User talk:Knowledge Seeker/Archive8

Tarret, thanks so much! It's nice to be appreciated! Although I have to admit that I have not been nearly as active as my colleagues; they have been the ones who deserve the main credit. I've been pitching in where I can, but it is they who have really been responsible for bringing all these medical articles to featured status. Still, I'll keep doing what I can! — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I missed User:Jonathunder's fourth reversion—could you point out his three-revert violation to me? Also, could I remind you to please check the block log before you block a user? By blocking him for a shorter length of time you cancelled out my longer block. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as Jonathunder only made three edits to that page today, he clearly not have violated 3RR. Yet given the rapid pace at which User:Darwiner111/User:PatrickA has been reverting with IP addresses, and now resorting to user page vandalism, it is easy to lose track of the details; it's quite understandable. I was hoping to dissuade him with increasing blocks, but now it looks as though he's headed for an indefinite block. It's a shame. Thanks for undoing the block; I appreciate it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That edit was made on January 25th, a couple days ago, and would not be counted as part of a three-revert violation. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hehe—don't worry, it's been an interesting night. I blocked User:PatrickA's two sockpuppet accounts indefinitely (I knew about one before but had left it alone for the most part since he was only mildly disbehaving), and increased his block further. I'm still hoping he'll reconsider his approach to Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I never ignore people who ask me a question. And I appreciate you looking out for me, since it's easy to make mistakes or overlook that type of thing. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Darwiner111. I am glad you are willing to discuss this. I am replying on User talk:Darwiner111 as well, as that seems to have been your primary account (you hadn't used User:Jordain in quite a while before this event). You may reply there; blocked users may still edit their talk page for precisely this reason. I would be happy to copy your replies here. Or, if you prefer to use a different account as your primary, that is fine as well. Just let me know.

I am pleased that you would like to attempt resolution. If by "our" issues you mean issues between you and me, then there are none to resolve. I have no anger or conflict with you, and once your block expires, you will be free to continue editing. I will of course continue to enforce Wikipedia rules and guidelines to the best of my ability, and were you to resume the sort of behavior you exhibited a few days ago, I would have to block you again. I am optimistic that that won't be necessary, though. If by "our" issues you mean issues with the way Wikipedia works or with the Wikipedia community, then yes, there are several issues to work out, but I hope I can help you with them. If you wish to attempt resolution only once it is your choice; I hope it succeeds. I agree that you do make beneficial edits, and that is the reason that your accounts were not all blocked indefinitely. After your behavior on the 27th, many administrators would have probably blocked your account indefinitely, and I considered doing so. But given your positive contributions, I opted for a shorter block.

Your block evasion was not appropriate and it certainly was not necessary for you to do so. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. And I'd strongly advise not editing Wikipedia when you're angry. If Wikipedia is causing you that much stress, take a break for an hour or a day. Otherwise, you'll probably end up doing something you regret. If you feel that everyone except you is biased, I hope you'll at least entertain the possibility that you might have been the one acting inappropriately. Also, I try to prevent my biases from affecting my editing or my work on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate if you could explain my bias and how it manifested, so I can avoid it in the future.

I did check the history, and yes, I was aware that the date was originally 1 BC. Reverting the change once was fine, and I wasn't aware that anyone accused you of vandalism for it. Could you point out where this occurred? I do see you accusing several other editors of vandalism for making edits you disagree with, and that really is not appropriate behavior. Of course, I accused you of vandalising ([1] [2]) User:Jonathunder's user page, but that was pretty blatant. Yes, things got out of hand. You lost the "battle" because no one was agreeing with you. I'd guess it was because of the people disagreed with the change, the rapidity of your edits, your edit summaries, and the lack of explanation on the talk page. It had nothing to do you with your lack of administrator status, other than that your behavior makes it unlikely you would be selected as administrator at this time and that an administrator would not behave in this fashion. One of the users who reverted you is an administrator and was briefly blocked by a different administrator who mistakenly thought he had violated the three-revert rule. You were obviously aware of this since you removed a comment of his from that section of his talk page, and you were obviously aware of the three-revert rule since you mentioned it in an edit summary. I don't see what gave you the idea that your lack of administrator status would have made any difference. Non-administrators who see behavior that merits a block can report it in several places; in particular, three-revert violations may be reported at WP:AN/3RR. You were blocked because you violated the three-revert rule. No one else did. Violating the three-revert rule is grounds for a block. You proceeded to revert at least four more times, resulting in an extension of the block. It's quite straightforward.

I bear some responsibility for confusing you regarding era notation. Please see my comments to you in the section above. I'd say the overall policy regarding era notation is that it's whatever the article's editors decide it should be. If an article was originally written with BCE, and someone changes it to BC and is not opposed, then that may be considered acceptance. Someone can come of course and change it back to BCE, but may be reverted if the article's editors prefer the prior version. That an article was originally written using BCE does suggest that that's what should be used, but it does not automatically lock the article to using BCE forever. I certainly don't think you should go from article to article systematically changing the notation, even if you dig through the history and find that the article was originally written in a different form. (If you are unclear on this matter I would be happy to further explain it.) In fact, I'd go as far as to suggest that you refrain from any further notation changes. It clearly causes you a great deal of stress and clouds your judgment. Focus on other ways to improve Wikipedia.

I don't wish to unblock you yet, as I feel that a short break from Wikipedia will help you cool off and gain a fresh perspective, but I am will consider shortening your block. I don't wish to change December 25 back to BC—as I mentioned before, I realize that was the original usage, but a number of editors appear to prefer the other version and I really have no opinion either way. I reverted you solely since you were evading a block; prior to that I don't believe I edited the article.

I'm glad you contacted me, and I look forward to further positive contributions from you. Please let me know how I can assist in your smooth return to Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

PatrickA, sometimes I'm not sure if you are reading the messages people leave for you, which may be part of the reason you're having difficulty here. In the first place, you should be explaining yourself before you get blocked, not afterwards. After you are blocked, you should not be using IP addresses at all, but should be leaving messages on your own talk page, which you may edit while being blocked. It's on my watchlist and I'll reply there. I can copy the messages to my talk page as well for you if you like. Is PatrickA the account you wish to use from now on then?

