User talk:Knowledge Seeker

Hi, and welcome. Please add a new section when starting a new topic, and please use ~~~~ to sign your comments.

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

Thanks, Doc!

[Regarding User talk:Knowledge Seeker/Archive7#More Roman Soldier]

I really appreciate the nice words on my talk page. Thought I should sign in and show my appreciation of your impeccable bedside manner! - Lucky 6.9 05:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think we both agree that words are more powerful and more productive than blocks. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Information: New Help Group

This message is to inform you about a new group whose aim is to try and answer Wikipedians' questions. The group is based here, and is so far nameless. If you can offer any help by improving the pages or by answering any questions, then you are very welcome to do so. You are also welcome to raise any questions.

If you know of anyone who would either like to know about this or could help us, then please tell them. Thank you. The Neokid 17:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Block for attack

I'll try and say this as nicely as possible: Assuming that it was simply the opposite of the "support" This appears to have been totally out of line a bit strong. Redacted

I'll agree that it was inflammitory, a bad idea, and almost certain to get someone to do something silly, but he does have a point: Admins are allowed to make templates saying they support of Kelly for ArbCom, but regular users get blocked for saying they will oppose?

I'd urge you to think over not just the block, but the edit to his user page and how that looks. It's hard to admit that you've made a mistake, but a short statement to him would go a long way.

brenneman^(t)(c) 02:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Brenneman thanks for your message. Don't have time right now to post a longer message or examine issues more closely but I didn't intend to edit his user page, and I'm sorry. Will leave longer message for you and him later. Thanks — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Also I posted on WP:AN/I when I blocked if you unblock him please note there thanks — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I could have been more clear. I meant Kelly's edit to his user page after he'd been blocked. And I can't unblock him, I'm not and admin just an over-sensitive stickybeak. And even if I were, I'd not consider this ouy-of-bounds enough to warrent over-riding another admin.

I just think that we should all be more careful in the current climate than we normally would be.

brenneman^(t)(c) 00:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to be nice; I think that's important. I recognize my block may have been controversial, but I think it is a bit over the top to characterize it as totally out of line. A user had been previously blocked for making an attack template. He agreed not to make any more templates referring to other editors, was unblocked, and promptly created another one. I hate to block people and you'll often find me arguing against others' blocks or spending large amounts of time attempting discussion with people to try to avoid their being blocked. Of course, recognizing the potentially controversial nature of the block, I promptly reported it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attack templates, as is standard procedure inviting review and feedback when making questionable judgment calls. The response was largely favorable. The reason I used a short block is that it did not appear that discussion was accomplishing anything; he immediately returned to creating a template.

If that's the point he's making, I don't agree that he has much of a point. It is naive to assume that praise and criticism can be treated equally. If a discussion is taking place and after I comment someone writes "I complete agree with Knowledge Seeker; as always, he shows himself to be a clear-thinking, intelligent editor," no one would be upset, if one were to write "That's stupid, Knowledge Seeker is a something something something [insert insult of choice; I'm not good at those]," it would probably be removed and the editor censured. Administrator status is irrelevant, with the exception that it is more difficult to take action against an administrator, although an administrator is quite unlikely to create an attack template in the first place. One may set one's standard for inclusion at different thresholds: perhaps both support and oppose templates (for anything) are acceptable; perhaps both are not, but there is certainly a wide middle ground where supports are acceptable but opposes are not. In this I make no judgment about the suitability of the support template nor of Ms. Martin's candidacy; however, the oppose template is clearly inappropriate.

I don't think it's that hard to admit a mistake, and I've certainly admitted them on Wikipedia before. But I still think the block was appropriate. I dislike blocking in general and try to use it as a last resort; perhaps in this case I jumped too quickly to blocking without first engaging in discussion. I realize that it might have been better to try to talk to him further instead of blocking first. All I had to go on, aside from my instincts, were that he had created an attack template, had been blocked, had agreed to stop creating templates about other Wikipedians, was unblocked, and then resumed. To me, that shows that discussion is not achieving its intended goal. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the admonishment and if this user continues to engage in inappropriate behavior, I will certainly attempt to see if we can come to an agreement over what is acceptable on Wikipedia and what is not.

I'm not certain why you're asking me to think over how the edit to his user page looks, since it took place after my comment and block and I'd had no additional interaction with the user since then. If you simply were looking for outside opinion, it would probably be better to ask someone not directly involved with this editor.

