User talk:Knowledge Seeker/Archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

Itchy Balls[edit]

Itchy Balls Itchy Balls
I don't got no itchy balls?
My itchy balls be itchin' itchin'
So that is why I'm bitchin' bitchin'
Itchy balls Itchy balls William Holden Itchy Balls.
Out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karatloz (talkcontribs)

This is unprofessional but —hahahaha.CrazyInSane 02:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; that was very creative. Did you write this yourself? — Knowledge Seeker 04:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Ahhhh, Karatloz, I didn't realize that was you leaving me another poem. Thanks; I look forward to the next one! — Knowledge Seeker 07:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Uuh[edit]

Re: [1], Of course I wouldn't! And I was kidding about that ghastly template too. I've been leaving some pretty decent thank you notes so far, if I may say so myself.;-) Well, guess who's no longer going to be getting any? Even when they correct my pitiful attempts at paraphrasing Shakespeare ;-) —Encephalon 06:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

About WP:1.0[edit]

Well, seeing that you're active, let me ask you the same thing I asked Encephalon: I see that the article list at WP:MED is very similar to this list, which we are trying to compile in the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Since part of the strategy is to work via WikiProjects, WikiProject Medicine could help us out a lot by maintaining a parallel list at the Science WikiProjects listing. The only thing I'm not sure about is if the scale you're using is simlar to the scale we're using... but that, again, would be a huge boost for 1.0... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tito. Er, I'm not sure what you're asking. The scale we're using is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine#Status; it looks at least approximately equivalent to the scale you're using. What else do you want? To generate a list of core articles? To rate them? — Knowledge Seeker 03:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I've gone over the list and they're pretty much equivalent, so that's all right. As for what else to do, WikiProject-wise—what we're trying to do is to compile a list of quality articles, at the List of A-Class articles and at the WikiProject listing, and a list of Core Topics, which we have listed on the Core Topics subpage. So, yes, it would be really helpful if you could rate all of your articles (perhaps using a category system a la WP Cyclones) but a list of the articles you think are in best shape so far would suffice. Eventually, we'll use the lists by the WikiProjects to identify the articles that need the most improvement, as well as ask them to review the Core Topics list to see if it is complete. We have a Few roadmaps for publication, so you have an idea of what exactly we're doing. Also, it helps us identify which WikiProjects are the most active, and gives you a bit of recognition. ;) Any questions feel free to ask, all right? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Karatloz[edit]

Regarding User:Karatloz; if you read his userpage, you'll see he wants to "wage war" now. A week block would be harsh if he hadn't reacted like so; however, his current reaction means he's probably going to vandalise if we let him loose.

P.S. I know I'm not Tawker, but I just felt I should respond >_<. And I love the Enterprise on your user page! _-M o P-_ 08:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I seem to be having difficulty understanding. Am I looking at a cached version of his user page? When I look at User:Karatloz, all I see is "Okay, I used to mess around with wikipedia, calling people 'fuckers' and whatnot. Now I've found uncyclopedia.org is much better for that kind of hilarity. Now, I use this mostly for research, but I also contribute when I can. Mel Brooks' Terrorism Trilogy: Young bin Laden Blazing Carbombs Zarquawi: Dead and Loving It!" I don't see anything about waging war, and it looks like he's only edited his user page once in the last month. How did he react, and what is he reacting to? And I'm afraid I don't know how User:Tawker is involved. What role does he play? I'm sorry; I'm quite mystified by this whole matter. I hope you don't mind being patient with me and perhaps helping me to understand what is going on. And I'm glad you like the Enterprise! — Knowledge Seeker 08:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it requires reading a bit into the words; in the left corner, we have User:Karatloz. In the right, User:Zoltarak. If you'll notice the similarity there; its the same person with his name spelt backwards. So while the comments on Zoltarak's page stand, its like it was on Karatloz's as well. _-M o P-_ 19:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to this version? That's from April 22, 2005—11 months ago. Are you suggesting that you're expecting this spate of vandalism almost a year after he wrote that using a different account, and that blocking him for a week will somehow prevent it? This makes no sense to me. — Knowledge Seeker 03:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no input on the block; its just that he made no attempt to correct our views and say "My bad," or most of these attempts were half-hearted and not really meant. Once again, I don't know the whole case, so I may be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master of Puppets (talkcontribs)
In my opinion, if a block is made for inappropriate reasons, the failure of the blocked user to protest cannot be construed as justification for the block. I'm not sure we're communicating well, but if you have no input on the block, then I'm not certain what we are discussing; my concern is over User:Karatloz's block. I'd be happy to hear any further comments you have on this matter if you have any you wish to share. — Knowledge Seeker 04:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Brookie here[edit]

You blocked this editor for a week for user-page vandalism. I don't see that he's edited any user pages other than his own and that of User:Zoltarak in the last several months. Also, to me, a week seems a bit harsh for a user's first block. Am I overlooking something? — Knowledge Seeker 07:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - any deleted edits are removed from the contributions list - I counted I think 4 vandalised pages this morning - he's a menace and deserves the block. Thank you for your interest though. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 10:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply; I remain interested. I am aware that deleted edits do not appear on a user's contribution list. Are you implying that Karatloz vandalized several people's user pages and that the pages were deleted shortly afterwards? Or was it that his edits were selectively deleted? I looked through the edit histories of the pages you deleted around the time of Karatloz's block; I didn't see that he edited any of them—unless perhaps you noticed the vandalism but another administrator deleted them. Would you mind listing any of the (now deleted) user pages he vandalized? Is he such a menace that he didn't merit a warning, or even a 24-hour block, but a one-week block? For vandalism that's not readily apparent? Perhaps you have confused this editor with another. Administrators have wide discretion for using their powers, and I normally hesitate to undo another administrator's action, but I believe that a minimal standard of proof has not been met; the onus is on the blocking administrator to demonstrate the justification for the block. I would like to undo the block for now. If evidence of vandalism as you describe become apparent (either new edits or links to old ones), I would gladly support reblocking. If you feel I have acted inappropriately here, I will gladly discuss the matter further with you or invite review of my actions on WP:AN/I. — Knowledge Seeker 04:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
A week may seem harsh - but I have had run in with this character before and his contributions show three lots of vandalism when I blocked him. I am relatively relaxed about you unblocking him this time - but if we have any repeats then he will get a long ban. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand what the vandalism is. Are you referring to the poem he left on our talk pages? That doesn't make sense to me. Last time he left you a message, you thanked him and told him it was a lovely poem. This time, you blocked him for a week in what seems to be his first block. If he were to repeat, a long ban would not be appropriate, in my opinion. If you do not wish to receive these poems, have you considered just asking him to stop? A good second step would be a warning. A third step would be a 24-hour block. I don't see anything to suggest that such a drastic measure as a week-long block would be necessary to force him to stop. If his messages are not the vandalism to which you are referring, I would appreciate a diff or a link to a deleted page. In the absence of either, I do not see any evidence to support blocking this user. — Knowledge Seeker 04:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey it's me Karatloz. Thanks for sticking up for me in this whole blocking thing. I had no idea Brooke was so sensitive! I also had no idea I was a "menace." If Brookie would have looked at my talk page a little more closely, he would've seen that when I first started here at Wikipedia, I had a problem with someone else finding my password and committing vandalism. There have also been problems with me using my account at school and other people editing under my name. None of those latter problems resulted in a block, though, so it went unreported. Anyway, thanks! Karatloz 18:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Although I'm confident that in the absence of evidence of vandalism, other administrators would have removed the block if I hadn't. One thing, though: while I agree that you were blocked in error, I do not think that your subsequent comments to Brookie (and others) were completely appropriate, either. We all make mistakes. Courtesy and rationality will triumph. I look forward to more of your poems, although I must admit I enjoyed the one about fractals more than this one. — Knowledge Seeker 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Have an orange bar (AC notice)[edit]

Just to let you know I've posted a new section on User:Petros471/AC. Petros471 11:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Good article[edit]

Please do not re-create {{good article}}. It was deleted following a TFD discussion. Also, displaying metadata such as this would represent a policy change and substantial discussion and agreement should take place first. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#The good article tag on main article space, among other places, for more information. — Knowledge Seeker 04:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I do like the idea of WP:GA and I support its continued development. For now I'm going to rollback the template additions to the main space until there is further agreement for this sort of policy change. I hope you'll be able to help out the project identify and improve good articles. — Knowledge Seeker 04:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Do I need to go back and delete all of the tags to good article then? Chuck 04:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
No, don't worry; I took care of it for you. I do appreciate your initiative and I'm sure you'll find other ways to help the Wikiproject. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker 04:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, looks like it was done already...thanks. By the way, I had not realized there was a discussion on the matter. I remember seeing the tag before, and couldn't remember which article it was on. Thanks for letting me know before I got too far. Chuck 04:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about it; that's my job. It's not possible to keep up to speed on all matters simultaneously. I see you're studying aerospace engineering and that you've been contributing to some of the space exploration–related articles. I'm glad to see it; we could always use more editors specializing in this area. Space exploration is a fascination of mine, though of course I'm an amateur and could not hope to know the matter in much depth. — Knowledge Seeker 04:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