Do you understand what the three-revert rule is? Could you explain to me what you understand it to be? I could then help clear up where you're confused, since you clearly violated 3RR and Jonathunder did not. You requested I look at the evidence, so here it is. The version that you reverted to was [3]. Your first reversion was at 03:38. Your second reversion was at 05:38. Your third reversion was at 05:52. Your fourth reversion was at 05:56—with that, you had made more than three reverts in a 24-hour period and were blocked. That's where your 3RR violation occurred. Of course, you didn't stop there. Your fifth reversion was at 06:15, and you accused those disagreeing with you of vandalism. Your sixth reversion was at 06:31. Your seventh reversion was at 06:42. Your eighth reversion was at 06:51. At that point the article was semi-protected due to your continued block evasion and egregious reversion. and the revert war was over. Jonathunder only made three edits to the article that day and so obviously could not have made greater than three reverts; it was therefore impossible for him to violate the three-revert rule. The version to which he reverted is somewhere in the history. His first edit reverting the format was at 16:15. His second reversion was at 04:23. His third reversion was at 05:55. At that point he ceased editing the page; he never made a fourth reversion and so did not violate 3RR. If I am mistaken, I would appreciate you showing me the violation, preferably listing the evidence in the style used at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

If you feel that no one agrees with you, it may be because of the way you present yourself. I'd say the manner in which you behaved on December 25 and other articles would be enough to cause other editors to dislike you, and as I said before, your reputation has been seriously damaged by your recent actions. I would not be surprised if you find some of your edits being reverted simply because of your history and because they were made by you. Certainly I would be highly suspicious of any era changes you make and I would encourage you to stay away from them from now on. You mention several times that people thought you were vandalizing—could you point out why you think so? I cannot see a single instance where someone accused you of vandalism, aside from your vandalism of Jonathunder's user page. If you are imagining that people are insulting you, it might explain why you get so angry.

Regarding the edit to Evolution, I'd be happy to explain it. No, it's not a random article; I have it on my watchlist and I am marginally active on it; mainly reverting vandalism or participating in discussion on the talk page, as you can see if you peruse my contributions or the article's history. I removed a religious element because it is an article about science. It makes no statement as to the existence of God or lack thereof, and therefore, religious topcis are not relevant. I am not an atheist, but I recognize that science has been far more successful than religion at explaining the mechanics of how the world works. I have not made up my mind regarding BC/AD and BCE/CE, and if I were to write an article which included events more than two thousand years ago, I do not know which system I would select. I've seen good arguments made for both sides. My opinion regarding BCE on December 25 is quite simple: you had reverted eight (!) times in a few hours, four of which were made using IP addresses to evade a block. Edits by blocked users may be reverted on sight, certainly repeated violations of 3RR should be. If you go looking for conflict, you won't find it with me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me some time to respond to your messages. There are activities outside Wikipedia in which I participate, and even though it is important to me, I have other tasks on Wikipedia aside from your rehabilitation. You need not worry; I will not ignore your questions, although it may take me some time to respond to them fully. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[Continued from User talk:Knowledge Seeker/Archive7#History of the Earth (Part 1 :))]

I figured it was time for a new section for discussion. Thanks; I really appreciate it! It's been tough writing this article but it's nice to have encouragement. I hope I'm not condensing too much; it feels like I'm glossing over so much. I only hope that people more knowledgeable than I will be able to write detailed sub-articles at some point to do the topics justice. I'll probably want to go into a bit more detail on the "Humanity" section, since I skipped over a lot, but I don't want to give undue weight to humans: in the grand scheme of things, yes, they've affected Earth in the last split second, but not enormously more than the creation of the Moon or the colonization of land, you know? The next section, on civilization and basically encompassing human history is going to be tough. I'm not certain I have a good enough grasp on history as a whole to lay it out in a couple paragraphs (I'm thinking two for now). I have an idea for the broad themes of the section. I'm almost wondering if I shouldn't invite a couple guest editors to write the section. I'll have to ponder it a bit more and do a bit more reading first.

I definitely agree with the Australopithecus picture! You know, I was trying to find a good picture like that to use, but all the ones I saw on Homo habilis and Homo erectus appear to have questionable copyright tags, so I got frustrated and used the map. That's not to say I don't like that image; in fact, I think it's among my favorites on Wikipedia. I'll see if I can squeeze it in somewhere else, perhaps if the "Humanity" section gets long enough. As always, thanks for your help! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All right I'm not sure how to treat the rest of human history. Initially I was going to keep it just a few sentences in the Humanity section. Then I thought about writing a couple paragraphs under a new "Civilization" section. Now I'm leaning towards the former again—I don't want to get too bogged down in details. I guess I'll just take a stab at writing it later tonight and see what works better...feel free to give me any suggestions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good idea. Maybe one paragraph on agriculture/civilization/most of human history, and one paragraph on science/technology, with emphasis on 1) genetics (changing the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution), 2) Environmental-type stuff including extinction, ozone layer, global warming (affecting the planet), and 3) Spaceflight (leaving the planet), because I want to try to keep the emphasis on Earth, not on humans. Of course, if others end up disagreeing, we can change the article—I don't own it. I agree that a bit of an anthropocentric view is beneficial, because the article should be about what's interesting to us, and it's more informative to pause a bit over the last split-second. And yet anthropormorphism already permeates the article: I follow the evolution of eukaryotes and abandon the prokaryotes; then follow the animals and abandon the plants; then follow the vertebrates and abandon the invertebrates, and so on with mammals, hominids, and finally humans. No mention is made of insect evolution and such. I've tried to avoid giving the impression that evolution stopped for other creatures but continued for us, but it's not easy. Maybe I'll devote three paragraphs to humans (such a conceit), but combine them into two sections (maybe one on the origins + civilization, and a second one on the science/technology). I want to briefly mention religion in the civilization section as well. As always, I appreciate your suggestions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I disagree about space travel being irrelevant to the history of Earth; it seems to me that if one is following the life of a planet from formation out of the nebula, then certainly atmospheres developing, oceans forming, life originating and so on are important events, but I feel that those life forms launching objects and then themselves off the planet is a momentous event. Perhaps not momentous in human history (although I tend to think it is, but that is my bias); but in the planet's history. I feel that for an alien or a research probe that had been watching this region of space for the last 5 billion years, this would be a major event. Don't you agree? We'll have to see about religion; value judgments aside (and like most things, it can be used for both good and bad purposes), it's an important part of human history, no? I guess it depends on how much we condense human history. If I were to include it, I intend to include it broadly, from a research point of view. Not saying that and then in this year, some believed this god performed these taskas but rather mention the origins of the concept of religion and such. Do you think that's a bad idea? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that; thanks. Yes, featured status is still a very long way away. As I think I mentioned to you before, I will eventually reference the individual facts/assertions as much as possible, but for that I will have to do more in-depth reading. The history of Earth spans so many disciplines that it will take quite a while for me to find more specific information and citations. I'm going to try to finish up this first draft in the next few days, with you polishing it into the second draft, and it will be a pretty good article hopefully by that point. I then will have to go back and make the sections very rigorous, and then if you're free you'll probably have to clean up my mess again =) I agree with all the edits you make except one thing: I don't really care for using "we" in the article. The self-reference seems rather unencyclopedic, although it would be appropriate in a book, perhaps. I think I'm going to change it back to third person, like (Human and History of the world). I realize it's a bit of a conceit to do this, since humans obviously are writing the article, but I'd prefer not to make it obvious, both for neutrality and for formality. For instance, if a group of, say, Jewish editors began writing an article about some aspect of Jewish traditions wrote phrases such as "nowadays, we celebrate the festival in such-and-such a way" it would seem quite out of place. Of course, non-Jewish editors may edit that article but all editors are human, but I still think it'd be good to try to maintain some disinterest. Kind of the way Earth doesn't say "our planet" but discusses it as it may discuss any planet. What do you think? — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this matters to you, but now that I've archived my talk page, your message to me now starts with "Hello Knowledge Seeker/Archive7,..." Just thought I'd let you know since I'm sure mine won't be the only page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's all right; if my RFA had had such a large turnout as yours I might not have left personalized messages either! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying you're no longer participating in any aspect of the Wikipedia community? Does that mean you're leaving the project or taking a break, or does it mean you're going to focus on articles and stay away from policy and such? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you feel that the community does not want your services. There are plenty of people who support you. However, I agree that the politics and so on of Wikipedia are quite a drain and not very productive, for the most part. I, too, am trying to cut back on my non-article involvement, especially given my limited time. (I haven't been very successful, though.) But I'm glad that you will continue participating in the most important (the only important) part of Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't edit others' user pages. This is considered vandalism. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Jake. I see the notice now and will try to remember not to revert edits by your IP address. However, you should not expect everyone doing RC patrol to read user pages for a list of accounts that are "approved" to edit it, especially if the edits look like vandalism. I'd encourage you to be logged in while editing, especially if you wish to edit your user page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't have strong opinions either way, I think you're right about the situtation at History of the world. Consensus certainly seems to be favoring BCE/CE. I initially supported BC/AD, but given the support of BCE/CE, and the edit warring from User:Darwiner111 and his sockpuppets, I think BCE/CE is appropriate. I agree with your change. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your very gracious invitation! I'm pleased to see your message; in my opinion, this is the sort of approach that will allow you to succeed at Wikipedia. It's an interesting proposal, but for now I think I'll just observe. Despite what we've been through, I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another (I once had to mass-revert and block a user who was systematically changing BC/AD to BCE/CE despite being warned). Good luck with your proposal! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[These comments refer to User talk:BorgHunter#Inappropriate behavior.]