Thank you for the feedback. I am always eager to know if other users feel I am doing a good job or a bad job as an administrator and editor, and how I can improve. I look forward to additional feedback from you in the future. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I appeared to have stirred up another tempest in a tea-pot with this, haven't I? Thank you for taking to time to respond so eloquently. "Totally out of line" was unfortunate hyperbole on my part, for which I apologise.

My concern is that while each individual action was only slightly over the line, the cumulative effect was overwhelming. Doc's block was justified but a bit hasty, yours hinged on the interpretation of "attack", and Kelly's edit in isolation would have passed without a blink. Put them all together and it gives at least the appearance that the nail that sticks up gets pounded down.

But you are not responsible for what follows, and it was unfortunate of me to conflate your actions in that manner. Once again, I appreciate you taking the time, and the patience that you have demonsrated.
brenneman^(t)(c) 22:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's all right; I take no offense at your comment. You know, you're right: just because my actions are justifiable or logical doesn't mean that they were the best course possible. I agree that the timing of these events was unfortunate. Perhaps the situation can still be salvaged. I'll try to keep an eye on the situation and see if I can't contribute in a more constructive manner. Thanks for the advice. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

BC AD

I noticed you changed the formats for the years in Human. You may not realize this, but there has been considerable controversy in the past over whether to use BC/AD or BCE/CE, with impassioned arguments on both sides, leading at least once to a Request for arbitration. The current compromise treats the matter similar to American/British English spelling differences: use whichever is already established in the article or the article's author originally used. Hope this makes sense, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There are many English speaking people in the world who do not understand the concept of BCE. Though there is a link to Common era from the Human page, it seems to me to be an advertisement for secular promotions. You as well as I know that the common era system is relatively new (200 years old at best; popular only within recent decades) and it is identical to the anno Domini system beside the fact that it covers up why the year 1 is the year 1. I write this message on Sevenday, Firstmonth 8th, 2005 (days of the week and month are religious too, but since theyre not Christian, you'd never see that). 05:30, 8 Firstmonth, 2005. Darwiner111.

Also, I forgot to ask, where is the documented argument concerning the BC/BCE usage? I looked in the Talk archives and can't find it. Thanks. [Darwiner111 (talk · contribs)]

Thanks for your reply. It's probably not too useful to list arguments in favor or BC/AD here, since even were I to be convinced, I am just another editor with no special power to declare one way better than the other; the issue isn't actually all that important to me. I'm more interested in preventing edit wars and such. BC/BCE may or may not have been discussed specifically for the Human article—it's more of a Wikipedia-wide issue—so I am not sure if there is any mention in the article's discussion archives. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras has the current guidelines, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 is a recent case regarding a user who was changing years from one format to the other. It's been discussed in other areas as well, although I can't recall offhand; asking one of the users active in that RFAr might be helpful. Let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Template changing

Knowledge Seeker, I've noticed that you're changing the userbox Template:User good-looking from the template to a copy of the contents of the template on everyone's user page in Category:User good-looking. Your edit summaries state that this is in preparation for deletion, although I have not seen a recent discussion on WP:TFD or anywhere else that reflects consensus for the template's deletion. Can you please point me to this discussion? :) I appreciate the initiative you're taking in fixing everyone's page. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 08:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, Cookiecaper. It was actually a template I created myself, in a moment of lightheartedness. A few days later I regretted creating it, but by then a couple people had started to use it, so I hesitated to delete it; today I decided just to substitute it and delete it. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, you're welcome to recreate it if you like. The prohibition about not recreating deleted content would not apply. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

{{RRevised}}

I guess we'll find out if this does anything. I merged art film and "art house film" (at someone else's request) with a major revision and clean up. So far, tagging it just added it to a category called "Recently revised." --TheLimbicOne(talk) 17:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh...good luck! You may also consider asking someone on the Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce to take a look at it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your Help Desk answer

Just wanted to say - pure genius! That never would've occurred to me in a million years. :) pfctdayelise 23:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I recall reading it somewhere a long time ago, so I can't really take the credit. But I'm glad I could help! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Signature

Have you considered shortening your signature at all? It takes up five lines of text on my edit screen. And it includes two images, which are generally preferred not to be used in signatures. I'm not saying you have to change or anything; just thought I'd leave a suggestion. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I was not aware of the comment above when I left this message. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm.... yup. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 06:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do you mean you considered changing it but decided not to? — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle

In my view, you're one of the better contributors to Wikipedia, and whenever our paths have crossed, rarely though that is, you've been very fair and kind. I hope I'm the same, although I might express it in my own idiom. On the admin noticeboard you said you had had enough of Mistress Selina Kyle. I always feel a profound disappointment when what seems to be a contributor who wants to add to the encyclopaedia, in however a misguided a way, so annoys someone I trust as to get that kind of reaction. It's my view that the user in question is misguided rather than bad, although I accept that that's not a perception that everyone would share. Could I ask you to read my comment in the section about her, and to call on all your reserves of goodwill and consider doing as I suggest? I'll fully understand if the answer is no. As I say, I agree that she is more trouble than use, but I don't think she's trying to be bad. Maybe that's too positive a view but I tend to think the best of the worst. Grace Note 09:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As always, thank you for your comments and support. I do agree with most of your points; I always try to convince vandals to stay and help us rather than block them outright. And I always favor trying to reform problem users. I'm a bit undecided on MSK's case, though. While she definitely made some valuable contributions, the wealth of her disruptive edits was a bit disturbing, she did seem to turn up an awful lot in controversial areas, and she managed to cause a decent amount of trouble while she was here. I'm not certain that she didn't enjoy stirring up controversy. That being said, I am only peripherally aware of her case, so I can't really properly evaluate the situation. I do agree with your WP:AN/I proposal, in principle; by that, I mean that I wouldn't object if someone were willing to take MSK under her wing and mentor, and keep an eye on her. Your suggestion is a good one, but I don't think I can be the one to do it. For one, I simply don't know enough about her case to be taking charge of a situation like this. Also, my recent attempts at "mentoring" problematic users have been somewhat disappointing; I've only made a couple breakthroughs. But the big problem is time: at this point in my career, my time is so limited that I can only accomplish a small fraction of what I want to on Wikipedia, and I'd rather spend more time on writing articles. I'll consider it over the next couple days; or perhaps you can find someone else willing to take on the task. I always hate to see Wikipedia lose contributors. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi there. Sorry that there's not much usefulness to this message but i just thought i'd post to say hello, because i'm also in the medical profession. I'm currently studying as a Physician with around 1 year to go until i'll be qualified, i was a medic within the army, as well as i'm already a registered Nutritionist + Dietician! I am just excited to know there's other people who are qualified medical professionals within the wikipedia, and i'm glad i discovered the category that you're in :-) The magical Spum-dandy 17:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Spum, it's nice to meet you. I'm always happy to see other health-care workers and friends contributing to Wikipedia. I see you've been around for a while, but if you need anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, you depending on what your areas of interest are, you may find Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine, Clinical medicine, Medicine, or the Medicine Collaboration of the Week interesting. Good luck with your training! — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder, too, if you'd considered removing the information about scientology from your user page. While I am not particularly a fan of scientology myself, I'm not certain that this user box will have its desired effect, and some would consider it to be in poor taste. Perhaps you'd consider writing about why you don't like it on your user page instead. Just a thought! — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, if you look at the "scientology" link, it goes to the article which completely encapsulates what i feel. However, still, i have created my own bit of blurb as to why i'm opposed to it; if you check out the category i'm in, it'll explain it all :-) The magical Spum-dandy 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pet project

History of Earth is my new pet project. I've only written a couple sections so far, but if you have a chance, take a glance at it and let me know what you think on my talk page. Do you think this kind of article is appropriate for Wikipedia? — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I’m looking it over right now. Heck yes this should be in the in Wikipedia. I haven’t yet looked at all the relevant policies, but I think this would make a great lead article for a category on Earth that groups together all the relevant articles. That’s what I intend to do with organogenesis. Instead of a merge, I’ll just make it a lead article for a whole category on organogenesis (which covers a huge range of topics that I looked at when I was doing "germ layer").--TheLimbicOne(talk) 01:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to do these with my editor's red pen, but using a div style to color the words also added line breaks. Instead of red, my questions are in parentheses and outside of the quotes.