History of Earth[edit]

I appreciate your comments regarding History of Earth, and I hope you enjoyed the article. I have tried to rewrite the origin of life section to better reflect the current state of scientific knowledge as you suggested. It's by no means perfect—do you have any other suggestions on how I might tweak it? Or if you have an idea in mind, please feel free to reword it. Also, I'd appreciate any other suggestions on the article. I'm only an amateur in these fields and I appreciate any help I can get! — Knowledge Seeker 06:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The origin of life section looks pretty good now. I'm no expert either, but I think you handled it well.--ragesoss 18:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate the feedback! — Knowledge Seeker 02:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Karatloz[edit]

Hey Knowledge Seeker, I guess Brookie agreed with you about my comments, as he took them off his talk page. Oh well. Also, it appears that you're the only Wikizen left that is interested in my poetry. Maybe with your clout as an admin, you could get the word out to the other Wikiites that my poetry is worthwhile. Thanks! Karatloz 20:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, even though I'm an administrator, I can't really convince anyone that your poetry is worthwile or not—that's something they must decide for themselves. Besides, it looks like you already have another fan. Maybe other people will see your poems on our talk pages and ask to receive them as well. Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, so it may not be the ideal venue for distributing your poetry—of course you may continue to do so in your current manner, but you should consider establishing a web site for it, if you are serious about it. — Knowledge Seeker 09:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

C/O bdry[edit]

Hi. Sorry about dumping that whole mess on the History page, I'm hoping to get home to eat sometime soon and just wanted to get it out. Hope it's ok. Rickert 09:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't apologize! Thanks for providing those citations! Hopefully I can use those to track down some more information about the extinction as well. They're very helpful! — Knowledge Seeker 05:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

trolling[edit]

I'm sorry if I invented any insults. I don't mean to be trolling if I am. But I do have some practical suggestions for the evolution article. 1. Remove the "relgiious controversies" section and place instead "evidence against" or "controversies and criticisms" like there are on all the creationist related pages. 2. I have to go right now, but I'll have more suggestons later. Scorpionman 14:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. The editors on here are convinced that evolution has been proved. Give me some good, rock-solid, diamond-hard infallible unfalsifiable proof that we evolved from apes, and then you can tell me that it's proven. Scorpionman 15:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's all right. Just take care to respond to what people say, not what you think they say. If unsure, it's easy to reread the comments to see exactly what they said. No, I don't think you're trolling—for that, you have to be intentionally doing to try to annoy people or get them angry. I believe that you're illogical sometimes and perhaps you get easily confused which is why you think people are saying things they don't, and I think you feel very strongly about your religious beliefs and it is difficult for you to understand how others can hold different views, but I don't think you do any of it intentionally. If, though, after being warned about it, you continue, blocks would be justified in my opinion; there are enough people who already think you are trolling. There is no scientific evidence against evolution, so that would be a misleading choice of title. All the criticisms of evolution are from a religious perspective or are criticisms of science in general, so that wouldn't be appropriate either. Evolution is science. Creationism isn't. I know you know this, or at least are aware of it to some degree, from your comments such as "we can't explain everything that goes on in the universe scientifically" and "Of course I understand that the supernatural can't be studied scientifically." Perhaps God did create the Earth a few millenia ago. Perhaps God created the Earth last week. I don't know. But I do know that neither of those, even if true, are science, and I suspect you do too. With regards to your second point, I will do no such thing. There is no "good, rock-solid, diamond-hard infallible unfalsifiable proof" of anything. I understand that you want the mythology of your religion to be true, and it may be true, despite that the scientific evidence flatly contradicts it. Evolution is science. There is nothing wrong with the science, though there could of course be something wrong with science itself. — Knowledge Seeker 04:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I should also add that it is not entire accurately to say that humans evolved from apes, since humans are apes. A better way to say it would be that humans evolved from other apes. If I were to be precise, I would describe the events as follows: somewhere around 18 million years ago lived the last common ancestors of all the apes; that is, all surviving descendants are apes, and no other animals are apes. Within the apes, the line of gibbons split off, then the ancestors of the orangutans, then the ancestors of the gorillas. Finally, some 6 million years ago lived a small ape, the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans. After that one can identify a population whose only living descendants are human. Naturally there were many other descendants, but none of the others have survived. The other lines, of course, continued to evolve as well; there is nothing special about the human line. About the time our ancestors and the chimpanzee's ancestors separated, the ancestors of the simiangs and the ancestors of the hoolocks were probably separating from the ancesotrs of the other gibbons, for instance, and of course each line continued to evolve. I hope this makes sense. — Knowledge Seeker 06:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks again for your help in the Village pump! -AED 17:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! It was my pleasure. Any questions about it? — Knowledge Seeker 04:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
None right now, but I might have some later. I'm trying to learn about tables little by little. Much obliged for the help! -AED 05:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
All right. I'm always available. I assume you're using m:Help:Table as your resource? — Knowledge Seeker 06:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm back...[edit]

...and "WOW!" Your little pet project at History of Earth has really taken off. It looks fabulous! I'm a little intimidated, but, if you want, I'm still happy to grammar check. You sooo earned that barnstar. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 15:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome back! Nice to hear from you again! Yes, I'm in my referencing phase now, trying to add citations for as much of the article as possible. I can't believe it's already at 54! And I still have more to go. Yes, by all means I want you to continue helping me out. After all, you're the first editor to join me working on this article. The discussions I had with you (and Puffball) helped shape the direction of the article. And your encouragement helped me continue work. One of the most problematic sections for me is Civilization. My grasp of history is not as strong as that of other fields, and it is extremely difficult to condense 10 millenia of civilization into a couple paragraphs. Do you have any suggestions for improvement? As I catch up to that section with my referencing, I'll probably try to rewrite it a bit as well. I'm hoping to have it ready for peer review in a week or so—what do you think? — Knowledge Seeker 07:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

My e-mail[edit]

Hi, KS. I noticed you have just come on to Wikipedia and started to edit, and I'm just wondering if you are going to respond to my e-mail (if you got it), so that I won't have to wait around any longer, ha ha. If you aren't going to respond that's fine I understand. Also, did you hear about the stalking incident with User:Gator1? I commented on it and offered some assistance, see the discussion at WP:AN/I#User:Gator1. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE [please see my user page!] 07:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I did receive your e-mail; thank you for the nice things you said. I absolutely intend to respond to it, but I'm not sure if I'll have time tonight—I want to be able to properly address your questions. Yes, it's a terrible shame about Gator1—it's horrible that this could even happen! — Knowledge Seeker 07:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

stop vandalizing my talk page[edit]

If you believe my reverts are improper, cite the basis for yours. pat8722 19:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In general, users are encouraged not to remove warnings from their talk page or even to selectively remove critical comments. Restoring the warnings is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I do not intend to revert again; you may decide how you wish to respond to the apparently numerous complaints against your behavior. — Knowledge Seeker 05:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The nastiness/vandalism on my talk page is caused by "piling on", such as you did, which is really evidence of the bad behavior wikipedia presently permits. Were you a "knowledge seeker", you would have read the talk pages at [[Talk: Wikipedia:Vandalism]] (April 2006) at paragraph "what does 'nonsense' mean?" and the Talk:Libertarianism page at "the most accurate definition should be used" (March 2006), and User talk:William M. Connolley's talk page, before involving yourself in the dispute, and would have contributed constructively on those pages.pat8722 15:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I see no evidence of vandalism on your talk page. In addition, the "piling on" you describe seems to be caused be your poor interactions and lack of civility with other editors; as you encounter other editors, you draw them into your conflict. Certainly the hostility you seem to be displaying now will provoke, not assuage, conflict. But in any case, it is not my concern. Just because I seek knowledge doesn't mean I seek it indiscriminately. I am not involved in your libertarianism dispute; I don't believe I have ever read or edited the article, and I have no idea what the nature of your argument is with the other editors. Nor am I interested. While I might gain some marginal knowledge by reading those talk pages, there are other far more productive ways for me to seek knowledge and I doubt I would gain much by contributing. I find no value to involving myself in your dispute. If this is how you interact with other editors, you will find it difficult to get your point across. — Knowledge Seeker 19:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You make no sense. If you didn't read the related pages which triggered the "piling on" by "friends of friends" resulting in the profanity on my talk page, you are just doing more "mindless piling on" of your own. Since you say you didn't have the time to investigate the related pages, you had no business "piling on". pat8722 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry I'm not being clear. I noticed the edits while doing recent changes patrol. I saw an editor removing warnings from several administrators, and so reverted the change. I feel the edit was mindless nor inappropriate. What precisely do you mean by "piling on"? That I should not have restored the warning since there were several others already restoring the warnings? I do think that your strong and sustained reaction to a single edit is unusual and a bit disturbing. — Knowledge Seeker 22:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"Piling on" means doing reverts or issuing warnings without investigating the claims that the reverts were reverts of vandalism, which warnings made in bad faith and against wiki rules are.pat8722
I see. I was unfamiliar with this definition of "piling on". In that case, no I was not piling on; I did investigate your claim of vandalism but I see no evidence of vandalism on your talk page. I don't believe any of the warnings were made in bad faith, nor do I see that they were against Wikipedia rules. Even if so, I cannot see how they could qualify for any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Vandalism. — Knowledge Seeker 23:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