Have you looked at User talk:David Gerard? I don't really Mr. Gerard throwing around angry words or treating him like a vandal; what I do see is refusal to become angry or threaten BorgHunter. If others have used angry words with BorgHunter, it may be inappropriate as well but irrelevant to the matter I was referring to in my comments—unless David Gerard made inappropriate comments elsewhere that I am not aware of. There weren't actually that many people involved in the wheel war; there are several hundred administrators who managed to stay out of it. If this encounter took place prior to his bid for adminship, even if you remove the parts about blocking and such, you must agree that it is very unlikely that it would succeed. Even if it were back a year ago when RfA was less harsh, it still would not have passed. I've opposed several candidates for this sort of behavior, and many others have as well. BorgHunter may not be a bad administrator, but if he can't control his temper, he's not a good one either. Especially if he threatens with blocks when he gets angry. In my opinion, respect and civility from all users are of paramount importance on Wikipedia; one who can't provide that has no business being an administrator. Fighting Borg and fighting vandalism require very different strategies. I don't deny his previous good work, but it's not enough to buy this.

I do like BorgHunter, or at least I did before he did this. If this was just a temporary lapse, then he'll be able to easily redeem himself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that I accused you of wheel warring, and I apologize if I seemed to imply it. My complaint was specifically in reference to your conduct at User talk:David Gerard. I too have very little tolerance for personal attacks, but I think that threatening after one personal attack to block a user for the next personal attack is a little extreme, especially when the other is an experienced Wikipedia user and not a newcomer; Wikipedia:Blocking policy states "Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that...[make] excessive personal attacks." While I agree that we must use our judgment and not blindly follow process, I doubt anything positive would have come out of a block; it would serve to inflame, would likely be overturned in minutes, and would likely lead to negative consequences for you as well. Especially since no one else but you seems to consider it a personal attack. It is hard for me to see how it could be construed as one, especially in the absence of a defined recipient and the lack of clear insult (saying "I expect TfD voters not to be stupid" isn't really a personal attack). For that matter, to me, your "And finally...drop the sarcasm, don't be a m:dick" is more of a personal attack, although I certainly wouldn't block you over it. However, I consider this matter resolved, and I appreciate your response to this matter; I wish more users were as reasonable as you. The apology certainly will help to calm matters and demonstrates your good sense as well (and the Arbitration Committee obviously agrees [4], [5]). I look forward to working with you in more productive venues. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, ZorkFox; thanks for your message! It's a letter in Bengali, the language of my people (see Bengali script). I've always found both the language and the script quite beautiful. I'm glad you like it and you're free of course to use something yourself. There's no "z" sound in Bengali; the closest character would be জ. (Or let me know if you would like a different one.) — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wahkeenah, please moderate your tone. Reverting a user with an edit summary of "HOW DARE YOU send my talk page an anonymous post to which I cannot respond directly. Get a real logon OR GET OUT OF HERE" is not appropriate. Other Wikipedia editors, whether they are logged in or not, should be treated with civility and respect. Anonymous users are under no obligation to register, and they are free to leave messages for you just as you are free to leave messages for them. If you wish to respond to a message left by an anonymous user, you may leave it on his discussion page. If you are concerned that he may not have a static IP address (although this does not appear to be the case), you may leave a copy on your own talk page as well, or take it to the article's discussion page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Being an anonymous user (and I'd suggest the abbreviation "anon" instead of "a-none") shouldn't really make a difference for the issues you cite. Just as with a regular user, you may discuss matters on the article's talk page (Talk:Apollo moon landing hoax accusations) or on the user's talk page (User talk:67.40.249.122). Users don't have to provide you with an opportunity or forum; you should just use the standard talk areas. I don't agree with all the edits he's making, but if you are not able to articulate your position instead of insulting him and refusing to discuss, it will be less likely that other editors will side with you. I'm not certain what you mean by "go[ing] to it". If I would like, I can see his user page at User:67.40.249.122, his talk page at User talk:67.40.249.122, and his contributions at Special:Contributions/67.40.249.122. Where else would I want to go? Also, I'd suggest you not selectively remove items from your talk page—it makes it look as if you have something to hide. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for you to leave someone a message and demand that they not reply; however, in the interest of courtesy, I will place this message only on my talk page. I don't agree with his edits, however, your shouting and removing his polite questions from your talk page make it seem to others as though he is right. Acting in this manner will certainly not win you support. It is easy to get too caught up in Wikipedia. If you are getting stressed, I recommend taking a short break, during which time you do not edit Wikipedia and do not view it. Or if you must, stick to uncontroversial articles for a bit. Please let me know if I can help. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize; I did not intend the phrase to be derogatory, although in retrospect, it appears that way. I was not referring to religion itself as a mythology; however, creation stories, by definition are. (For instance, see Merriam-Webster's definition of mythology: "2 a: the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people", with the definition of myth: "1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon".) Each religion has its own mythology; however, mythology is only one component of religion. For instance, while I am religious and believe in God, I don't believe the mythology associated with my religion is literally true—however, it does not mean that there is nothing to learn from it either. Popular was used in reference to your argument that something should be included in the scientific view because more people believe it; a religion or a mythology being more pop\ular does not increase its scientific credibility. If 95% of people surveyed don't think quantum mechanics is accurate, it has no impact on its scientific bearing; however, if new evidence does not match quantum mechanics, even if the theory were popular, it would still have to be revised or abandoned. Please don't insult people you disagree with. That is uncivil and unproductive; those people could just as easily say that people who share your beliefs are selfish idiots. Of course, such