tom". If you have any questions about specifics, please feel free to ask. I should point out that this message to me was not very civil either, and I must ask you to moderate your tone in the future. Your comment about drinking or taking drugs is especially inappropriate, as it implies I was engaged in those activities. I've seen you use similar statements with other users with whom you disagree. Please refrain from making further such statements. It would not be appropriate or useful for me to notify a bureaucrat before leaving messages; I'm not sure how you arrived at this opinion, but it doesn't really make sense in the context of Wikipedia. I quite disagree with the equation of stalking on Wikipedia and in the real world, nor do I see the relevance here. While there are rules and guidelines for administrators to follow, they also are granted some latitude in interpretation of policy and custom and using their powers to maintain a positive working environment; lack of civility is disruptive to collaboration. Your next statement, "next time you visit a user's page, apologize..." really doesn't make sense to me. Of course, as an administrator, I'm always prepared to explain my actions. I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have, but please treat other editors with courtesy and respect. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, not again

Looks like a certain user is still up to his copy/paste tricks. Compare [1] with [2]. Chaos syndrome 09:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see you've returned. It is unfortunate that Devon quickly resumed his old activities; thank you for bringing it to my attention. I was forced to reblock him. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Hello Knowledge Seeker, it is my understanding that you have dealt with User:Hurricane Devon recently and he has been unblocked from whatever it is he was blocked for. I have since come across some edits by this user, whom I've been in conflict of sorts with previously, that are direct copyright violations. Please review this edit with this article by Professor Jim Kaler. I have reverted the article for now but am unsure how to proceed. Thank you for your attention in this matter.--Kalsermar 02:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Kalsermar, you may also wish to see the section above, also about Hurricane Devon. Knowledge Seeker banned Devon (quite rightly) for repeated copyright violations, and a review of his (considerable) image uploads shows massive problems there too. Devon is going to stay blocked (I don't care how repentant he is; he's created massive problems). If you see any contrib of Devon's that makes you at all suspicious that it might be a copyvio (even if you can't immediately locate the source online) the safe thing to do is to revert or remove Devon's contribution. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was forced to reblock him. I was initially hoping to unblock him, but his past behavior is too concerning. I will let another administrator unblock if he desires. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:87.196.148.7

I just checked my userpage history and found you reverted some grafitti by this anon. Thanks! - Mgm|^(talk) 08:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! I was pleased to help out. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please watch

Please watch amygdala. Thank you. Koalabyte 02:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me what it is I should be watching for? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, Knowledge Seeker. Hope all is going well. I've been attempting to drum up some second opinions from the medically-minded on this one. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Tobinick and tell me if my reasoning there is faulty. Cheers! -AED 00:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I have been away and was not able to attend to this AfD. A cursory impression suggests that it indeed should not be included. I regret that the discussion has concluded. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Devon

You might like to know that Hurricane Devon is requesting unblocking. As you are the blocking admin, I will leave the decision up to you; but I notice that you are currently on a WikiBreak, so I am certain you won't get this message immediately. If you don't reply or decide within two days or so, I will contact the Admin Noticeboard. Thanks and regards, Iolakana|^T 18:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me. I have decided that I am not comfortable unblocking this user; extensive conversation with him has not been efficacious, though I know he means well. You may pursue whatever channels you feel appropriate. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for your information, the IP address 71.98.198.74 is apparently a sockpuppet of Hurricane Devon. Not sure what action to take about this. Chaos syndrome 22:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Though I wouldn't really call it a sockpuppet, since Devon stated it was he. I'll try keeping an eye on the account to ensure it doesn't cause any trouble. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My hand…

[3]: What does "HTH HAND" mean? — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

See HAND: HTH  —Phil | Talk 08:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I've always wondered why you talk about hands so much. But wait, I still don't understand how that makes sense. If "HTH" means "happy to help" or "hope that helps", I can understand if you used it after answering someone's question, but I don't see how it makes sense when expressing an unsolicited critical opinion. In what way were you expecting it to help? Not that it really matters. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomination augmentation

Thanks for the heads-up on augmenting my "nomination statement". I really didn't know that such was required for RfA as it's not listed as one of the tasks to do when setting up one's nomination. --ScienceApologist 14:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck! Regardless of the outcome, I'm glad you're still such an active editor here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/F.O.E.

I noticed you were in some recent edits with User:F.O.E. and decided to notify you on his newly opened RFC. Thank you! — The King of Kings 00:37 July 08 '06

Thank you for the notification. I have certified the request for comment. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. As you noted, it was quite inappropriate for the user to close the existing no-consensus poll and immediately open a new one. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Userpage vandalism

I don't believe I ever thanked you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I appreciate it; thanks. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Always glad to be of assistance. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Monoclonal antibodies on DYK

On 12 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies, 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.

