User talk:Knowledge Seeker

This user may have left Wikipedia. Knowledge Seeker has not edited Wikipedia since 1 March 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

The WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month for October 2024 is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease! Head to its talk page to organize our efforts. Continue to nominate topics for future months at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month#Nominations.

Archives:
Archive 1 (11/22/2004–4/1/2005)
Archive 2 (4/2/2005–4/30/2005)
Archive 3 (4/29/2005–6/12/2005)
Archive 4 (6/12/2005–7/27/2005)
Archive 5 (7/29/2005–10/4/2005)
Archive 6 (10/11/2005–12/23/2005)
Archive 7 (12/24/2005–1/30/2006)
Archive 8 (1/26/2006–3/31/2006)
Archive 9 (3/30/2006–5/26/2006)
Archive 10 (5/23/2006–9/30/2006)
Archive 11 (9/29/2006–5/23/2007)

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

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

MCOTW

Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was selected.
Hope you can help…

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

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

Hi buddy

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

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

Minnesota Meetup

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

Please pass this on! RSVP here.

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

History of the Earth

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

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

Seasons Greetings

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

Separation Of Human Organism

…1:53 P.M. E.S.T. David George DeLancey 1-3-2008 Happy New Year

My first search was a user talk to see what I had floating around, I came across user talk llkali, this lead me to Origin of Life. Through this I researched Amphiphiles along with Natural Selection both from the paragraphs of The Origin of Life. While on natural selection I went to the left search box and searched Separation of Human Organism this was to see if anything related to my theory of how we came about as human form. I am 48 years old, in my early 20's I thought maybe we came from the ocean, or a body of water. I have theory that is of the formation of our male and female structure, the nose the knees the shoulders, the escape of the elbows and such in a degree of strength and the escape of certain areas of weakness, though may strongly be related to a steady separation of delicateness and security. Such as the back of the knee and the softness of the breast and the groin, parts which consist of matter which seem to be a bouyancy matter. For the breasts being of same sortness, bouyancy a floating being of matter which is left astray and or flamboyant, though I guess another word could be used. Anyway my thought was a period of time as of one separating in the air of light or just a period after separating and let the rest take it's course, though by now in trueness I've recognised that air and light are a preffered matter in a separation of some sort. I've read this similarity of growth concerning air and light, just do not have the material here to rectify it.2:09.p.m.e.s.t.David George DeLancey (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)...Corrections in sentance and spelling structure.David George DeLancey (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Oh thanks!

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

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

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

Adrian Fletcher

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

COI tags

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

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

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

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

Hi There

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

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

Joy

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

Most certainly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Protection rationale]

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Hero

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

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

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

To WIKI-HERO

File:Victoria Cross Medal Ribbon & Bar.jpg

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

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

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

thanks

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

Oh dear

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

Can you help???

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

I'm sorry; I'm afraid not. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found poetry

Hey. I noticed you edited minorly found poetry a while back, and I was wondering if you can look at it again sometime, or at the very least, read it and tell me if it makes any sense at all. --Justpassin (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually never edited Found poetry, though I did place a notice on Talk:Found poetry that the article had been mentioned as a source in a news article. (This was four years ago, when Wikipedia was not nearly as prominent as it is today.) I took a look at the article (as a layperson; I have no special background in literature). It does make sense, but was not immediately intuitive to me. You might consider moving the example earlier (perhaps even into the introduction), since that was what really helped me to understand it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I was not active on Wikipedia when you made your request. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asthma FAR

Asthma has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I was not active on Wikipedia at the time of your request. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 07:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Guettarda. I hope you are well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pakoras 2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pakoras 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Coaching

I saw that you were listed in the Coaches for reconfirmation section of the admin coaching status page. Could you please update your status, and if you are still interested, drop me a note on my talk page? Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 14:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid my availability has not changed since the last time I was asked. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you

Glad to see you drop by for a visit, good to know that you're still alive :) Hope things are well with you. Guettarda (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda! I meant for so long to respond to this, but I wanted to write a detailed response and so kept putting it off. I have only popped into Wikipedia intermittently, though I still read articles all the time. Thank you for your kind messages. I'm hoping to do some occasional editing and hope to run into you more often. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Meetup

2009

Proposed date: Saturday, October 10.
Details under discussion.

Please share this with anyone who may be interested.

Delivered by Jonathunder (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the meetup will be at 1 p.m. Sunday, October 11, in St. Paul. Click here for more details and to R.S.V.P. Jonathunder (talk)

Jonathunder, I wanted to thank you for your invitations. Unfortunately, I have now moved out of Minnesota, so I won't be able to attend any of these in the future. Look forward to running into you around Wikipedia! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Ben's answer to your hula hoop question

I have had run ins with this guy before, and I put in the following comment after his "answer" to your reasonable question.