Questions:

• In the section, Origin:
  • "The formation of Earth occurred as part of the formation of the solar system. It" (ambiguous pronoun: Does It = Earth or the solar system?) "existed initially as a large rotating cloud of dust and gas…" --TheLimbicOne(talk) 01:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks great, just made minor grammar edits.--TheLimbicOne(talk) 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Moon
  • Would you like me to e-mail you a really cool rendition of the collision?--TheLimbicOne(talk) 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)--TheLimbicOne(talk) 02:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll read the other sections thoroughly tommorrow. I liesurely read them already. I'll have to look it up, but I think my bio book said the other possible matrix for the formation of life was lava rocks. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 02:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! Especially for examining it so closely. I still have quite a ways to go on it, obviously, but I thought it'd be a good idea to make sure someone else thought I was going in the right direction before I worked any more on it. You can take your time reviewing it; I'm going to be away the next few days and so probably won't make any progress on it until next week. I'd definitely like the picture—I love stuff like that! Feel free to include the lava rocks if you think it's appropriate; I'm trying to briefly summarize the current theories and obviously can't go into too much detail, but in areas with controversy or not much data, we should briefly mention the major possibilities. By the way, you can use <SPAN> (it's an inline element) instead of <DIV>, a block-level element. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

An invitation

Regardling the vandalism on my user page earlier today:

http://blog.4lancer.net/node/545

Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 02:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Did you figure out who it was? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. My general manager (the guy right below the owners of the company) emailed me the next day because he saw that post. Said he found it doing a Google search of the company name to see what kind of things employees were saying on their sites. Also said that he will buy me an ice cream cone as per the demand I made in that blog post. :-) Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 04:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry about the revert

Why did you remove my lowercasing of "User" and my removal of the apostrophe from "it's"? And with an edit summary of "rvv"? I don't wish to edit war, but ask you to restore the changes. Or at least explain why they were inappropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That was my bad. I gave a quick explanation on my talkpage, but it is not very good in terms of coherence, since I just wanted to ease your worry real fast, then explain more in depth later. I did not realize that message to the side was there, and I did not realize it had been edited recently. The vandalism I refered to was in the userbox itself, which said "This user supports userboxes because they don't really care about writing an encyclopedia." Obviously, fixing grammatical errors is not vandalism, and so I apologize. The Ungovernable Force 06:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine; thanks for the apology. I thought perhaps you felt a sense of ownership of the template and didn't approve of anyone else modifying it or something. Maybe in the future when someone makes a change you don't like, you can just edit those changes out instead of reverting all the way back to a version before those edits. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking users over fair-use image disputes

Hi KS, as someone whose judgment I place a lot of trust in, your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Blocking_over_fair-use_image_disputes, if you have a moment. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Aw, thanks! Heh...for the most part, I've tried to stay out of the fair use controversy—I'm not sure I understand all the subtleties of it and I don't want to get too stressed =) That said, looking at the discussion, it looks like you have good support for your proposal—hope it works out! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Add to Prostate Cancer

I have seen some of your writings on prostate cancer and since I know little about this medium I thought I would turn to you. I have a series of web sites, discussion groups, a database, chats, etc. all dedicated to prostate cancer. All non-commercial, free of ads and free to all.

One of the things I have discovered over the 8 years that I have developed Prostate-Help, is that patients rarely know the important information they need to make treatment decisions. Often they are rushed to a treatment that may not be needed or may not be right for them. I developed an outline for a Prostate Cancer Digest (PCD) and it is found on one of my web sites at http://www.diagnosis.prostate-help.org/pcpanic.htm . I would like to see this added to the article on Prostate Cancer. I tried but it disappeared. Can you edit and add this for me if you think it has value. We use this for newly diagnosed men who are seeking help through the Discussion Group PHML by them filling in the form at http://www.diagnosis.prostate-help.org/pcgivin.htm .

I operate under Prostate-Help and you can go to the Gateway to Prostate-Help at http://www.prostate-help.org and get some idea as to what I do. I can be contacted through the page at http://www.diagnosis.prostate-help.org/pcreply.htm .

Thanks Don Cooley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.32.189 (talk • contribs)

Mr. Cooley, thanks for your inquiry. I'll take a look at your site in more detail later. I'm not sure if it will be appropriate for Wikipedia. There are many people who would like to have links to their sites from Wikipedia, so there typically is quite a high standard for sites to be in the external links section. Many editors believe that if an external site contains valuable information, then that information should be included on Wikipedia rather than listing the site as an external link. What I'd suggest is that you make this request on Talk:Prostate cancer. That way the editors who are active on the article can discuss it or explain why or why not the link should be included. How does that sound? Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

astronomy

I have had to revert your cleanup of astronomy, due to substantial vandalism made before the cleanup. Since you used AWB I think it would be easier for you to cleaup agian than it would be for me. Sorry, —Ruud 12:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your courtesy in in forming me, and for watching over Astronomy. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Space exploration