a broad categorization is true in neither case. You are welcome to believe what you wish about the origin of the universe; I Wikipedia is not a forum for debate and I have no interest in modifying your beliefs. Your speculation of my religious beliefs is inaccurate and irrelevant. You will find that your arguments will be far more effective if you can rebut the other's points rather than trying to attack the other user or insult his beliefs. You are correct that there is no evidence for or against the existence of God; that is why science takes no position on the matter. Science does not say that God exists; science does not say that God does not exist; what science does say is that there is a far simpler model for the origin of life on Earth, one that is based on patterns and interactions that have been previously observed. Please don't try to instigate conflict. I did not call religion a myth, nor could atheism be construed as a myth, and I don't see how you are drawing this conclusion. Nor do I feel that being popular is a good criterion to judge a religion or belief system on. Naturally, I don't agree with you that I am plain stupid, although perhaps I lack the intelligence to realize I am. Nevertheless, I feel that some 3.5 billion years of organisms reproducing and those with the best reproductive strategies surviving is plenty of time for Homo sapiens to evolve. If you would like to further discuss the article, Talk:Origin of life would be the best place (from your comments to me, I assume you did not read our replies to your comment there). Or, if you would like, I would be happy to further discuss origin beliefs with you or the relationship of science and religion; however, you must remain civil and keep an open mind. If you approach matters from the point of view that anyone who disagrees with you is "plain stupid", it will be very difficult for you to learn from anyone else. Please let me know if I can help clear up any questions or concerns for you. Also, please leave new messages at the bottom of discussion pages, and please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your posts. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering and apologizing. I understand why you were angry, and now realize how the juxtaposition of the two words would have distorted my meaning. Religion is not a mythology, but its stories are. This is not an insult; but results from the definition of the word. In fact, most mythologies are associated with religions—at least the ones I can think of offhand. I'm not certain I understand what you mean by accident, but it is dangerous to extrapolate from what you consider common sense to what is self-evident to others. In fact, many people, including me, believe that the universe is perfectly capable of developing to this point unaided by divine intervention. Certainly the development of the universe from the Big Bang to the origin of the Earth (and encompassing formation of stars and planets) seems relatively straightforward—it is not seriously opposed by any group, religious or otherwise, that I know of. And based on the framework of laws and interactions we have been able to work out, it is quite plausible to me for life to evolve from pre-cellular conditions into the complexity and diversity we see today. 4.6 billion years is a long time. One does not have to accept literally one's religion's mythology to embrace the religion itself. As I mentioned to you before, I am religious, but it is foolish in my opinion not to recognize that science has been far more successful than religion in explaining the mechanics of the how the world works. You seem to be quite fixed on being part of the majority belief, and feel that it greatly strengthens your position. You state that if 5 billion people believe in God and there is no evidence either way, we should follow their example. This is certainly one approach. A different one might be: in the absence of any evidence either way, the simpler explanation should be selected (see Occam's razor). That is why scientific inquiry into the origin of life does not mention God—because there is a far simpler explanation of life's beginnings. If you are interested in anti-atheism activism, that is your prerogative, but Wikipedia is probably not the place for you. It is an encyclopedia. I am not certain what specific examples of sneaking in material you are referring to, but I can assure you that there are people from all religious backgrounds who edit Wikipedia, and there some from each group who may try to go overboard in promoting their views. I don't think it's appropriate to stereotype a whole group in this manner. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

While I enjoy speaking with you, may I ask two favors? One, when you leave me messages, you don't have to start a new section each time. Simply edit the old section and add your message there. If you're adding a new section, it should go at the bottom, not the top. Second, could you add four tildes to the ends of your messages, like this: ~~~~? It will produce your user name (or IP address) and timestamp. It is fine if you believe that the universe requires divine intervention; I am not interested in changing your religious beliefs. But realize that there are plenty of alternative explanations; your viewpoint is certainly not the only one extant, nor the only one reasonable. In my opinion, it is arrogant to think that you are correct and that others who disagree with you don't have common sense. Why do you feel the article is insulting to religion? What do you feel it is lacking? Evolution#Social and religious controversies already discusses the religious objections to science, and links to creation-evolution controversy for more information. Please consider reading [6] (the whole Section I) and especially [7] to see how another encyclopedia treats the topic. It is not atheists who are trying to remove religion from science; it is a cornerstone of science that it does not deal with the supernatural. You imagine conflict where there is none. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I think it's tricky to assign motives or rationale to others, especially if you're just extrapolating from your own experience. As a matter of fact, I believe there is little to no evidence that God exists—my belief in God is due to faith, not logic. I apologize for mixing up the articles. The very first sentences of Origin of life are "This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses, see origin of life (disambiguation)." To me, this is a very clear statement that the article is "'strictly scientific' and [that] there are other possibilities that include divine intervention." You don't seem to have completed the following sentence, so I cannot respond to it. That prominent scientists are religious does not imply that they believe that God directly intervened to create life on Earth, and even if they do so, it still is not a part of science. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see you back. I thought something might have been wrong, because you had been able to discuss things quite calmly before, and I was horrified to see you acting in a manner that certainly would not help your credibility. In fact, I briefly considered blocking you hoping to keep you away from Wikipedia until things cooled off, but I decided not to. Anyway, now that you know what's wrong, it should be easier to control. Sorry to hear about the Navy. Did you have to go to the REC or whatever it's called? — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