--Mgm|^(talk) 08:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, MGM, for informing me (and for updating DYK). I tried to ensure the article, while a sub-article of a technical topic, remained sufficiently accessible to a lay audience. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Also for giving me a heads-up after the event.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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, [http://www.example.com/], [http://www.example.com/], and [http://www.example.com/]." 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)

Thanks for the message, KOS! Unfortunately, my professional life has become increasingly busy and I am not certain that I will be able to resume editing Wikipedia. I have enjoyed working with you and the other editors. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry to hear that, you are one of the best wikipedians I've ever interacted with. I do hope you will be back with us soon! KOS | talk 04:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

your abuse of the admin power

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)

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)

Thanks for your reply, Pat. I'm sorry you had to go through so much trouble to find the thread and that I wasn't around to help you find it; next time, instead of looking through the history, checking the recent archives would be helpful, especially if it has been some time since the initial comment. I'm not sure I see the vandalism, but it doesn't really matter. You're right that the two who initially responded did not feel the block was appropriate; that's why I removed it. I thought I explained that on your talk page, and I'm sorry if I confused you. I'm a bit mystified by your comments about plitical opponents or political purposes. Do you consider me a political opponent? I don't know if we even reside in the same country, nor do I know about your political preferences. I seem to recall you getting into a conflict over libertarianism, which implies that you are either quite supportive or opposed to it, though I must confess I don't really know what libertarianism is. Politics has never been a strong interest of mine. Any blocks I have issued are in response to your behavior, not your beliefs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's opened. Wouldn't have wanted you to miss my reply to your: [duplicate comment removed [User:Knowledge Seeker here on October 9 removed pat8722's October 2 edit to his talk page (deleted content can be found at pat8722's talk page at User talk:pat8722#blocked 2)]

So here it is:

[01.09] Let me say it again, "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." I've got an arbitration page open (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722), so give it your best. pat8722 01:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's open and waiting for your input, so lets hear from you. pat8722 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want me to miss messages, please leave them on my talk page. You are certainly welcome to look forward to that, but I'm not particularly concerned with your hopes or dreams; please find someone else with whom to share them. I recognize neither you nor anyone else as a an opponent, political or otherwise, though you may see me as such. There doesn't seem to be much purpose for me to contribute to your arbitration page: it's already in the voting phase, and in any case, I think it will end up helpig more eyes to watch you from now on. Furthermore, if you could continue to use the polite tone you used in your request to table, I would find that outcome superior to revocation of editing rights. And to be honest, my time on Wikipedia is limited right now, and I have other areas which are more important to me.

Please note that the terms under which your arbitration case are being considered appear to be contingent upon your current hiatus from Wikipedia. You should immediately notify the Arbitration Committee that you have resumed editing; if not, you may be subject to being blocked from editing, and it would likely adversely affect the outcome of your case. Finally, please do not leave duplicate copies of my comments on my talk page. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

1) That's what I did, left the message on your talk page. 2) My arbitration case is NOT in the voting phase, it is in the EVIDENCE GATHERING STAGE - just perfect for you to contribute if you believe you can sustain your blocks of me. You will be one of the focal points of the arbitration case, so you should try to make your case there, as it is very relevant. 3) There is plenty of time for you to state your case, as I also am very busy right now, such that we will not be getting the "response" phase for quite some time - how much time do you think you will need to try to state your case for blocking me? pat8722 23:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

We really don't need your condescension. 1) You should know that I volunteered not to edit articles until my state court cases are over - that is the only condition under which I am not editing. I will be editing again once my time schedule frees me such that I have time to participate in my arbcom case, which I promised arbcom I would notify them of. 2) I don't know what you mean about "duplicate copies of comments". When you don't respond here, I copy the relavant portions of conversation to your talk page, as being necessary to obtaining your response. pat8722 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of your very serious problem is that you try to "command" things that make "no sense" or are your "personal preferences" and then try to enforce your nonsense or personal preferences by using the blocking power. If you have a "problem" with anything I did, please produce the diffs, and you may then also wish to include them in the arbcom case as another "example" of what you block people for.pat8722 23:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Arbitration Committee disagrees with your assessment of the status of your case. In fact, by the time you left me your message, it had progressed to the "motion-to-close" phase, and has since been closed. It would appear that your finding time to make these comments despite professing a lack of time to contribute to your case (and despite notifying the committee) played a role in the decision. I wish you had followed my suggestion of informing the committee of your return. Since I place copies of my replies on my talk page, it is unncessary for you to later place another copy. You can see the original version of the post you copied directly above your statement now. If you do not need my condescension, you do not need to participate in further dialogue with me. I am uninterested in your assessment of me or my personality; please find another person with whom to share them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you 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

You're welcome; I was pleased to offer my support. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I am sorry that I was away from Wikipedia for a while. I'll take a look at the case if it is reopened. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We're still waiting for you. The arbcom case was never closed, and is still open. See also "your abuse of the admin power" above. It's important that you contribute. pat8722 23:20, 22 October 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)

Thank you for letting me know, Serge. I was away from Wikipedia but do agree with the name change to Chicago. CIS, thank you for the kind words. I see now that I have returned that you are away. Good luck with resolving whatever is transpiring. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:MED

Hi,

The main page of WikiProject Medicine has been redesigned. Comments are welcome, and please consider listing yourself as a participant. Enjoy your WikiBreak and hope to see you back someday, but hey the real life still is more important.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; I have returned and listed myself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipostcard

Hope your never-ending search for knowledge extends its grasp and continues to indulge you in the real world, at least while your Wikitime eludes you.

With love, tenderness, and good quality fortune cookies,
Reference Desk Kru 2006 4eva
 freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I have returned to more active editing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)