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 December 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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

…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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

Please read the Unblock request on User talk:Adrian_Fletcher. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 19:08, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, Genius101^Guestbook 14:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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)

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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Template:MCOTMnew has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need them now so 174.251.135.248 (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledge Seeker 174.28.94.192 (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]