I appreciate the comments, Dr. Salter-Duke. I too hope that some of the editors will have time to suggest ways to help me improve the article. Based on a suggestion from another editor, I'm trying to incorporate some more plate tectonics and climatology into the article, though my grasp of these is tenuous. Do you have any other suggestions on how I might improve it? — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. I will appreciate any advice you can provide. Wikipedia is fortunate to have someone with your expertise! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Those are good points. While I've been able to touch briefly on some of the supercontinents, I really didn't go into that much detail—in part because it's tougher for me to find good reference material for this. I can definitely work on including more material on it, though. Climate change will be tougher since I know less about it. One of our editors did ask WMC for any advice, but he (quite understandably) is apparently too busy at this time. I'll try to start including some of that in a couple days. I just don't want the article to get too long. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

You’re welcome. If you’re talking about a reply to your e-mail, I’m sorry; it’s taking me longer than expected. I’ve had little time this week and I’ve wanted to spend more time on History of Earth. I guess I’ll just send you a shorter reply for now. I already left some information for the participants on the WikiProject’s talk page about why the project as it stood was inappropriate. I’ll leave her a message but as long as they’re not actually going around changing era notation, I think it’s probably OK. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your e-mail. You're welcome; I hope that the issue will be resolved smoothly. Yes, I remember all too well, but you seem to be a much more productive editor now. I'm glad you weren't indefinitely blocked. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It looks like that template call had already been removed at the time of your deletion. Even if the link were still present, removal of the template call would be the appropriate action, in my opinion. I hardly think that summary deletion of the user subpage is justified. Please restore the page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hmmm...I don't think I can help you out with that. I can see the merits of both wording styles, but I'm really not active enough on the article to be able to suggest one over the either. To be honest, the mathematician (and astronomer) in me would just prefer something like astronomical year numbering, avoiding clunky abbreviations and the lack of a year zero. But in this case, I think you would be best to seek out the opinion of others on the article's talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I still believe that that behavior is inappropriate; however, if you wish to do it to my comments, I do not intend to block you for it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, comment alteration is a justifiable reason for blocking. However, I later changed my mind and decided that if you really wanted the numbers, then it was acceptable to me. You were blocked for approximately one hour. What do you hope to gain from this prolonged conversation? I can restore the block, if consistency is that preferable to you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your statement "You really need some help in basic logic", by which I meant that I could see your side of the argument and was willing to grant you latitude in restructuring your talk page; I wished to be polite and not argue with you over something so trivial. No, adjusting indents for clarity is expressly allowed and encouraged. I don't see that there is anything to be gained from further discussion. Your continued argument despite my agreement to follow your suggested course suggests you are more interested in trying to stir up trouble than to improve Wikipedia. I have already agreed with you that you may number the comments as you see fit. You may certainly file a request for comment or a notice on the administrators' noticeboard if you feel that would be beneficial. If you are busy, would you like me to do it for you? — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks, Mε! Happy Easter to you too! — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for the inquiry, Eric. I did enjoy working with Petros and am glad to see him an administrator. I am considering continuing in the program, but I do feel that that perhaps its direction should be clarified. The introduction at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs/Admin coaching suggests that the purpose of the program is to have an experienced editor one can go to with questions, such as how to get something accomplished. What Titoxd told me was more along the lines of evaluating the requester for suitability for adminship. It seems the latter is the general trend. I can peruse the user's talk page and archives, and glance through the recent contributions, but unfortunately, I don't have time to do a detailed analysis of one's RFA chances; I could easily miss something, and I don't know that I can really predict whehter an RFA will pass or fail. I mean, I would feel bad if I didn't see anything wrong with a contributor and the user's RFA later failed. So I guess I'm just not sure how useful I am for this project. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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