But at paragraph 3, you said you didn't, and I believe you at paragraph 3.pat8722 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be a bit confused. As far as I can tell, you are discussing two types of vandalism. I see that you've been discussing with other editors something about circular logic and nonsense being vandalism. That's the area I didn't look into, and that's why I said I was unaware of the details of your argument with the other editors when I mentioned it in my second reply. As I understand it, the vandalism you recently mentioned to me was vandalism on your talk page, in the form of warnings placed on your talk page. This of course I did investigate, and as I noted then and more recently, I see no evidence of vandalism on your talk page. — Knowledge Seeker 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Like you just said, the area you didn't look into is the area I had alleged shows I was reverting vandalism, and warnings against reverting vandalism, are vandalism. You didn't investigate what was necessary to determine whether the warnings on my page were warranted, therefore you merely "piled on".pat8722 02:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"...warnings against reverting vandalism, are vandalism." I believe this statement to be inaccurate and inconsistent with Wikipedia:Vandalism. Your claim that not "[investigating] what was necessary to determine whether the warnings on my page were warranted" is piling on is inconsistent with your earlier statement that "doing reverts...without investigating claims that the reverts were reverts of vandalism" is piling on. If the former, then yes, I was piling on, since I did not investigate whether the warnings were warranted. If the latter, then no, I was not piling on, since I reverted while investigating your claim that such your reverts were reverts of vandalism. In either case, I'm not certain I see how this is important. — Knowledge Seeker 02:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Warnings against reverting vandalism, are vandalism, and it is "piling on" to assist in keeping unwarranted warnings on a talk page. You have no interest in truth, and you are really wasting your time on my talk page.pat8722 02:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome to use your own definition of vandalism if you like, but don't expect that I will use it in that sense or that Wikipedia policy will use it in that sense. You feel the warnings were unwarranted; the administrators who left them feel they were warranted. So perhaps I was piling on, according to your idiosyncratic definition. If by no interest in truth you mean that I am not interested in determining whether you are correct in the arguments you have been making regarding libertarianism then you are correct. You are probably correct that I am wasting my time, but I do feel obligated to reply to complaints that people bring me. — Knowledge Seeker 03:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I use the term "vandalism" as it is defined on the Wikipedia:Vandalism page. And you agree that you "pile on", keeping badfaith warnings on talk pages without investing whether the warning was badfaith.pat8722 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to convince me of that, perhaps you could quote the appropriate section, since I'm not seeing it. Yes, I agreed that I did not investigate the merit of the warnings; we discussed this several days ago. — Knowledge Seeker 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Convince you of what? And yes, we are agreed you "piled on". As you said, we've discussed this already.pat8722 19:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That that the edits you claim as vandalism are consistent with the term vandalism as it is used in Wikipedia. I guess I was unclear why you were telling me that when I already told it to you; I couldn't understand your purpose. But if you don't have any new points to make, then I will consider this matter resolved. — Knowledge Seeker 20:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"The most common type of vandalism is the ... insertion ... nonsense". Read the relevant pages, as cited above.pat8722 01:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. The "warnings against reverting vandalism" may be unwarranted but they certainly are not nonsense. — Knowledge Seeker 01:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Reread paragraphs 6 through 19 (as you removed the paragraph numbers, you may have to do some counting). "The most common type of vandalism is the ... insertion ... nonsense". 3rr warnings for the reversion of vandalism is "nonsense", at best. And do not remove numbers from my talk page. pat8722 00:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC).
Please do not add numbers or qualifiers to my comments. Three-revert rule warnings are not nonsense as defined on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Nonsense). As I said before, you may use your own definitions of terms, but you should not expect that other Wikipedians share those definitions or that our policies will share them. — Knowledge Seeker 02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[27]Do not remove numbers from my talk page. Your nasty behavior in doing so is uncalled for. And your above comment just goes to show that when you can't answer logically, you repeat the same irrelevance. pat8722 03:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You should not alter others' comments, even on your talk page. You may add numbers to your talk page but please do not add them in a manner that alters others' comments. I apologize for not being clear. You are free to define the terms as you wish, as long as you realize these aren't considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Do you have any other points or objections to make? — Knowledge Seeker 03:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[29]I have not "altered your comments". Adding numbers is just good formatting, and does not at all alter the substance of what you have said. Do not remove them. You really need some help in basic logic.pat8722 03:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, perhaps I do. If the paragraph numbering is that important to you, please feel free to restore it. — Knowledge Seeker 05:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Infinite" blocks[edit]

At User talk: Eagle 101, you mentioned "Note that infinitely does not mean forever; all it means is that the account is blocked until the issues are sorted out and the account is unblocked." If I may be a bit pedantic, "infinite" does mean forever; that's why you'll often see people referring to such blocks as indefinite blocks, especially if later unblocking is anticipated. Just my opinion! — Knowledge Seeker 02:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Knowledge Seeker and thanks for your message! Actually, the use of "infinite" versus "indefinite" was intentional on my part. I had actually written "indefinite", but decided to switch it to "infinite" to make it less confusing for the user, because, of course, the block shows "infinite". Perhaps I shouldn't have done this, but I was just trying to make things clear for that user; using "indefinite" when the block log shows "infinite" could cause some confusion and be ambigious. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hah! I should have known you were too smart for me! — Knowledge Seeker 05:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Peer Review[edit]

It looks like History of Earth is pretty good. I had not seen it before. This is a great example for us to add the SPR list of articles to all the Wikipedia science Projects as it pretty well involves all of them. So far it is only on the Chemistry Wikiproject page. It did not seem a good idea to add it to the others when the only page for review was chemistry. I'll add it tonight or more likely tomorrow. I hope you get lots of responses. --Bduke 09:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments, Dr. Salter-Duke. I too hope that some of the editors will have time to suggest ways to help me improve the article. Based on a suggestion from another editor, I'm trying to incorporate some more plate tectonics and climatology into the article, though my grasp of these is tenuous. Do you have any other suggestions on how I might improve it? — Knowledge Seeker 03:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have put the SPR list of articles for review on many Science WikiProject pages. That may help. I'll try to have a look myself over the weekend. No need to respond to my talk page. We can keep it all here. --Bduke 03:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. I will appreciate any advice you can provide. Wikipedia is fortunate to have someone with your expertise! — Knowledge Seeker 05:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

History of the Earth[edit]

Thanks for your comments at History of Earth, Guettarda; I always value your advice. Do you have any suggestions on how I can improve the article further? I've been working on it for months, and would eventually like it to be a featured article.

The first thing that hits me about the article is that it's too biology-centric. It talks about the history of the earth from the perspective of living things. I think a "history of the earth" should include a lot more plate tectonics - movement of the continents, major mountain-building events, things like that. I haven't gone through it thoroughly, but it seems like the only place this is dealt with is in the section on the Moon, where the initiation of plate tectonics comes in. The other big thing that I think should be in there is climate change. Both of these things have a huge impact on the distribution of species, of speciation, all that stuff. I can't help much with that, but I might suggest asking Vsmith, William M. Connolley or Dragons flight.
That said, I think the article is great. Good job. Guettarda 17:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Those are good points. While I've been able to touch briefly on some of the supercontinents, I really didn't go into that much detail—in part because it's tougher for me to find good reference material for this. I can definitely work on including more material on it, though. Climate change will be tougher since I know less about it. One of our editors did ask WMC for any advice, but he (quite understandably) is apparently too busy at this time. I'll try to start including some of that in a couple days. I just don't want the article to get too long. — Knowledge Seeker 00:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