Just reading BenRG's alphabet soup bulls***t above, and then his insolent and arrogant rejoinder below to the effect that his answer WAS certainly clear and simple is something he has been doing for some time. Ben, you write like a old boxer gripping a pen in his palsied hands. You have no style, and no feeling from where those questioning you are coming from. And worst of all, you are DEAD WRONG. Einstein's Special Theory has NOTHING AT ALL to do with intermolecular forces. These contractions are not physical forces but geometrical effects so there is no chance of anything "breaking up", and analogies with things "cooling down" are unwarranted and bound to lead people astray. And what kind of semi-literate crap is "if you boost into its new rest frame...". First time I've seen "boost" as an intransitive verb. And what the hell is "it will shrink back to its preferred size through the action of intermolecular forces (or it will break if you accelerated it too much)"? Someone asks a straightforward question re: how a hula hoop might behave if it was rotation near the speed of light, and gets some garbage about the hula hoop's "preferred size". My preferred size of the hula hoop is about 2 inches in circumference and firmly around your neck. What a load of steaming tripe! Natch, the guy who wrote in can't make head or tail of what you are raving about, and then when he says so, you revert to your usual tactic of basically calling him stupid. You have never been able to perceive that your "explanations" are badly written and badly thought out. I have suggested before that you write out your thoughts, if one can call them that on a word processor, have a good think about them, edit them, print them out, and then wipe your bum on them. Knowledge Seeker is not the one who is stupid, and I am seriously suggesting you get another hobby apart from patronising and insulting those "seekers of knowledge" who write in here. You are nowhere near as knowledgeable as you make out, your pedagological style REALLY stinks and you do little more than discourage people from enquiring. Your literary style is at the very forefront of dim and stylistically ugly scrawling. And you follow the same pattern over and over again. You needlessly complicate everything with badly written and pretentious crap, then when the asker says he doesn't understand, you put him in a dunce's cap on a stool in the corner. NOT ONCE have you ever admitted that your answer might be less than the very best and most lucid way of approaching the problem, and you seem to completely oblivious to the plain and irrefutable fact that your material is full of grammatical and spelling errors. Please go away. Myles325a (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I wasn't thrilled with the tone of his answer, though it's sometimes easy to convey the wrong emotion. In the future, I hope all three of us will be able to communicate in a clear, courteous way. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:MCOTWprev

Template:MCOTWprev has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. I'm a bit sorry to see them go — I remember the adventure when I first organized the Medicine Collaboration of the Week! But it looks like they're no longer needed. I appreciate the notice. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:MCOTWnom

Template:MCOTWnom has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:MCOTWcur

Template:MCOTWcur has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, world!

Just popping in to say hi. I hope all my friends (and non-friends!) here are doing well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, KS! Nice to see you again. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you. Hope things are well. Guettarda (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CIS! Good to hear from you too. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you, Guettarda, my old friend. Things are very well! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation

I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that there are a lot under "reconfirmation".

Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)

If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've been away from Wikipedia too much to serve as a proper coach. Thank you for asking. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA

Just a note to let you know that a user has been reported at WP:UAA as impersonating your username. The user in question is KnowledgeSeekur (talk · contribs). An editor has commented that they don't think there is a violation. I can see why the nominator reported it, but contribs so far show no evidence that the account has been set up to harass or otherwise impersonate you. Feel free to comment at UAA. Mjroots (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I agree; I see no evidence of malicious intent; the user in question likely saw that User:Knowledgeseeker was taken (that was my original user name), and so changed the spelling. The issue is that there could be potential confusion between us, though if the user wishes to continue with the name, I have no objections. I am quite impressed with Newyorkbrad's handling of this matter. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another way round this is to each use the {{Distinguish}} on your user pages. As I said at UAA, I saw no evidence that the name was created or being used in bad faith. Mjroots (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that could be useful, though I don't think I'd like the way it would look. I appreciate the tip, though. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Hi KS, thanks for the message on my talkpage. At the moment, MCOTW has gone into hibernation a bit, as I found enthusiasm for collaboration to be waning. Jmh649 (talk · contribs) (one of our current hardworking medical editors) has expressed an interest in getting MCOTW going, but on the whole nothing has really been happening.