REU, that's right. And then to Ship 41 or 52 or something like that? No, I've never been in the Navy—although I am a big fan of Star Trek, and the structure of Starfleet is modelled after the U.S. Navy. Suffice it to say that I am a curious guy; I keep my eyes and ears open and acquire random bits of information here and there—I am a knowledge seeker after all! I'm glad the Adderal is helping! I'm a physician, but a young one—I hesitate to get too close to giving medical advice over the Internet. I will say that I have no specific concerns about your treatment. It looks like it's doing the job well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The Evolution article deals strictly with biological evolution; it assumes the prior existence of Earth (and life). The formation of Earth falls under the purview of astronomy. If you have doubts about the science of planetary formation, then objections would belong on the talk pages of articles that deal with that, and that's why I said that it wasn't relevant at Talk:Evolution. It's not a place to discuss your objections to science in general (nor are article talk pages the place to discuss personal philophies either). As it happens, there is a very simple scientific explanation for the formation of the Earth. Gravity is a force which causes every piece of matter to be attracted to every other piece (it's more complicated, but this is a simplification). The intensity of the attraction is proportional to the mass of each object and inversely proportional to the distance between them. A collection of rocks and dust will naturally contract under the force of gravity. Potential energy will be converted to kinetic energy, and when they collide, to heat; if it is hot enough, the mass will become molten. Let the outer surface (crust) cool, and voilà!—you have a primordial Earth. Again, it's more complicated, but the basic ideas behind the formation of the Earth are quite simple. There are many possible explanations for a fine-tuned universe, but none of them have any direct bearing on biological evolution. One possibility is that God created the universe that way. Another is that it was essentially random, and we just got lucky that the universe happened to exist in a format that allowed life to arise. Another is that the parameters are somehow constrained or fixed, but we have not yet discovered the underlying theory and so belive that they can hold any value. Another is that there are a wide variety of physical constants that could allow intelligent life to evolve, but they involve completely different physics and such and we're not yet imaginative/smart enough to conceive of them. Another is that there are an infinite number of universes with different natural laws and constants; only in a tiny fraction will they interact in a way to produce stable matter, stars, planets, and life. We evolve in one such universe and marvel at the well-matched parameters. Another is that there is only one universe, but that the visible universe is only one very tiny section of it. As the universe expands, regions spontaneously decay to laws of nature with a lower vacuum energy, through quantum tunneling. The change spreads outwards in all directions, a bubble of new laws surrounded by the old laws. As it expands, regions inside it spontaneously tunnel/decay to new laws, which then expand as bubbles inside bubbles. Since the universe is expanding, the inside bubbles never catch up to the outside ones. In one such bubble creation/expansion, the laws are such that stable matter, stars, planets, and people arise; we perceive the bubble creation as the origin of our universe and call it the big bang, and we marvel that the laws of nature seem so well-designed. In a similar manner, you were (likely) born in some habitable environment. You were not born in Antarctica, or under the ocean, or somewhere between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. Someone who was not aware of the existence of these might look at the comfortable climate, gravity, and such around him and think that it was amazing that things were so well-designed, not realizing that a variety of environments were possible but he was born in a place where humans are found. I'm not saying which of these I think is most likely, and I do believe in God. I have no desire to modify your religious beliefs, nor do I have any reason to believe I could succeed. I tell you this to show you that there are plenty of scientific answers without the incorporation of God, and more importantly that these objections do not belong on Talk:Evolution. I am happy to continue discussion on our talk pages, in whatever form you wish. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you two. I'm trying to be healthy and it won't help if my head keeps gaining weight. But seriously, BorgHunter, that's extremely kind of you! Is there something specific to which I owe this honor? I very much appreciate hearing that from you. Especially since we didn't meet under the best circumstances. But comments such as this as well as your taking responsibility for your actions show why you were elected to adminship in the first place. You have my full support. I'll definitely be adding this to my "awards" section once I restore it. Encephalon, I value your comments as always. When are you going to go up for adminship?—I've been trying to nominate this guy forever...I think he'd been here less then a month when I first told him I wanted to nominate him once he'd been here longer, but he's been refusing so far.—You now, 'Ceph, you should give Star Trek a chance. The price of seasons 1–3 of The Next Generation just dropped and I bought them—they're on their way to me right now! And don't look to BorgHunter for support—his username's an explicit Star Trek reference. We're everywhere! And I'll have you know that the ships and REU and such are referring to the U.S. Navy and have nothing to do with Star Trek. Jerk! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You can keep your NCC-1701; the NCC-1701-D is mine! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Typically, editors should sign their comments using four tildes, which you presumably did here. If editors don't sign in this manner, it can be confusing to see who wrote what—and without a link to the user's account, it is difficult to check the user's contribution, visit his talk page, and so on. Often, if editors don't sign their posts or don't include all the information, other users may add the missing material for clarity. Does that make sense? Please let me know if you have further questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why the hostility? I don't understand why this is so important to you, or why you perceive me to be engaging in "control-freakery" or passive-agressive hostility. I saw that you didn't like the {{unsigned}} template because it said that you didn't sign your comments, but at the same time, you were removing the link to yourself. (Incidentally, users shouldn't have to dig through the history to find out who left a comment, and it's especially worse if the page has been archived.) I thought a reasonable compromise would be to stick a link to your username next to it in a way that didn't imply anything about your signing habits. If you choose not to use a standard signature, you should certainly expect that people messages will be duly annotated. The link should be next to your comment so that it is easily noticed when reading the comment. It is unlikely anyone would think it is part of your comment, since it follows your "signature", it is enclosed in brackets, and it uses the standard {{user}} template. If you'd prefer, why don't you just use a standard signature there, like you're doing here, and that way no note would be needed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I caught you like that. My block length was ill-considered. I had quickly logged onto Wikipedia to check something, saw the vandalism to your page, saw the other vandalism, and was disturbed enough to institute the long block. I acted hastily as I was in a hurry, but I should have reviewed the block log at a minimum before blocking. I'll be more careful next time. Thanks for letting me know about it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help in fixing up the article. Feel free to rewrite the last section if you can think of a better way to express it. I agree with the changes you made to the last sentence; it was somewhat awkward before. What I was trying to get at is that human colonies may not be on other planets; they may be on moons, or even spacecraft. Can you think of a smooth way to emphasize the extraterrestrial nature of the colonies, and not the specific locations? If not, it's fine. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome! If we can't think of another way to word it, that's fine. I've been away for a bit but I'll be back next week. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. I'm not certain that there are any rules being violated by copying articles in a user space like this. It certainly shouldn't be in those categories, and I have removed them. You may wish to ask for further clarification at the administrators' noticeboard for advice, or nominate it for deletion at WP:MFD, although my guess is that it is not really suitable for deletion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your contributions have been quite helpful. I've been away too but will return next week. Thanks for the barnstar! I'll add it to my userpage when I add the awards section back. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make edits like this. As with your previous attempts to insert disclaimers into articles reflecting your point of view, they are reverted within minutes. Furthermore, it is not even accurate or relevant. There is no such thing as a "proven theory" in science. Further, the article makes no mention of the origin of life on Earth, but just the evolution of humans from other apes, so even if you feel it is not "proven", it doesn't make any sense to mention it here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