CIS, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion only covers articles; that is, pages in the main space. User pages and user subpages fall under Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I removed the AFD tag; if you wish to propose this user subpage for deletion, please nominate it on WP:MFD. — Knowledge Seeker 00:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up I'll post it there. Still haven't gotten a response BTW. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
KS, please see User_talk:Romarin#Against_WP:MOS, whereas user:Romarin has issued a response to my warning that their WikiProject is against the MOS. The party is stating that the fact that there are wide varieties of religions in the world is enough "substantial reason" (as seen at WP:DATE#Eras) for a change from BC/AD to BCE/CE. Can you help clarify the situation? Thanks. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You’re welcome. If you’re talking about a reply to your e-mail, I’m sorry; it’s taking me longer than expected. I’ve had little time this week and I’ve wanted to spend more time on History of Earth. I guess I’ll just send you a shorter reply for now. I already left some information for the participants on the WikiProject’s talk page about why the project as it stood was inappropriate. I’ll leave her a message but as long as they’re not actually going around changing era notation, I think it’s probably OK. — Knowledge Seeker 03:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologize, there's no urgency with the e-mail reply but thanks. I read your response on the WikiProject Common Era talk page and appreciate the time you took to review the matter. I also saw your (weak) vote for deletion of User:Romarin's sub-user page at WP:MFD, and agree with your viewpoint that promoting the abrupt and random alteration of era notations is not really a productive thing to be promoting—something that I've learned over the months at Wikipedia, as you well know. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 05:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I replied to your e-mail. You're welcome; I hope that the issue will be resolved smoothly. Yes, I remember all too well, but you seem to be a much more productive editor now. I'm glad you weren't indefinitely blocked. — Knowledge Seeker 01:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thans for fixing vandalism on my userpage! -- Ferkelparade π 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You’re welcome; it was my pleasure. — Knowledge Seeker 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

reply[edit]

Freakofnurture, I don't believe that this deletion fits any criterion for deletion. Furthermore, as you realize, contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GFDL. You request people to be original but I do not think it is appropriate to delete material in this manner. — Knowledge Seeker 00:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't copying the general design, or even merely the color scheme. He included archival links to my own talk page, an I found it rather disturbing, in a non-GFDL sort of way. If he wants to start over and create something that's not an exact duplicate of my own talk page, maybe something more interesting even, go ahead. — Apr. 15, '06 [01:13] <freakofnurxture|talk>
It looks like that template call had already been removed at the time of your deletion. Even if the link were still present, removal of the template call would be the appropriate action, in my opinion. I hardly think that summary deletion of the user subpage is justified. Please restore the page. — Knowledge Seeker 01:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Anno Domini[edit]

Hi, CIS, I just wanted to let you know why I reverted your recent edit to History of Earth. Billion means different things in different parts of the world; in the United States, it means 109, but in other countries may mean 1012. This is a problem, and therefore when I originally wrote the article, I used "×109" throughout the article to be clear. This later struck me as overly awkward. Other possibilites are "Ga" (giga-annum, often seen in geologic literature) and "Mya" (million years ago, with something like '4550 Mya' to avoid the 'billion' problem). While these are unambiguous, I don't feel any of them are well-established in popular scientific literature to use in this article. After some discussion (see Talk:History of Earth/Archive 1#"Billion" revisited), I decided to switch to just using "billion" for simplicity, writing out the number at its first instance to avoid ambiguity. Hope that makes sense. — Knowledge Seeker 19:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about reverting my edit I'm sure your edits are correct. If you don't mind I'd like if you could help resolve an edit war over some wording over at Anno Domini between myself at user:JimWae, if you're still online, thanks. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 19:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...I don't think I can help you out with that. I can see the merits of both wording styles, but I'm really not active enough on the article to be able to suggest one over the either. To be honest, the mathematician (and astronomer) in me would just prefer something like astronomical year numbering, avoiding clunky abbreviations and the lack of a year zero. But in this case, I think you would be best to seek out the opinion of others on the article's talk page. — Knowledge Seeker 01:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

stop vandalizing my talk page[edit]

[31]Please make yourself very clear. Have you come to understand that adding paragraph numbers is not "altering others' comments"? I want to be certain, before I restore the paragraph numbers to your comments on my talk page, that you will not be blocking me again. I think I understand you, but I want to be certain. pat8722

No, I still believe that that behavior is inappropriate; however, if you wish to do it to my comments, I do not intend to block you for it. — Knowledge Seeker 01:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's make this clear, did you, or did you not, have a justifiable reason for blocking me for adding numbers to your paragraphs? And if you believe you did, then why are you now saying you won't do it again, if I do the exact same thing? You are making absolutely no sense at all.pat8722 23:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, comment alteration is a justifiable reason for blocking. However, I later changed my mind and decided that if you really wanted the numbers, then it was acceptable to me. You were blocked for approximately one hour. What do you hope to gain from this prolonged conversation? I can restore the block, if consistency is that preferable to you. — Knowledge Seeker 01:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[08]Altering comments is a crime. But I did not alter comments, all I did was insert paragarph numbers, which is merely formatting, and which any professional editor will tell you is not "altering comments". What did you mean following "reference point"[03] above, where you state "Indeed, perhaps I do." It makes it sound like you agreed you were wrong.pat8722 01:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[09]Do you also consider the addition of "indents" to be "altering other's comments". If you are going to classify mere format changes as "altering others comments" you will have to be RFC'd and reported on the admin incident board when I have the time for it, as you definitely need to be stopped.pat8722 01:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to your statement "You really need some help in basic logic", by which I meant that I could see your side of the argument and was willing to grant you latitude in restructuring your talk page; I wished to be polite and not argue with you over something so trivial. No, adjusting indents for clarity is expressly allowed and encouraged. I don't see that there is anything to be gained from further discussion. Your continued argument despite my agreement to follow your suggested course suggests you are more interested in trying to stir up trouble than to improve Wikipedia. I have already agreed with you that you may number the comments as you see fit. You may certainly file a request for comment or a notice on the administrators' noticeboard if you feel that would be beneficial. If you are busy, would you like me to do it for you? — Knowledge Seeker 02:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[10]If you "agree that I may number the comments as I see fit", then you are agreeing YOU SHOULDN"T HAVE BLOCKED ME. You owe me an apology. You are being logically inconsistent, and that is indicative of a very serious problem. pat8722 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. — Knowledge Seeker 02:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter[edit]

Moe is here to say Happy Easter! -- Moe ε 18:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Mε! Happy Easter to you too! — Knowledge Seeker 01:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Petros471[edit]

For a more general RfA thanks to all voters see User:Petros471/RFA Thanks.

Hey Knowledge Seeker, thanks for your support, both on the actual RfA and during the admin coaching. I'm even following your advice here and not spamming everyone's talk page with a fancy box (not that I would have done that anyway, it would have been boring plain text) and instead just giving a few personal ones. Thanks again, Petros471 20:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I knew you would make it. Welcome! I’m glad to have you join the ranks. We definitely need more courteous and polite administrators (and editors!). It’s too easy to get worked up around here. And thank you for your message and not using one of those ridiculous boxes hehe. It was probably fine for the first one or few people who used it, but now they're just out of hand, especially the people who put their tally in there too. Anyway, enjoy your new responsibilities and of course please ask me if you have any questions! — Knowledge Seeker 05:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching[edit]

Hey, how are you? I saw that your admin coaching with Petros471 has been successful (congrats!). I was curious whether you had time/energy to take on another coachee (don't worry if you don't, I understand completely). Thanks for your time, and you can leave a message either with me or TitoXD. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the inquiry, Eric. I did enjoy working with Petros and am glad to see him an administrator. I am considering continuing in the program, but I do feel that that perhaps its direction should be clarified. The introduction at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs/Admin coaching suggests that the purpose of the program is to have an experienced editor one can go to with questions, such as how to get something accomplished. What Titoxd told me was more along the lines of evaluating the requester for suitability for adminship. It seems the latter is the general trend. I can peruse the user's talk page and archives, and glance through the recent contributions, but unfortunately, I don't have time to do a detailed analysis of one's RFA chances; I could easily miss something, and I don't know that I can really predict whehter an RFA will pass or fail. I mean, I would feel bad if I didn't see anything wrong with a contributor and the user's RFA later failed. So I guess I'm just not sure how useful I am for this project. — Knowledge Seeker 05:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. While evaluating a user's chance at passing an RfA might be a small part of the program (e.g.- see the first step of my proposed outline at my admin coaching page), the much greater part of the program is helping users with questions they might have about policy, procedure, etc. and giving them the tools to potentially be a successful admin (or even just a more successful editor) in the future. So, this program is much less a crystal ball and much more of a training and assistance program. Let me know if you have any further questions or comments. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
There's been a bit of discussion about this at Esperanza's talk page, and I've said that it is literally a matter of coaching style; I personally use the questions/lecture method more, but there are other coaches that prefer to comb through a user's contributions. So, feel free to do it the way you feel the most comfortable. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments; they were very helpful. Yes, I would like to participate again. — Knowledge Seeker 01:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

HD's question[edit]

Long time no see. I have a question for you, how do I block a user. Becauese User:Worldtraveller, he is vandalising HD 217107 with the following:

  • He is removing information from the artical and puting unneeded sectons into it's own arital.
  • He is constently redoing my corections on that artical.
  • And is being another "Acid" with other articals.

