User talk:Questionable pulse

Thank you for your interest in the matter of patents held by KR. Like many obsessive Wikipedians I am a curious person who wants to know things and is disappointed when some rule keeps information I'm interested in from being included, so I hope we can find a way to include it.

When I put the patents back in, I got many more hits. Most of those hits, however, appeared to me to be the same "intelligent switching" thing over and over and over. I don't know what that means or the difference between them all, nor could I tell if they were granted patents or patents pending, or the difference between them all, it seemed to be somehow re-patenting the same thing over and over and over.

About the inelligent switching thing, I'd like to know if it is used by anyone. If no one uses it, wouldn't that be a failed invention? I mean, it's all well and good to patent something, but Edison isn't famous for having many patents so much as the importance of his inventions. The phone changed the world, but if someone has fifty-somesuch patents for an internet switching system that never gets used, he's not an inventor or an inventor of any significance if it never gets used or has any impact on anything.

There was also a sort of extendable roof thing for atheletic tracks; I thought that was wierd. It soundeed cool, but again, has anyone ever used it? I get this picture in my mind of KR running track and getting the sun in his eye or somesuch and dashing off some fantasy of a thing to the patent office, filling out the forms and and paying his fees or whatever it is that you have to do to get a patent on a thing, which I imagine just has to be clearly novel, not necessarily economically viable, feasable, work properly, work at all, or otherwise be a good invention or the kind of a thing that would justify referring to the person as "an inventor". Like I could go jogging and imagine a solid diamond running surface, but if it's a bad idea am I an inventor of any importance just because I'm granted a patent? I'd like to see a picture, too, because that really would help a person understand what it even is. I'm very curious about this roof thing. What do you know about it?

Speaking of not even knowing what the heck something even is, what about that casino thing with the house and the players doing some kind of a game, what is that? A new form of gambling? Weird. Oh, and have you heard about the superior daytrading system that lost, how much money? He must really be interested in gambling or some such.

Please feel free to give me your thoughts on what that patent is. It may be a new category of thing that Wikipedia should have an article about. There should be no notable referent which doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. "Entrance-exchange structure"? Is that even an English term? C'mon, feel free to speculate, what do you think it is?

And finally, I found that he had patents on each of the NXIVM sashes. Makes sense that the business should copyright on those, but when we call him an inventor, will the reader understand something like sashes? Why did it show up in the google scholar patent search, you can patent a sash? I'd've thought that a sash would be the kind of thing one would copyright, not patent. But then again, I've never seen a sash quite like those. Should we tell the reader that he invented sashes used in his business as motivational awards?

I didn't find the patent for Rational Inquiry but I'd like to.

So anyway, I'm dying to hear whatever you have to say about the topic of his patents. Chrisrus (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you need to stop and discuss this with me. You just reverted over 10 of my edits. We need to stop before I report you.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Please discuss with other editors before reorganizing a wide swath of articles. Arbor8 (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You're making a mass of these changes when it appears that Jerzeykydd and Arbor8 don't entirely agree and wish to discuss the matter. I would advise you to hold off until you have given them a chance to air their views. I notice that you haven't discussed the topic with any users recently or ever on an article talk page. I'm sure you are aware of the importance of discussion, it is the cornerstone of all Wikipedia's activities, and when people wish to discuss your actions - even if you turn out to be in the right - ignoring such requests can be considered disruptive. What say you? Regards, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get a response from you in a month. Notice I contacted you on Jan 19th. I continued to edit articles using my format. What's the problem with my format?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I contacted you 15:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC) user talk:Jerzeykydd#Tenure Subsection before any of this happened and never received a response, it only took me a few days to respond to you via the noticeboard.In theory there is nothing wrong with your formatting, however the format throughout the House is inconsistent, and I feel to have a political position and votes section makes some very key information more accessible, which resembles the format of the highest quality Senate/House of Representatives articles see:Nancy Pelosi John Boehner, im definitely not trying to step on any toes, so maybe there's a way you can help me include these sections without intruding on the formatting you have already done. Questionable pulse (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that all U.S. Representatives have standard pages. There are 435 members in the U.S. House, and I haven't even finished half of them yet. It is very time consuming as you know. The problem is many of them are outdated and poorly written. It would be great if you helped me clean them up. If there are any problems just let me know. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helo.
Concerns have been raised due to your apparent use of multiple accounts. Can you provide details as to your motivation?
You can contact me by email if you want, but will first need to register an e-mail address with your account.
Amalthea 15:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do have one other account. Sorry I didn’t think it was against the rules to have 2 if you weren’t using them to gang up on pages. I wasn’t using them as Socks. I hope you don’t have to block them. I think I’ve been making helpful edits.Questionable pulse (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have more than two accounts! And it takes effort (and money!) to use them the way you do. Why are you doing that? Amalthea 12:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It is only because I'm paranoid by nature. anyone who thinks the internet is secure is naive. I still don't believe I have violated the spirit of the sock rule. Even though I used more than one account, I did not abuse it and have been making positive contributions. Understand if you have to block them, but can I at least edit using this username for a little bit longer? I finally came to an agreement with jerzeykydd (see above) on a reformatting project after over a month of discussion. Questionable pulse (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is my dilemma: Your edits seem harmless. But you are lying to me. Amalthea 23:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]