At the top of discussion pages is a tab with a plus sign ("+"). Clicking on it will produce a new section at the bottom, which is where new messages should go. Please add new sections to the bottom of my talk page, and please sign your posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. I tire of fixing your posts and have asked you politely before. With the exception of spoiler warnings, I don't think disclaimers are appropriate within encyclopedia articles, and I doubt you would find many who would disagree. You may be interested in reading WP:NPOV, specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Pseudoscience, which states "...The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article." The problem with your disclaimer, aside from being a disclaimer, was not so much neutrality but instead lack of relevance. You wrote "Please note: Evolution is currently an accepted theory among scientists, and although there has been strong evidence in support of Evolution, it is still not a proven theory on how life started." Evolution is not a theory on how life started, nor is the origin of life being discussed in Human, so the disclaimer's claim appears to be a non sequitur at best. Evolution forms the foundation of modern biology and its manifestations will appear in almost every topic regarding biology and medicine. Evolution cannot be proven; there is no such thing as a "proven theory" in science (do you read the messages I leave for you?), but we can say that there is overwhelming evidence for it. How popular or unpopular a theory is with the lay public is irrelevant and has no bearing on its scientific value. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me! The article definitely needed some work. I will see if I can expand it once I fully return; hopefully next week. I appreciate your efforts in this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to hear from you again. Actually, I had not previously seen those articles but they are quite impressive! Good work! It is a difficult situation, but most of it predates me (I've only been on Wikipedia for a year or so). Most new articles these days are written by those in healthcare I'd imagine, who will use the more precise term, and most have no lay term. I would agree with moving it to "Dental handpiece"; perhaps you might consider re=suggesting it after some time has passed. Often it must be decided on a case-by-case basis; the only issue I can recall recently was when someone proposed moving Flatulence to "Farting" (the proposal failed). For the most part, even if the laity are familiar with any medical equipment, there aren't other lay terms for them. It's too bad that there aren't more dentists on Wikipedia—if you encounter enough, you should consider starting a WikiProject for it as well. Don't feel you bother me; I always enjoy interacting with my dental colleagues. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Rent, it looks great to me! What bothers it about you—can you give me an example of a list you want it to look like? Is it because you're using a table instead of a bulleted list? If so, I agree with using the table format. I can't think of anything to add, although I am not very familiar with Hitchcock's work. I added a link to it from Alfred Hitchcock. Good to see you've been keeping busy. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Aw, thanks—I'm touched! I do try my best. Heh, don't worry about embarrassing me...I have a big enough head to appreciate this sort of thing. It's nice to see that someone thinks I'm doing the right thing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're trying to convey, although I do like fractals. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'm glad to help out. Are there any specific guidelines, or should I just ask him what he is curious about? — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Petros. We've been matched through Esperanza's Admin coaching program. Is there anything in particular you have questions about, or do you just want general advice? — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome; it's nice to meet you! Sure, I think a user subpage is a great idea—just let me know where you want to meet. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't edit other's user pages. Messages for other users may be placed on their "talk" pages, accessible by clicking the "discussion" tab on their user pages. What is "experimenting with Wikipedia" that you believe Boothy did? What was the test edit that was reverted or removed? — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that warning policy is intended towards those who are vandalizing or testing how Wikipedia works, not for those making edits you disagree with. Using such a vandalism template may be inflammatory. I understand that Boothy removed text that you wrote, but sure you can't have considered it "experimenting with Wikipedia", which is why I asked you what he'd done that you considered experimenting. To me it appears that Boothy did leave explanations in his edit summaries, though since you declined to actually demonstrate the edits in question, I cannot be sure I did not miss something. The "test" to which I refer is in your message: "Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed." Since Boothy was obviously not testing his editing ablility, the use of such a template is inappropriate. Feel free to leave messages for or otherwise warn users who are engaging in actions with which you disagree, but be sure that the text matches the message you wish to send. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My intent was to affect future interactions, not to affect the course of this one. I still maintain that using vandalism templates for these sorts of encounters is likely to lead to unpleasantness, but I can accept that we have different views on civility in interactions. I’m glad that you two are collaborating successfully. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Contact lens was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help…

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireswordfight (talk • contribs)

Thanks for letting me know—I'll see what I can do! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Moe, thanks for your message. I'm glad you have decided to return (it seems like I am so slow in responding to messages that you've always returned by the time I get a chance to respond). But it's good to see you back. I know Wikipedia can be frustrating—it's a huge community, and of course online communication and interaction is quite impersonal. If I may be so bold, I'd like to offer a couple suggestions. First, I agree that civility is a big problem. A big problem. I don't know if people have been uncivil to you, but I've found that remaining calm and civil greatly strengthens your position; in fact, sometimes, it's almost better if the other person is rude since it so greatly weakens his position. (I'm not implying you've ever not been calm and civil.) I know you also disapproved of some people's userbox-related actions. Without making a statement on what I think should be done with user boxes, I just want to point out that of course administrator rights should not be abused, but obviously those administrators deleting the templates did not feel they were abusing their rights, and also obviously a lot of people agreed. I understand there is disagreement, but trying to see things from others' views helps mitigate bad feelings all around. I am one of those who feels that most of the userboxes are inappopriate, and even for those that are not worthy of deletion, certainly I lose respect for people that use them on their user pages. But your assumption that people disagree with specific userboxes simply because they don't apply to them is simplistic. There are many user boxes, both that apply to me and that don't, that I don't think are appropriate. For instance, I don't think templates proclaiming one's religion should exist, even for my own religion (though perhaps familiarity with a religion would be appropriate). Or similarly, although I personally do feel that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism does a much better job than "intelligent design" at explaining the discrepancy between their beliefs and the overwhelming scientific evidence, I feel that such a template is rude at best. Realize that many of these issues are more complex and more nuanced than you may realize.