What is your answer? — HurricaneDevon @ 23:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It’s nice to talk to you again, Devon. To answer your question, you do not have the ability to block a user—only administrators have that capability. You can report vandalism on something like Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but that would be inappropriate here. I do not believe Worldtraveller has done anything to merit blocking, nor can his edits be considered vandalism, under either the Wikipedia definition or the English definition. In particular, good-faith actions should not be interpreted as vandalism. I understand that you and he disagree on how the article shoud be structured (a content dispute), but accusing him of vandalism is needlessly inflammatory. My quick review of your communication does appear to show that Worldtraveller attempted to discuss this matter with you beforehand. In addition, I'm afraid I think you were a bit rude to him here. I know it’s frustrating when other editors don’t agree with how we think an article should be written, but it’d be better if you could discuss your differences first, without getting angry, and without edit-warring. If you really can’t solve your dispute, there are other methods of dispute resolution, including inviting other editors to review the situation (to help decide which is better, not to issue blocks). I see that you’ve been blocked for violating the three-revert rule, and it certainly appears you did despite being warned. Take advantage of the block to spend some time away from Wikipedia, to gain a fresh perspective. Perhaps you can work on other articles when you return, or engage in constructive discussion on how to improve the articles in question. Does this help? — Knowledge Seeker 05:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Creationism[edit]

Hey Knowledge Seeker,

I was looking over Scorpionman's comments and I think it's disgraceful. If you ask me, he's a troll and a vandal (he did some vandalizing) I was wondering if he should be blocked permenantly. MrMonkey 16:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Learn from his behavior. Do not make baseless assumptions. Bring up hard evidence! ;-) Illythr 17:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, MrMonkey! Yes, I agree that his behavior has been quite disappointing, especially his more recent ones. But I am still confident that he can continue as a productive editor. I'm not ready to brand him a troll, although of course his recent behavior crossed the line into trolling. But I don't recall him ever vandalizising articles, though he has certainly made edits with which I disagree. Of course, I could easily have missed them, but resorting to vandalism doesn't seem like something Scorpionman would do. If it's something recent, then as Illythr mentions I certainly would appreciate a link; if not, I think we can let it go. I think it is actually useful to have different viewpoints around. Unfortunately, Scorpionman's comments so far have been largely unhelpful, mainly criticizing various scientific theories using a web site whose purpose is to "[uphold] the authority of the Bible" and which states "The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs." He may be correct and all appearances to the contrary, today's life forms may have been created separately ex nihilio, but such speculation hardly belongs in a science article as if it were somehow approaching the matter from a scientific perspective or as if there problems with science beyond its perceived conflict with some religious ideas. Perhaps he will understand this with time, perhaps not; my purpose is not to change his religious beliefs but to show that arguing them on article talk pages is not appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker 03:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Order of Sysiphus

I, too, followed your discussion with him on his talk page, and I would like to express my deep appreciation and respect for your incredible patience in your admirable, if futile, attempt to reason with him there by awarding you this Order of Sisyphus --Illythr 17:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You know what I'd like to award you? A punch to the jaw! 4.159.113.218 19:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
A most disagreeable proposition, as you'd have to get in the way of mine first. —Encephalon 19:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ha! I'll knock you flat! 4.158.60.117 02:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
What is this, a boxing match? Scorpionman 02:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Illythr, for your kind words. I shall preserve them on my user page. I believe that we can accomplish most through courtesy, logic, and reason. Of course, I have no desire to change anyone's religious beliefs—reading a religious text is certainly a possible way of learning about the world—although science has been far more successful than any religion in explaining the mechanics of how the world works. Anonymous user, I am uncertain if your comment refers to me, although I assume it is facetious. If you do have a complaint about my behavior, I'd appreciate hearing it. Encephalon, I appreciate your support, and I am glad that we share similar ideas about the imporance of civil discourse and the inappopriateness of intimidation. — Knowledge Seeker 04:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I really do not think that "boxing matches" should be upheld on Wikipedia. Anyway, MrMonkey, who do you think you are trying to get me banned anyway? I'm sure you've done some trolling and vandalizing yourself! 4.159.5.27 01:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't even referring to you, user 4.159. Why do you say that I'm trying to get you banned? MrMonkey 01:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're trying to ban everyone, and if you say you're trying to ban one user that means you're trying to ban me too! And besides, I've said that I'm Cyde Weys before, so I can say that I'm Scorpion Idiot too! 4.159.5.98 01:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous user, there is no basis for the assertion that MrMonkey is trying to get "everyone" banned. In addition, please treat other editors with respect and civility. Characterizing Scorpionman in that manner is highly inappropriate and I must ask you not to do that again. Personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker 05:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why user 4.159 is acting this way, but I don't think that Mr.Monkey has a reason for wanting me banned permenantly. You don't have a basis for this, Monkey. Scorpionman 15:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
How dare you! I absolutely do have basis! You vandalize every page you come across! You troll! You are a sneaky, conniving bastard and I want you blocked forever! Damnit! I hate your guts! Get off of Wikipedia! I wish I could just punch your stupid head into pulp! MrMonkey 15:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Good grief, you must be a psycho. Bug Eyed Monster 15:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, you must be a poop-head. MrMonkey 23:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yogurt-brain! Bug Eyed Monster 02:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You look like a gorilla, and you smell like one too. 4.159.5.224 02:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't pretend to understand precisely what is going on here, but it must stop. Please do not insult each other. MrMonkey, while I appreciate your support above, your comment to Scorpionman is definitely not appropriate. Scorpionman does not vandalize according to Wikipedia's definition, and calling him those names certainly qualifies as a personal attack. Threats of physical violence are not tolerable. I don't know if you were just joking, but I consider these comments worse than the ones Scorpionman was making. All of you, please treat each other with civility and respect. Or just avoid each other; it is not necessary for you to visit here to trade insults. This behavior must stop. — Knowledge Seeker 04:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, this is ridiculous. Stop this childish bickering. If you want to fight, don't do it on here. Scorpionman 20:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

History of Earth (Vietnamese)[edit]

Since most of the articles in the Vietnamese Wikipedia are translated from the English version, it's usually implied that it's from the English version. However, since you insist, I've added the line regarding the source of the article. Thanks. DHN 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, DHN. I take copyright seriously, both when (the English) Wikipedia uses content from elsewhere or others use content from here. While I understand that freuquent visitors to the Vietnamese Wikipedia might assume the articles came from the English version, it is clearly a violation of the GFDL to not explicitly state the source of reused material. But I thank you for your assistance; I appreciate you helping us out in this matter. — Knowledge Seeker 04:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA[edit]

[This conversation refers to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master of Puppets. — Knowledge Seeker 05:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)]

Fine, we continue on your talk page then. If others can insert evidence of some of my failures, I see no reason why I can't insert some evidence of my accomplishments. Again, I reinforce that I am not asking anybody to change their vote; I am just leaving it out there so that people know the full story. _-M o P-_ 05:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, you certainly can comment on others' votes; it's just that it's usually considered poor form at best and harrassment at worst. There are many things an editor can do on Wikipedia which would disqualify him for adminiship, in my opinion. Now, your comments have been polite, for the most part, and I don't think you were being rude or harrassing. However, you should realize that many people, I included, may accept one or two comments clearing up a point, but feel that candidates should not "debate" or "rebut" all the opposition points. In particular, if the candidate has already addressed the point with another user, he should not repeat this each time someone votes with similar reasoning. A suitable alternative would be placing remarks in the "comments" section, explaining and clarifying, rather than making it personal by attaching it to individual's comments. — Knowledge Seeker 05:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I suppose that I'd just like to clear up some things. I did follow your advice, however, and am now talking about it on people's talk pages, not the RFA itself. Thanks again. _-M o P-_ 21:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Requests for adminship are high-stress situations, and I've seen more than user leave Wikipedia as a result. Your current approach appears reasonable to me. You might also keep an eye on RFA for awhile to see how other users handle the situation; that'll probably give you better guidance than anything I can say. Good luck for next time! — Knowledge Seeker 04:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason to leave Wikipedia if I fail the RFA. Firstly, opposition is not voting against me because they hate me; they're voting because they feel I need more experience. This outlook helps me avoid the stress that unfortunately plagues all too many users (thank God for Esperanza's Stress Watch :P). And I am going around helping with RFAs and such, and reading how people cope, along with improving my # of edits. Hopefully next time things turn out differently. Cheers, and thanks for taking the time to chat, _-M o P-_ 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree; I did not mean to imply that I was worried about you personally. You seem to have quite a healthy attitude. One final note: I don't know if I'm misunderstanding, but at the top of your talk page you have a notice "Guidelines (PLEASE READ)" but there aren't any guidelines mentioned. (Is this your way of saying you have no rules governing your talk page?) Below it there is just a box that asking users to click for archived discussions, but when I click it nothing happens. Just thought you might want to know. Thanks. — Knowledge Seeker 06:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC in Ophthalmology[edit]

Would you mind taking a look at my note regarding Patricia Bath under the "Famous Ophthalmologists" section in Talk:Ophthalmology? Thanks! -AED 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have, and I agree. — Knowledge Seeker 04:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is Moe[edit]