Why did you italicize only one name out of all the spacecraft on this page? Why did you italicize any? Do we have a new standard I missed? I didn't find anything on Wikipedia:WikiProject Space missions. Rmhermen 13:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your question. No, it's not really a new standard. It was added to the MOS a little over a year ago. I brought it up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles)#Italicize names of spacecraft? and a couple other editors I'd seen working on spacecraft articles. Based on recommendations from Chicago, a NASA style guide, and a couple other sources, after consultation with them I added a spacecraft example to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). Even more so than for titles of movies or books, they're inconsistently italicized on Wikipedia, although you'll usually see them italicized in featured articles or on the Main Page and such (I just did it for New Horizons, so that doesn't count). The reason I just did that one is that I was using WP:AWB to take all the articles that link to Apollo 11 and italicize its name in those articles. The process is semi-automated; there isn't an easy way to scan each article to see if any other spacecraft names are mentioned elsewhere in the article. I figured I'd get around to doing the other spacecraft later, but it probably makes sense for me to manually go through that article and italicize them—I'm sorry, I should have done that in the first place. Do you have any objections? — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I also discussed it at User talk:The Singing Badger#Italicization of spacecraft; I can't remember offhand with whom else I discussed it. Let me know if you disagree with my actions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. I just hadn't seen it done anywhere. Since we have a couple hundred articles with these names, I hope you'll keep using your semi-automated method. Still it will be a lot of work. I will mention it at the Wikiproject although I am not sure who is still active there. Rmhermen 23:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the feedback. I just went through Space exploration, and will continue to work on this. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to your message to pg2114

Why did you leave this message? What was the problematic edit? And why did you use "rvv" (revert vandalism) as your edit summary? It doesn't appear that you reverted his talk page, but instead placed a new message. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

Sorry about message I left on 68.39.174.238's talk page. This IP address did vandalise a page on Wikipedia and I left the appropriate message for them, however I used the incorrect message in the summary. My apologies.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pg2114 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your response! It's all right; it's easy to let a mistake slip through. I was just surprised because 68's a great vandal-fighter and I would be very surprised if he were to vandalize a page. I'm assuming you mistook him for someone else since I don't see any vandalism in his contributions. Keep up the good work, and just be sure you're leaving messages for the right people. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

With regard to John [Doe] (aka AlabamaStateCons/68.39.174.238)

Achille, IRC logs should not be posted on Wikipedia without permission of all parties involved. You weren't very polite in that exchange, either. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC) from User talk:68.39.174.238#AlabamaStateCons in his own words

My apologies, I was severely frustrated and John's unwillingness to create an account, I usually RC-IP only edits and he comes up often. In my defense he was not professional either (quoting unrelated books and not-answering questions). In further defense, irc logs posted on wikipedia include [1] [2] [3] and many many many of those: [4] —Achille 2006-01-23 10:10Z

And my name's not "John" either. I have NO idea where that came from. 68.39.174.238 20:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

With regard to "John": In the American legal process, if the identity of someone is not known the monkeir John Doe is used to make it easier to talk about the subject. —Achille 2006-01-23 22:44Z

I don't see why 68's unwillingness to create an account should be frustrating to you. If he comes up often on your RC patrol, you should recognize him as a quality vandal fighter. Why do you feel he should have to answer your questions about why he does not wish to register? You cannot demand that he answer. Regarding IRC policy, please see m:IRC channels#Logging prohibition on #wikipedia and other channels, conveniently linked in a comment just below the Bishonen transcript (also, if I recall correctly, User:Njyoder's behavior in this matter was responsible for him losing a significant amount of credibility and respect on Wikipedia. Finally, please do not edit others' user pages against their wishes. 68 is perfectly capable of creating a user page if he so chooses. I hope I don't come across as hostile; I certainly don't mean to. You're doing great work fighting vandalism, and Wikipedia needs more editors like you. Just remember that we're all on the same side—you can direct your energies towards vandals, not fellow RC patrollers. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• I hope you will carefully and fully read the following comments as I have placed great deal of time and research on them.

• I have never had never had any disagreements with John, but I have "crossed paths" with him in several occasions (eg, seen him working). When news of his "adminship" spread on IRC several people (including me) were severely angered. I believe this comment from Essjay sums it up [5]. It is my belief that John is making a mockery or Wikipedia editing by refusing to edit as a registered user INTENTIONALLY. Anon editing is a way to allow the average user to contribute, it was never meant as a platform of identity. It is my belief that John knows this and is bending the rules intentionally. As you may have seen from his logs and some of his comments such as [6] he shows little civility. and from his IRC comments that he shows immaturity. I particularly posted the IRC to try to give a small insight on him.