I'm sorry you feel that no one listens to you. Obviously, many responded to your departure message on your userpage, but I understand your point about not listening on RfA's and such. I haven't looked at the specific situations, but just because no one explicitly refers to your comments doesn't mean that no one has read them or agrees with them. A lot of times, someone is especially eloquent and people may refer to that comment instead. Or they may refer to none at all. Or it may be that people don't listen to you. For that matter, I'm not sure my comments have much impact, either. If it stresses you, just stick to working on encyclopedia articles—that's what we're here for, after all. And again, if your comments reflect the reasoning you used on your userpage as I mentioned above, people may see it as overly simplistic or an inability to see through others' eyes. Also, reputation and credibility go along way. There are several factors involved, such as experience, quality of comments, low error rate, remaining cool and collected, civility, and so on. Everyone has editors to whom they look up. For instance, I hold User:Michael Snow, User:Jfdwolff, User:Encephalon in the highest regard; actually User:UninvitedCompany, User:Raul654, and User:SWAdair are up there too, and these are just off the top of my head. To help, I'd advise against the repeated leaving and rejoining. While you may derive some temporary pleasure from the nice comments people leave to entice you to return, overall, it hurts your credibility and reliability. There's nothing wrong with getting stressed and taking a break, but try to make it less about you. Just write that you're taking a wikibreak: you can say that things are getting stressful and you need to get away, you can write that you disagree with some recent events and would like to get away for a bit, you can write that real life has gotten busy and you need to take a break. But try to stay away from the no one listens to me or no one votes for me complaints—obviously, there are many many registered users whose comments carry much less weight than yours, and most will never be suitable administrators. Neither complaint bolsters your credibility or makes you more suitable for being an administrator. I know it's little consolation, but there is plenty to do on Wikipedia without being an administrator—I actually had no intention of pursuing it until someone offered to nominate me. You're a great user and a valuable contributor, and yes I did notice your username change, as I like to keep an eye on how you're doing. I don't think Wikipedia would fall apart without you, nor would it fall apart without me, or without most of its contributors. But you do enrich Wikipedia by your continued activity, and I'm glad you're back. I don't mean to be overly harsh, but your message implied that you wanted the truth and not any "feel-good" comments, so here it is. I would like to see you as an administrator one day, once you can work through the other emotional issues. And I'm afraid I don't particularly care for your attempt to trick people into thinking they have new messages when in fact they don't—I tend to prefer honest, upfront approaches, and I don't think I would ever support a candidate who was engaged in this sort of deception, even as a joke. Perhaps my sense of humor is less developed than that of others. Anyway, in summary, I like you and I'm glad you're sticking around. And you've obviously got a lot of fans here too. I hope things improve for you. And I hope to see you as an administrator one day. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to the message on your user page, which referred to Wikipedia-related problems, not real life. I certainly would not propose to use Wikipedia as an escape from real life or that Wikipedia is more important than other matters in your life. I must admit that your messages seem contradictory or a bit erratic to me. You complained about not becoming an administrator on your user page, yet when I respond to this, you reply that you don’t wish to be one. I’m happy that Aya is so important to you, though I don’t understand why you are making such a big deal of her greater importance than Wikipedia. I enjoy Wikipedia greatly, yet there are countless people who are far more important to me. If Wikipedia is interfering with your personal life then I would suggest that you take a break from Wikipedia.

You are obviously going through a difficult time in your life. I strongly urge you to speak with a psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, therapist, or even a trusted teacher or relative. You are not the only person to have felt this way, nor will you always feel this way. Accept the guidance of someone who has experience with these matters.