Hello Knowledge Seeker, just thought I would let you know that I was leaving Wikipedia, but before I left, I finally got a picture of thyself onto Wikipedia. (I know great timing for me to post a picture of myself, right?) This is my final gift to my friends. Later! PS. Try not to laugh to hard at my ugly mug ok? Moe ε 15:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I know you didn't like the fact that I sent out "I'm leaving" messages and me coming back anyways, before, but I am hoping this is proof to everyone that I am leaving as I promised myself at the beginning of my wiki-career that I would never post a picture of myself on Wikipedia unless I'm leaving for good. I'll keep in touch.. Moe ε 15:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the repeated "I'm leaving" notices, the floods of "No, we like you, don't leave" pleas, and then the "All right, I can't stay away" admissions are a bit silly, though I'm sure it would make one feel good to be wanted. Hmm...maybe I should try quitting Wikipedia to see if anyone will ask me to stay. But back on topic, I don't think that your relationship with Wikipedia is very healthy at this point. Certainly on-site you engage in actions that later harm your future activities, as you well know, but you seem to lack the ability to see them at the time. Hopefully you can concentrate now on tackling your real-world priorities, and perhaps after some time, when other areas of your life are in order, you can return. Or perhaps not, if you decide that's best. I will certainly miss your contributions and will hope to see you back one day, but I do agree with you that for now it's probably best for you to stay away from Wikipedia (except as a reader, perhaps). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. — Knowledge Seeker 06:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Copyright violations[edit]

Devon, I am disappointed to see your behavior here. Do not copy material from other web sites. It is illegal and unethical to copy someone else's work in this manner. Doing so creates more work for other contributors to clean up after you, and puts Wikipedia in precarious legal position. It is not vandalism to remove copyright violations. Please don't accuse people of vandalism without justification. You have been doing so well since last year, but I will be forced to block you again if you persist in this manner. I would like to help clear matters up for you. Do you understand the copyright problems? I'd be happy to explain them to you. — Knowledge Seeker 01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, yes, I can use your help. — HurricaneDevon @ 10:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your being willing to discuss this. The first thing to realize is that the other editors are not your enemies. We all have the same goal—we want Wikipedia to be as good an encyclopedia as possible. Even if you don't agree with their approach, Chaos Syndrome and Worldtraveller want the same thing you do. They are not vandals; they are not deliberately trying to degrade Wikipedia, and to brand them as such is insulting at best. I sometimes come across editors with whom I don't agree, and sometimes a lot of editors don't agree with me. But we are all trying to make Wikipedia better. Do you understand this? I would like you to understand and acknowledge that Chaos Syndrome and Worldtraveller are trying to work with you, not against you. — Knowledge Seeker 07:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Reversions on Spring holiday[edit]

I was disappointed to see this. And now that I leave this message on your talk page, I see you've been blocked a couple times in the last couple days. Please don't edit war. I consider you a valuable contributor, and that's why I kept your blocks finite, but if you keep this up you may find that other administrators are not as generous. Perhaps now would be a good time for a brief wikibreak. — Knowledge Seeker 07:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Knowledge_Seeker. I saw your message at my talk page and understand your fears that I am breaking out into edit wars and such, but I'll have you know I have made several productive edits in the past few days, if you could view my contribs. Also, I'd like you to take a look here, whereas User:Thumbelina continues to add information that is not cited, nor of value. She also removed my formatted citation of information that she added, and simply re-added uncited information and "cited it" at the bottom of the page in "External links", not with in-text citations as is customary. She also re-wrote information without including this in her edit summary. Because of my emotional involvement, I am being picked on for being the bully of this article, but I really believe that Thumbelina is conducting vandalism, and thus my reverts (and my recent block) are invalid. If you could please view the situation as I know you would know who is really at fault. And as for the James Bond picture I apologize, I'll admit I was feeling a little "excited" the evening I re-posted that picture, but as you know that's the only one I re-added. We all make mistakes (except you of course, haha). I'd appreciate your help, thanks. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 18:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
CIS, I know that you're a productive editor. Unfortunately, my work at the hospital is keeping me a bit busier than usual and I lack the time to perform a detailed look at those conflicts right now. My main concern is to prevent you from self-destructing or doing things you'll later regret. I trust that you'll use your judgment in editing and not let your emotions dominate. I doubt that Thumbelina's edits, whether ill-advised or not, would qualify as "simple vandalism" (from WP:3RR) or even vandalism ("any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia"). In all other cases, 3RR applies, regardless of how wrong you feel the other person is. I certainly do make mistakes, though I strive to be as careful as possible, and not to do or say anything I'd later regret. And of course I take responsibility for my errors and try to rectify them when others point them out. (I hope I am open-minded to recognize my errors when I see them or they are pointed out.) Keep up your editing but try not to get too attached to articles or your view of them. — Knowledge Seeker 05:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith... disturbing. [edit]

Indulge. :)

Dear Knowledge Seeker/Archive9,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
{{PAGENAME}}, what exactly do you find disturbing? — Knowledge Seeker 05:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. I was hoping this wouldn't happen, but not enough people have watched Star Wars enuogh to memorize all of Darth Vader's lines. Not that you're at fault for this, but it was just a light-hearted joke, I'm not really disturbed. MoppEr Speak! 13:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm in here reading all of these comments, but if it makes you feel better. I got the darth vader reference. "Now I am the Master."--130.191.17.38 23:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yay! At least someone got it... :P Mopper Speak! 01:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, now it is familiar. I didn't recognize it out of context. I was certain there was some simple explanation, which is why I tried to ask about it neutrally. 130, you are here reading these comments because I am a fascinating person and everyone likes to hang around me. If you are lucky, maybe I will reveal something profound. — Knowledge Seeker 05:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please contact me[edit]

Knowledge Seeker,

Please send me an email. Wanted to see if you would be willing to talk on a panel at Wikimania at Harvard Law School this summer. Would also like to talk with you about other potential panelists.

http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Carl

http://lcs.mgh.harvard.edu/people/current_fellows.html [removed e-mail address to prevent spam] 132.183.234.114 (talk · contribs)

Thank you for the invitation. I replied via e-mail. — Knowledge Seeker 04:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Don't leave![edit]

WAIT don't leave yet. I am working with Hurricane Devon; I am confident that I will be able to make some progress with him. This type of thing happened once before but with some discussion and some blocking I was able to redirect his energies into more productive venues. Please reconsider your decision to leave, or make it a temporary break. I will work with Devon to help him find a way to contribute without harrassing other users or ignoring Wikipedia guidelines and consensus. — Knowledge Seeker 04:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but I would have had to take some time off anyway for other reasons, so there's no chance of me coming back for at least the next month. After that, I don't know. Getting death threats (no matter how intended) tends to change your opinions on whether you want to be part of something. Good luck getting Devon to change his attitude, but I'm just wondering: how many second chances does he get? Chaos syndrome 13:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Devon just thinks about things differently than most other people do. Wikipedia is not therapy, but I was able to get through to him once before and feel I can again; I was remiss in not keeping a closer eye on him. I suppose this is his third chance now, but my personal Wikipedia philosophy is to be inclusive, to try to redirect users rather than drive them off or block them. Every vandal is a potential contributor. Of course, I don't wish to lose quality editors like you, either. I will do my best to de-escalate the situation. Please return when your other obligations are complete. — Knowledge Seeker 05:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding to Hurricane Devons page, should this be dicussed in the wikipedia welcome page? becuause at first both of you are talking about image violations and what not and then you guys stray off talking about personal attacks and other stuff not relating to the situation (which does not solve the orginal situation IMO) and in your recent post you told Devon that you have blocked his edits for now even though there is no good reason to do so. Storm05 18:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Where precisely do you think it shoud be discussed? I can't understand why you think this matter should be discussed there. Since I would like to speak with Hurricane Devon regarding his uploading of copyrighted work and his lack of civility towards other editors, the logical place is his talk page. I don't think it would be appropriate to discuss his misbehavior on another page, and I don't think it would be an effective form of communication with him. I don't believe I ever mentioned personal attacks. I'm not sure what the situation is or what you feel relates to it, but as far as I'm concerned, disrespect towards other users is a problem and is a situtation with which I am concerned. Without respect, communication is difficult, and without adequate communication, it is difficult to address other problems. There are plenty of good reasons for Devon to be blocked indefinitely: 1) repeated copyright violations despite being warned, 2) harrassment of other users, and 3) death threats towards other editors. Each of these in isolation could merit an indefinite block. In particular, someone could block him for [2] alone. Yet my block is intended to be preventitive, not punitive. I think Devon makes some good edits and hopefully he still considers me a friend. Were I to refrain from getting involved, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hurricane Devon would certainly result in a permanent block, though the proceedings might drag out for a bit and would probably cause Devon more stress before the block. By blocking him now, I hope to accomplish several things. One, I need to prevent him from doing even more damage to his case, until I get a chance to work with him. Two, he needs to see that this is a serious matter; I may need to provide some inducement for him to address/improve these issues. And three, I wish to head off his inevitable block. By blocking him now, I can work with him and hopefully remove the block when these issues have been addressed. It is unlikely others would be as open to rehabilitation or removing their blocks, and in fact there are probably some users who are not happy I am trying to keep Devon editing here. But I like him and want to help redirect his efforts to more productive avenues. I hope I don't sound too arrogant or paternalistic, but Devon cannot continue editing as he has been and I wish to do what I can to salvage the situation. I invite your feedback. — Knowledge Seeker 06:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Why are you following me around, deleting every image I upload? Scorpionman 17:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Scorpionman. I'm not sure I understand your question. I think it would help me if you were more precise; I certainly haven't deleted all the images you've uploaded. It looks to me like you have uploaded around 30 or so images, of which I've deleted three. All three were deleted a month ago, for reasons I explained on your talk page at the time. Did you not understand the explanations, or is there something else that's bothering you? I'll do my best to alleviate your concerns. — Knowledge Seeker 05:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