• With regard to the IRC Logging: The link provided by you, [7] only deals with logs on #wikipedia. Upon further searches I was unable to find other policies prohibiting logs. (You may notice that the IRC logs were used *against* Bishonen in her RfA). Since the conversation between John and me was a private one not on Wikipedia, If no further objections from you or John arise, I shall replace the IRC logs.

• With regard to your comment: Finally, please do not edit others' user pages against their wishes. 68 is perfectly capable of creating a user page if he so chooses.. My apologies, I was not aware that John wished that page remain empty, I thought I was doing a favour by adding a redirect (which links directly from his signatures). I believe that only registered users could create new pages.

• Coming back to the admin issue (that you will se plastered in his userpage): Being a vandal fighter (someone who reverts acts of vandalism on Wikpedia per long sessions continuously) should in NO WAY be grounds for Adminship. Edit count should be an irrelevant number, an admin should be someone who can be trusted to
  • Maintain calm even when attacked
  • Weigh on each issue using civility
  • Provide editing and content to wikipedia (we are an Encyclopedia after all, the goal is to grow, not just to avoid acts of vandalism)
  • Show Integrity and Maturity
  • Be TRUSTED.

• Anyone is capable of joining a channel such as #wikipedia-en-vandalism and just clicking on the links and reverting. That's a fantastic thing and that's great of him for that, but that's not enough.

• In all, I'm sure John is a good kid and notwithstanding the above I have nothing against him. —Achille 2006-01-24 08:28Z~

Mike, there is no need to place copies of my comments directly under them; I hope you don't mind if I remove them. Of course I will carefully read your comments, as I do to all, but I'm not sure this matter is so important as to merit extensive research. What does the adminship nomination have to do with anything? Did he even participate in it? Examining the deleted versions, I don't see any edits or acceptance by him; all I see is another user creating the nomination. Of course I would not support such a candidacy and would have removed it had I come across it; I'm not even certain that it is possible to give an anonymous IP address administrative rights in MediaWiki. But I fail to see the relevance to our discussion or how it excuses your rudeness. Especially since the timestamps seem to indicate that the page was created after our conversation. I don't understand how User:Essjay criticizing User:My Cat inn is relevant; I am not familiar with the latter user and had made no statements concerning him or his behavior. You can believe what you wish, although I don't believe Wikipedia is so tenuous that an anonymous user refusing to register can make it into a mockery. And your beliefs certainly don't make it appropriate to harrass other users. There is no rule on Wikipedia, implied or stated, that one should only edit anonymously if one does not intend to make many edits. There is no edit count beyond which one must register an account. I don't think it's productive to speculate on why different people support the continued ability of unregistered users to edit; I certainly don't accept your idiosyncratic interpretation. "I'm not 'John', whereever that came from" doesn't appear to be particularly uncivil to me, certainly no more uncivil than your remarks you posted in the IRC log. You're right; the policy I cited pertains to #wikipedia; if you feel comfortable exposing your behavior, you may repost them—of course, 68 is not obligated to keep them there. You are correct in that the IRC logs were intended to be used against Bishonen; however, they had the opposite effect of drawing in much more support for her and severely discrediting the poster.

You're right that anonymous users may not create new pages, although this is a quite new change and 68 has had plenty of time to create a user page if he wished. Additionally he can request it be created or ask any one of numerous editors to create it for him. If someone has not created a user page, before you do the favor of creating it for him, consider asking him on his talk page first if he would like one—there may be a reason he never created one or had one created, and page creation is not an easily revertable action like other user page editing might be.

Why are you returning to the administrator issue? I don't believe I have ever said that I would support an adminship candidacy for 68. Anonymous users cannot be administrators; even if it were technically possible, it'd be incredibly dangerous. In fact, if he ever desires adminship, he may end up regretting the long delay in registering, since he'd have to build up a repuation as a logged-in user. I cannot understand why you are responding to my comments about your lack of politeness with arguments for why he should not be an administrator.

I'm not certain that there is any more to be gained from this discussion, as I've made the points I wished to make. I will be happy to continue it if you wish. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe you just pulled yourself to the same level of this kid by time you wrote Mike, there.... Considering that the IRC log issue solved I foresee no more needed discussion.

—Achille 2006-01-25 06:48Z

Thanks! I'm glad I could help, although I don't understand what you mean about me pulling myself. If you have any more questions, let me know. Oh, I wanted to tell you, I love your user page! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)