I am quite busy in meatspace but I might tackle an article at the time. Some of my recent work has included diabetic ketoacidosis and hepatic encephalopathy. I'm still intending to sort out pseudoxanthoma elasticum, but this is on a backburner currently. I will gladly assist with any personal project you might take on. JFW | T@lk 08:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presuppositions

In the article written about the origins of the Earth, it is academically dishonest to present an unproved theory as fact when the information given is based on opinion and not science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.114.5 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of links

To Knowledge Seeker From SeniorInt

You state:

"Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you added a number of links to a web site, perhaps your own work, and I wanted to let you know that I've removed them for now. Wikipedia has a relatively stringent policy regarding external links: see WP:EXT, and in particular, Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest. If you feel that the link merits inclusion, then perhaps you could discuss its use on the associated discussion pages. Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC"

The link is [was] to a short science fiction novel by me which appears in reference four of Related Science Fiction on the SIGMM CARPE Research Site: http://www.sigmm.org/Members/jgemmell/CARPE. The novel was originally written as course material at the University of California San Diego, Department of Computer Science and Engineering. I read the links you sent regarding policy on external links. The speculative nature of the material you deleted probably justifies the removal more than "self promotion." I point out, however, that much of the material on this subject is both fictional and speculative, including movies, stories, and futuristic speculation. In the realm of "common sense," such speculation is, at the same time, food for serious thought and engaging to one's imagination; it is rarely offensive. SeniorInt (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Connection between Lakeshore East and Harbor Drive, Service Level.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Connection between Lakeshore East and Harbor Drive, Service Level.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dual-level Harbor Drive.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Dual-level Harbor Drive.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lakeshore East (facing south).jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Lakeshore East (facing south).jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lakeshore East (facing northeast).jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Lakeshore East (facing northeast).jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source of definition of putrescible

I read your definition of putrescible and found it very useful. Can you tell me and the wikipedia community at large, the source of your definition - in particular that it is the decomposition of animal proteins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwoodmench (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wacker Drive, 3 levels.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Wacker Drive, 3 levels.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lakeshore East (facing northeast).jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lakeshore East (facing northeast).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dual-level Harbor Drive.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dual-level Harbor Drive.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 04:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lakeshore East (facing south).jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lakeshore East (facing south).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Note that you can have your admin bit back, by simply asking for it.

(well, and by proving that you're still the same person behind the account, obviously.) DS (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need your help

Sorry for the less than positive response you received at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. As you can see, Wikipedia is not running as well as it could and therefore we need you help. Any contributions you make will get us that much closer to being a better functioning project. Any suggestions you have would also be helpful, as your perspective is important for us to make positive changes.

I would like to encourage you to ask for your admin bit back. I'm sure it will be granted without any problems. Best of luck. 64.40.54.40 (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, KS. I just saw your response on the noticeboard and wanted to thank you for your understanding. It's possible that the survey you received was part of a series of Editor Engagement Experiments that being performed to try and get editors editing again. And also to fix some of the problems we've found. You can find more information at WP:E3 if you are interested. We are also discusssing issues and leaving suggestions on the talk page there. If you have any improvements or thoughts you'd like to share, they would be most welcome. Thanks. 64.40.57.45 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KS. Good to see you back. I think that the removal of admin status from inactive users was, in retrospect, poor policy as it has caused at least as many problems as it was supposed to solve. Time will tell, I guess. In any case, it was handled without the degree of respect for past contributions that should have been present. Not the first time something like that has happened, unfortunately -- I was caught up in a less public but more sloppily handled similar matter, myself, details unimportant. Anyway, subject matter experts like you are always in short supply and I hope you'll realize that you have the enduring respect of that portion of the community that cares about quality contributions. Best wishes, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cardiovascular_disease#This

Might be interesting to classify by the three disease areas covered (Heart, kidney/brain and PAD). Bakerstmd (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Harbor Park (facing east).jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Harbor Park (facing east).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alpha Leonis (band)

The article Alpha Leonis (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

They don't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

Publish an article to the journal.
Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
Join the editorial board.
Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
- Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
Technical work like template designing for the journal.
Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

Diptanshu^Talk 14:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Knowledge Seeker. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Knowledge Seeker.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Knowledge Seeker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Doctors' mess listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Doctors' mess. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Doctors' mess redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan kerry listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jonathan kerry. Since you had some involvement with the Jonathan kerry redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 years ago today

Wishing Knowledge Seeker a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Knowledge Seeker. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates

Hey! If you're interested, I started a series of userboxes for the game NationStates. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested...

See here - in case we revive this, folks like you and Jfdwolff have more central expertise to looking stuff over...as I am a psychiatrist my knowledge can be rather pedunculated as it were...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, Administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — JJMC89 bot 00:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, Administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]