CSD U2[edit]

It "was" a criteria for deleting old IP talk pages w/ only warnings on it, Tawkerbot2 was checking a while ago but the pratice was stopped because of a lack of consensus to do it -- Tawker 06:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes; take a look at WP:CSD from March. ~ PseudoSudo 06:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. By the way, if I may be allowed to be a bit of a pedant: criterion is singular; criteria is plural (analogous to "phenomenon"/"phenomena"). Just thought you'd like to know if making any more official-looking Tawkerbot notices or such. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker 06:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Bangla wikipedia[edit]

Care to peek into that? http://bn.wikipedia.org . Thanks. --Ragib 02:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks great so far! I wish I could help out, but my level of Bangla proficiency is not sufficient to write encyclopedia articles. I'll enjoy reading some of them, though! — Knowledge Seeker 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I was perplexed by the দ in your signature ... thought you were a Bengali :). Anyway, thanks and check out the bn wiki from time to time --Ragib 22:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
আমি সহজ বাংলা লিখতে পারি, কিন্তু এন্সাইক্লোপিদিআর জন্য আমি লিখতে পারবোনা। — Knowledge Seeker 04:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

m:Right to vanish[edit]

I states under Right to vanish in Meta-wiki that I can have my talk page deleted. Did something recently change so this isn't true? Moe ε 23:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

m:Right to vanish asserts that you can have your talk subpages deleted, not your talk page itself. Nor does it assert the right to have them deleted. Furthermore, I don't believe it is official policy. — Knowledge Seeker 01:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you place Image:Moe Contribs.jpg on my talk page? Moe ε 02:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. — Knowledge Seeker 02:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Moe ε 03:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'll look forward to seeing you next month. — Knowledge Seeker 17:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Request to delete a Talk page[edit]

Hi, doctor. Could you delete Talk:Chiropractic/Definitions for me? I was attempting to set up a reference page for our work in Chiropractic, but decided that it probably wouldn't work. Thanks! -AED 06:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Grazie! -AED 20:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops; I meant to leave a message after I deleted it. You're welcome! — Knowledge Seeker 08:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

oops[edit]

Sorry about that... that was manual, momentary lapse. -- Curps 20:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No it's fine! I think you're cool. — Knowledge Seeker 20:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Disappointed[edit]

I just came across Nathan's RfC, and was suprised to see you certified that Cyde and Kelly Martin were bullying and attacking Nathan. But after perusing Tony Sidaway's talk page, I am quite surprised and disappointed to see your behavior there. This comment is especially inappropriate, and reflects very poorly on you. Not only do I find your logic bizarre, it is incomprehensible that you are attacking Tony for posting a potentially controversial block on AN. That's what we're supposed to do. Attempting to inflame the situation by implying that his goal here was to power-trip and that his sole purpose is to disrupt Wikipedia crosses into incivility. It is a credit to Tony that he remained calm and did not return your insults. — Knowledge Seeker 07:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry to hear that your disappoited with my actions. I have tried to maintain an impeccable record on Wikipedia, but have now damaged that. In regards to your comment (for which I gladly welcome, as my userpage tells visitors to be blunt and critical when posting on my talk page), I hope you did not think my use of the term upity-up was attacking. Upon reflection, I can see that some might see it as disrespect, but it was not meant as that at all. My only intention was to talk about those people that encompass the upper echelon of Wikipedia society. My comment that Tony power-tripped was in response to his answers about expecting scriutiny about his block, as well as other comments made in the 'your block' heading of his talk page. As no other word for my belief of his actions (other than maybe 'abusing admin powers') came to mind, I used power-trip to state what I meant. As for endorsing Nathan's statement in his RFC, I belive that Admin orders, when not coming from the ArbCom, or not ordering actual policy, are in fact bullying. I was not attacking Tony for using the AN (I don't think I was attacking him at all). There was no inflaming the situation either, as Admins need to me held accountable for their actions...refusing to do so is, in fact, power-tripping. Administrators need to be held to the highest standard, as they are in charge of tools that include blocking users, locking pages, and permanantly deleted Wikipedia content. I stick to my comments and my endorsement, and am sorry to hear of you dismay at them. Please comment again on my talk page if I have missed something, or if you have any other questions. Regards, Chuck(척뉴넘) 08:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Not only did you use inflammatory language, you used it in a provocative way: "Tell me how 3 flags in a sig (that are 20px each) is disrupting to anyone, except admin's who want to power-trip (that's right, I said it again), because that's all you are doing." If the behavior is inappropriate, you should be able to criticize that without speculating on the bad faith of the user's motives. Furthermore, your perception that all directives must be written in policy is not accurate. While Wikipedia has many policies, it does not contain a well-defined, complete, legal code. Rather, it depends on the view of the community. Situations arise all the time that are not explicitly written into policy, and it would be a waste of the community's time to debate each potential case. Administrators are explicitly entrusted to use their judgment. The inflaming I described was not that you criticized an administrator—I criticize users, administrators or not, when I feel they have acted in error. It is your use of terms like "power-tripping" to ascribe ill motives. Nor is Cyde's statement ("Please remove the images in your sig") either an order or bullying, anymore than your statement "Please comment again on my talk page..." is an order. It is a request. Cyde requested Nathan to remove the images, pointing out that it was beyond what was expected. Nathan responded by saying the only way he would do it were if it were made policy and the software were rewritten to disable them. This reply was at both inappropriate and shows a lack of community respect as Nathan is effectively saying "Even if it's policy I won't comply; only if you force me will I comply." — Knowledge Seeker 09:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, and after thinking about it for a while, I have decided to withdrawl my endorsements from the RFC (I hope that that is allowed, and I am not violating policy. After your comment about the RFC looking bad for Nathan, I decided that it is looking bad for me, and my chances of ever becoming an admin, hence the withdrawl. For the record, I still support Nathan's complaint against Tony, but have recognized my own errors for which someone could make a complaint against me (eg, the edit you mention above). I hope you will not forever consider me an attacking user, and look forward to seeing you around Wikipedia. Regards, Chuck(척뉴넘) 09:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You are certainly allowed to withdraw from RFC, although traditionally votes are struck out rather than removed. The RFC doesn't reflect on you the way it calls attention to Nathan's behavior; you can certainly still participate if you like. The endorsement of Nathan's quite dubious statement was what I thought made your judgment look bad; if you still disagree with Tony's actions, you are welcome to write an outside opinion, add an endorsement to one of them already existing, or modify your previous endorsement to clarify which parts of the endorsement you agree or disagree with. It's important to be critical, when it's constructive. My lone opinion is rather unimportant, but if the comments you made were part of an isolated incident, and you normally don't interact with other users in this manner, you have little to worry about. — Knowledge Seeker 05:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Human evolution[edit]

I enjoyed discussing human evolution with you on the reference desk. Following up on your question, variations in reproductive fitness can be quite subtle. If I recall correctly, Dawkins discusses a case of (finches?) where the key difference in beak length was on the order of a millimeter. It's not that the ones with the shorter beak length would die before being able to reproduce, it's just that their ability to reproduce was hampered ever-so-little (or conversely, the longer-beaks' were helped just a bit). It will work similarly with humans. For instance, assume a hypothetical gene controlling some aspect of lung function, perhaps the structure of a surfactant or a structural molecule. Suppose there arises a mutation that modifies the structure by a tiny bit, so that it works just a little bit better (perhaps in today's polluted air). The organism now has a tiny bit more energy, which may be devoted to seeking a mate (or studying or advancing a career, and attracting a mate), or in caring for offspring. Perhaps it will allow time to have more offspring. Or perhaps the extra energy can by used to give the fetus a tiny bit more chance of survival to term, or increase its fitness in some other way. Now for this individual organism, the difference will be so small as to be neglible. But if you take one thousand organisms with the mutation versus one thousand without, perhaps the former group will have one additional offspring, or will end up with one more descendant in some way. That's how evolution works. Tiny, tiny, steps, billions of them, over billions of years.