You are free to do what you wish with the new messages box (though I wouldn't be surprised if someone removes it). As long as you're willing to accept the annoyance and disappointment of those who thought they had a new message and the time they waste loading a new page, then keep it there—but it's a lack of considerateness I wouldn't have expected of you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Joelito! I'm glad you like it! It's definitely my most ambitious project, y no ha sido fácil, aunque algunos escritores me han ayudado mucho. I've wanted to write something like it for months, though it seemed insurmountable. Si encuentra algo que puede corregir o mejorar, feel free to pitch in or offer comments on the talk page. ¡Siempre puedo usar ayuda! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow; thanks for your comments, Tony. This is high praise indeed. You’re right about about trying novel ideas; there’s Timeline of evolution but I couldn’t believe no one had written anything like this before. Then again, it has been rather difficult even to come this far, and several good editors have been helping me out. I’m so glad you and Joelito enjoyed reading it! Despite my best efforts, the article is on the long side, and it's so easy to get caught up in “details” of this four-and-a-half-billion—year journey. I am hoping to get it to featured status one day, but I have a lot of referencing to do before I can even think about that. If you have any ideas, please feel free to suggest them. Incidentally, if you enjoyed this, you may be interested in Tufts University's Cosmic Evolution web site, which traces the whole history of the universe in detail, exploring scientific methods and such along the way. It kept me occupied for weeks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again, Tony. I very much appreciate the support and I hope I will be able to improve the article to do justice to this honor. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Encyclopedist—I’m not sure what I’ve done to deseve this, but I certainly appreciate it. I also appreciated your frank opinion of History of Earth; I do realize that it is rather unconventional for a Wikipedia article, but I still hope it will enrich Wikipedia in some way. Thanks again! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Arkuat, I appreciate the praise. I have really enjoyed working on the article, although it’s certainly been a challenge. Interestingly, it was History of the world that helped stimulate me to write this article (see Talk:History of the world#Page title). I’ve always enjoyed “big picture”–type matters, which is why I like History of the world so much. To me, though covering human history wasn’t enough—I wanted something to tie the planet’s whole history together, to give a sense of the time scale involved, and to show how physics, astronomy, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and history all work together (and to a lesser extent, a bit of geology, anthropology, and so on). We’ve amassed so much knowledge and become so specialized that I think it has become quite easy to be unable to grasp the whole picture. Anyway I’m so glad you liked it. If you have anything to add or can improve its accuracy, please feel free to pitch in. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, CIS. Thanks for asking my opinion. First I should be clear that I am not a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation, nor do I hold any especially prominent post. I’m just a Wikipedia editor whom my fellow editors have judged to be trusted with some additional tools. Your user page looks really good—you’ve obvoiusly put a lot of work into it. I think it gives a good picture of what you’re like. I find the switch between first person and third person to be a bit jarring. You start out using the third person; however, when you start discussing your interests, the first two “CrazyInSane’s comments” use the first person point of view; then you return to third person. It is appropriate to write the introductory material in the third person, but I think it makes more sense for you to write your comments from your own point of view. Also, as you must realize, people may be put off by your heavy religious activism—there are many, including me, who are turned off by attempts to push one’s political or religious views in Wikipedia. By coming on so strong, both on your user page and in other areas or Wikipedia, you risk alienating those who otherwise might agree with you. In my case, I had never given much thought to the Christian nature of AD/BC, and prior to your arrival I don’t think I’d ever used CE/BCE—but now that you’ve shown how religious AD/BC is, I probably won’t be using it anymore. (Understand I come from a religious, but not Christian, background.) Finally, I’d use an s in the possessive “User:CIS’s interests”. Hope this helps. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you didn't see the messages. Yet you surely must have gotten the notice alerting you that you had received new messages. Either you ignored it and the alert followed you from page to page, or you went to your talk page but did not read the messages. In the future, please be sure to read the messages people leave for you—blocking you from editing should not be the only way to get through to you. I don’t see why a vague reference to the talk page could explain what you thought was not neutral about the article. If one does not feel an article is neutral, the first step one should do is to make oneself familiar with WP:NPOV. Please read our neutral point of view policy, in particular WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, prior to pursuing a complaint. The next step is to bring specific objections to the talk page; often the matter can be resolved through discussion, either through subsequent editing of the article or through consensus that the article is already neutral. Oftentimes an editor with a specific political or religious agenda may to try to influence articles, but their claims of bias may be judged to be exaggerated by the other editors. I must say that I do feel that the Evolution article is well-written, comprehensive, and neutral as it stands. It it is a featured article and has been through considerable scrutiny by both those who do believe in science and those who don’t. I believe the current article describes the science of it quite well, while also acknowledging that it conflicts with literal interpretations of the mythologies of several religions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I’m glad you approve! — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit! I noticed you're a geologist. I've done my best writing those sections, but I'm just an amateur, so any suggestions or corrections you have would be appreciated. Or, if you have some better or additional references than the one's I've come up with, please let me know. I hope you found the article interesting and accurate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the assistance. I changed the title to "The Hadean eon" although if you feel that "Hadean" alone is superior, please change it. I copied the Scientific American link to an "External links" section, as you requested. Please feel free to modify the reference. We're using the new Cite.php feature for automatic referencing. If you edit the section, you'll see the entire footnote enclosed between <ref> tags; MediaWiki converts it to a superscript and places the reference itself at the bottom. The numbering is done automatically. To update the reference, simply edit the section, remove the information currently between the tags, and replace it with your own reference—it'll automatically appear at the end of the article, in the proper order. (I'm not sure if you're already familiar with the system, and if you prefer, I'll gladly make the change for you.) If there are any others you wish to replace, you may just go ahead. I can always pull any useful links from the history. I apologize for any inaccuracies or misrepresentation. As I mentioned, I'm an amateur, and it's quite difficult to condense such vast information and knowledge into single paragraphs. Hopefully you can make clear up the inconsistencies while keeping the section concise. Again, thank you for your help—I'm a physician and a bit out of my element here. It's great to have a professional to help out! — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Work got a little busier than usual. I left a few comments but I'll try to give you some more detailed ones tomorrow. You'll make a great candidate! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem; it's my job! Yikes. That behavior is quite inappropriate. I'll keep an eye on him. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am disappointed at your choice in section headings. My edit summary stated "the only method for classifying species is biological", not that there are no other classification schemes besides biological ones. The species is a unit in biological classification; it does not mean that no other schemes can exist or be beneficial, nor does it mean that the biological system is superior to all others. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's all right; I already noted there that you misrepresented my statement, and changing it at this point would make some of the subsequent comments spurious. In my opinion, when one is getting angry, it's better to take a little break from Wikipedia. That way one is less likely to misinterpret others' statements—being less likely to see bad faith and exaggerated claims—and less likely to provoke conflict. Arguments made from logic and reason, not from emotion or anger, tend to be more convincing, as well. Hope you're feeling better now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that you have been trying to get Encephalon to run for administrator probably almost as long as I have. I got lucky and caught him at a good time, but I don't wish to hog all the fun. If you wish to co-nominate, you may do so at User:Knowledge Seeker/Encephalon nomination. I have been drafting my nomination statement and it is nearly finished. I think we're planning to go live this weekend. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Good! It seems only fair. Any suggestions for changes? Do you think it's good enough? Regarding my signature, it's a letter in Bengali, the language of my people (see Bengali script). It's a beautiful language, with a beautiful written form as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this, but the rules for RFA were changed some time back; while one may create a nomination, it shouldn't be added to WP:RFA until the candidate accepts the nomination. In any case, Encephalon has previously declined nominations made without asking him first, and I preferred to give him time to answer the questions before posting the nomination on WP:RFA. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, but it looks like Ilmari Karonen already deleted it. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. By the way, you may wish to remove the remove the wikibreak notices from your user page, since it looks a little silly to keep editing with the notices posted. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You've completely put me to shame. I'm thrilled to see the strong support you're getting, although of course you deserve it. It's about time you joined the ranks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you're welcome. Although you know there's no need to thank me—there were several other people wanting to nominate you, and you easily would have succeeded even with a self-nomination. Thank you for allowing me to nominate you. And I did have an ulterior motive in wanting to get you to be an administrator. Certainly I thought you deserved it and would be able to accomplish tasks easier with administrative powers. And hopefully it will be an inducement to continue your great work here. But more than that, Wikipedia needs administrators like you. I am concerned about the general level of civility and of open-mindedness here, not just from administrators but from all users. The best leaders lead by example, and it is important to show how we feel discussion and interactions should take place, as well as to show that we can accomplish more through rational explanation and calm discussion than through name-calling and wheel warring. I wasn't exaggerating when I said you're the kind of administrator I'd hope to be. I'm glad you've finally agreed to be an administrator (although I miss the days you'd leave me messages to delete images for you). — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh...don't try to humor me. Haha just kidding; thanks for trying to make me feel useful. I did go ahead and delete the images. Hope you're enjoying your new role. I see you've been deleting some images yourself. I remember when I first became an adminstrator, I nearly blocked random users or deleted random pages several times. Haha. Hey don't forget to make some time amidst your new duties to take a look at History of Earth, if you get a chance. It's by no means complete, but I would be happy if you had any suggestions for changes in the article. Thanks bud. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No hurry...in fact I might try rewriting the human history section a bit today—that's probably the most problematic section. I will be working on the article for a long time, so you can take your time. It's a long-term project. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)