Am I making things more or less confusing? — Knowledge Seeker 08:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In reference to your points, I now understand the point you were making, but this just brings me back to my original point, although there likely to be mutations in Humans, which will be beneficial or inhibitory, but I fail to see how the benficial genes will have any increased liklehood of reproduction over the other genes, because I don't think there is any natural selection, or procedure which serves the same purpose, in Human enviroments anymore. For example, the example you gave of the birds, the birds with shorter beaks had a disadvantage (presumably the could reach more food) which led to an increased chance of survival, which over time meant that the survival rate of the birds with shorter beaks was ever so slightly lower, and that they slowly were replaced by the longer beaked birds as the most abundant type. However in humans, as evolution has to take tiny steps, if a humans lungs mutated in such a way that say, it inhibited the entrance of carbon monoxide into the lungs, so they had a decreased chance of suffering from low oxygen capacity blood. This would be a huge advantage for Humans as far as I can see however, I cant see how it would give them any increased chance of survival, as the only things that end a human life are old age, accidents and disease (except in less likely cases), and increased oxygen capacity of the blood gives no advantage to the human in any of these cases and even if it did become a problem to people without the gene, modern medicine would keep them just fine. So while he maybe could run a little longer in later life, he had the same chance of survivng the tasks life throws at you as anyone else, and the same chance of getting a partner, and producing offspring. So while I do a gree mutated genes will occur, and that the ones that don't severley disable people will most likely survive and be passed on, I do not believe there is any way in which they can replace the older genes, which was previously done by natural selection, but as far as I can see, now is not done to humans at all. And natural selection is essential to evolution. Philc TECI 18:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Phil, I understand your confusion, but death is not that significant, as you yourself note. Having the least fit die is the extreme of evolution and is much easier to explain to schoolchildren, but in reality much of evolution takes place at a much more subtle level—ultimately, what matters is reproductive fitness, whether from remaining alive when others die or from other matters. Let me try redoing the example. Let us suppose that there is a mutation in airway mucus such that the bearer is more resistant to microorganisms invading the respiratory tract. Forget about the life-threatening pneumonias—in fact, let's assume that all humans in our scenario will live until age 100, when they promptly die. Will evolution still occur? Absolutely! Humans with the resistance gene have a benefit—they won't have to expend energy (I use "energy" to somwewhat loosely refer to cellular resources), fighting as many invaders, the bacteria and viruses which invade your respiratory tract daily and are promptly quashed by the immunes system. They won't have to expend as much energy or raw materials repairing cellular damage from repeated infection. Of course, there will be an energy cost of producing the extra mucus. Let as assume that even at the cost of producing the mucus, they still possess an energy benefit. This energy can be used in many ways. Perhaps it will enable the organism to be slightly more fertile. Perhaps it will be able to slightly better supply its offspring with nutrients. Perhaps the organism will have an additional day to reproduce instead of spending it sick in bed. Of course, this tiny difference is unlikely to make a difference in this one organism, but averaged over time and population, it will. No one needs to die. — Knowledge Seeker 05:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, I realise that the human with the mucus mutation has an advantage over other organisms, however most humans attract a partner and have 2-3 children regardless of how long they live, how fertile they are, how much time they spend in bed, or however they supply their offspring. As even if the parent is poor in these areas, it is likely that they will manage to work around it. I don't see how evolution can occur without one genetype replacing another through some means, previously natural selection, now, as far as I know, there is no way. I cannot see how evolution can occur in a society where instead of the fittest survivng, controlling a pack of females and having copius amounts of offspring as in the past, but nowadays, all except the most incapacitated (say mabye bottom 1-2%) are incapable of parenting offspring due to their genes, so almost every gene beneificary or not is passed on, so how can one gene type overtake another as the most abundant in the species if they pretty much all have an equal chance of producing offspring who are in turn capable of surviving to have there own children. Philc TECI 21:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
No Reply? Philc TECI 19:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm taking a partial wikibreak due to professional obligations. I’ll be editing lightly for a while. Please excuse any delay in response. — Knowledge Seeker 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for the delayed response. I have been quite busy in the last couple weeks; these discussions, while enjoyable, are lower on my list of priorities. Before going further, it would help me to understand your position better. Are you discussing from the perspective that whenever you read about current human evolution, you don't understand how it could be occurring and wish to understand the mechanisms better? Or is your viewpoint that you actually don't believe that humans continue to evolve? Or perhaps it is something else? — Knowledge Seeker 08:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

AOL/IP Autoblocks[edit]

I will attempt to clear the block; however, it appears to have triggered a massive amount of autoblocks. Please leave a message on my talk page if you discover my actions are successful, and I will stop clearing the autoblocks. — Knowledge Seeker 07:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you try it now? If you are still blocked, will you repost the autoblock message? — Knowledge Seeker 07:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts -- these mass autoblocks are hard to deal with. I'll try and edit again shortly. WBardwin 07:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Two edits down! Thanks for your efforts. I appreciate the attention. WBardwin 07:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome; I'm glad I could help. I really like the new approach you're taking to requesting assistance these days; it's much less confrontational than when you implied the administrator somehow had willfully/negligently blocked an AOL IP address. This must be so frustrating for you. Thanks for perservering. — Knowledge Seeker 07:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Mega Man weapons[edit]

Hi. I've taken note of your involvement regarding GA and FA articles as late. I was curious if I could inquire for an opinion. Should I execute a move to Mega Man weapons...? Its clearly more elaborate than a mere list, and its failed the Featured List requirements twice (I'd suggest seeing the talkpage links to its previous nominations). Please see me on my talkpage and the article's talkpage if you're interested. -ZeroTalk 14:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! What you've probably seen is me shamelessly promoting History of Earth. Actually I think it's a pretty good article now, but not quite ready for peer review—maybe in a couple weeks, if I have time. Anyway, sorry I couldn't respond to your message in time, but I agree with your move of the article. Good choice! — Knowledge Seeker 08:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh you're just being humble. I'm quite sure your judgement in this situation is for the best. Do you believe Mega Man weapons is ready for FA status..? -ZeroTalk 10:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm probably not the best person to ask. I've only helped a couple articles to featured status, and I played a relatively minor role in those. Furthermore, the ones I was involved with were all on more standard academic topics, so I'm not entirely sure what would make this sort of article complete. It looks pretty good, though again I'm not a good judge of video game articles. Have you considering asking for peer review? — Knowledge Seeker 23:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh its a paticularly saturated process as of late, and I feel while its useful, the time frame after summisson is too drawn out. The most vexing aspect is the fact of fellow reviewers making suggestions whilst neglecting to contribute to the article. I would certainly reconsider if you were to peer review it yourself, as the fact that you aren't knowledgeable on the subject would allow you to address issues from an outside point of view. -ZeroTalk 04:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Did you get my message?[edit]

Some time ago, I left you a message. You didn't respond, but you got several messages around the same time, I think, so I just wanted to be certain you received it and to know that you should not feel threatend or pressured by me, if indeed I was the one inspiring the comment. OK? — Knowledge Seeker 07:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you're right, I didn't notice your message. (I didn't notice Nathan's strange adding of '7' right afterwards either...how strange.) Don't worry, I didn't feel threatened, and I'm very glad you sent your comments. I was in over my head, and just got too into it during the heat of the moment. I had interacted with Nathan before, and I saw him in trouble and ran to defend. While the block was wrong, so was the RfC, and I now realize that, and I hope I saved my dignity in time. I am not normally that way when I talk to other users, but that isn't an excuse to get away with it once. This was my first time ever being involved with something formal on Wikipedia regarding a complaint. I didn't exactly understand the hierarchy of complaining, and thought that the RfC was neccessary. I see that that is not true now, and probably should have ended it after the conversation on Tony's talk page. When I added myself to the stressed users and said, "...and have to sit back now and watch as certain admins get away with abusing their power", it was not because I feared a block, but because of what I recognized after you alerted me that my judgement might come under question. I really do appreaciate you messages, and sorry I didn't notice the new ones. I hope to see you around in the future, Chuck(척뉴넘) 08:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. If you need advice or any help, just let me know. — Knowledge Seeker 00:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Renaming "History of the world" to "Human History"[edit]

Please discuss and vote at Talk:History_of_the_world#Name_ambiguity Thank you, __ Maysara 12:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation; I have commented. I now feel the current name is the most appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker 09:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sig[edit]

By the way, if I may offer an additional piece of unsolicited advice: if something like this were to happen in the future—a stressful situation with lots of attention on you—you might want to consider changing the text of your signature. Not to satisfy others, but for yourself. People may interpret the "Got something to say? Say it." as an invitation to leave a message; I certainly did. The invitation for users to leave message and the lack of enthusiasm for the messages may be a bit incongruous. Just a thought. — Knowledge Seeker 07:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sig changed per your advice (and thank you for that, it's appreciated). — Nathan (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome! — Knowledge Seeker 20:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)