User talk:Knowledge Seeker

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.

Oi, it is just a break right? :)

Enjoy it! I know, they can be very refreshing lol. KOS | talk 08:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, KOS! Unfortunately, my professional life has become increasingly busy and I am not certain that I will be able to resume editing Wikipedia. I have enjoyed working with you and the other editors. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry to hear that, you are one of the best wikipedians I've ever interacted with. I do hope you will be back with us soon! KOS | talk 04:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

your abuse of the admin power

Pat, I feel that your approach to Wikipedia is needlessly incivil and disruptive, and I see no sign that you have improved since your RFC. Furthermore, your arguing over unrelated points and misinterpreting Wikipedia policy is counterproductive, at best. I don't believe your style of confrontation works well with the collaborative atmosphere here. I'm going to block you from further editing, and will seek feedback on WP:AN/I. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on the advice of fellow administrators, I have removed the block for now. Please remember to remain civil and to treat other editors with courtesy. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Per your:

Pat, I feel that your approach to Wikipedia is needlessly incivil and disruptive, and I see no sign that you have improved since your RFC. Furthermore, your arguing over unrelated points and misinterpreting Wikipedia policy is counterproductive, at best. I don't believe your style of confrontation works well with the collaborative atmosphere here. I'm going to block you from further editing, and will seek feedback on WP:AN/I. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on the advice of fellow administrators, I have removed the block for now. Please remember to remain civil and to treat other editors with courtesy. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I selected WP:AN/I and did a search on pat8722 and didn't get a hit. Where is this latest evidence of your abuse of your admin powers? pat8722 13:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have discovered what happened to it. "Automated archival of 6 sections with User:Werdnabot" deleted it at the Revision as of 08:04, 28 July 2006 [[1]], shortly after someone had vandalized it at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=66311389 (by putting the (unjustified) block about me under a nasty header about someone else (now who would have wanted to do that?))

Thatcher131 reverted the vandalism at Revision as of 06:19, 30 July 2006 (edit) at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=66646365, by restoring the complaint about me to its appropriate section (i.e. as totally unrelated to the complaint about someone else which preceeded it). Thatcher131 then later archives it in that corrected form at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=66647814, while simultaneously deleting it from the current WP:AN/I page, before I could respond there.

While I haven't got time yet to file a formal complaint against you for your abuse of the admin power, make note that no one supported your block of me. I have now seen you blatantly abuse your admin power twice against me for political purposes. I look forward to the day when you are rightly stripped of your admin power for using it as a political weapon against those whom you recognize as political opponents, destroying the quality, accuracy, and credibility of wikipedia by blocking those who adhere to all wikipedia policy, and who have demonstrated that their opponents don't. pat8722 15:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Pat. I'm sorry you had to go through so much trouble to find the thread and that I wasn't around to help you find it; next time, instead of looking through the history, checking the recent archives would be helpful, especially if it has been some time since the initial comment. I'm not sure I see the vandalism, but it doesn't really matter. You're right that the two who initially responded did not feel the block was appropriate; that's why I removed it. I thought I explained that on your talk page, and I'm sorry if I confused you. I'm a bit mystified by your comments about plitical opponents or political purposes. Do you consider me a political opponent? I don't know if we even reside in the same country, nor do I know about your political preferences. I seem to recall you getting into a conflict over libertarianism, which implies that you are either quite supportive or opposed to it, though I must confess I don't really know what libertarianism is. Politics has never been a strong interest of mine. Any blocks I have issued are in response to your behavior, not your beliefs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's opened. Wouldn't have wanted you to miss my reply to your: [duplicate comment removed [User:Knowledge Seeker here on October 9 removed pat8722's October 2 edit to his talk page (deleted content can be found at pat8722's talk page at User talk:pat8722#blocked 2)]

So here it is:

[01.09] Let me say it again, "I look forward to the day when you are rightly stripped of your admin power for using it as a political weapon against those whom you recognize as political opponents, destroying the quality, accuracy, and credibility of wikipedia by blocking those who adhere to all wikipedia policy, and who have demonstrated that their opponents don't." I've got an arbitration page open (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722), so give it your best. pat8722 01:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's open and waiting for your input, so lets hear from you. pat8722 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want me to miss messages, please leave them on my talk page. You are certainly welcome to look forward to that, but I'm not particularly concerned with your hopes or dreams; please find someone else with whom to share them. I recognize neither you nor anyone else as a an opponent, political or otherwise, though you may see me as such. There doesn't seem to be much purpose for me to contribute to your arbitration page: it's already in the voting phase, and in any case, I think it will end up helpig more eyes to watch you from now on. Furthermore, if you could continue to use the polite tone you used in your request to table, I would find that outcome superior to revocation of editing rights. And to be honest, my time on Wikipedia is limited right now, and I have other areas which are more important to me.

Please note that the terms under which your arbitration case are being considered appear to be contingent upon your current hiatus from Wikipedia. You should immediately notify the Arbitration Committee that you have resumed editing; if not, you may be subject to being blocked from editing, and it would likely adversely affect the outcome of your case. Finally, please do not leave duplicate copies of my comments on my talk page. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

1) That's what I did, left the message on your talk page. 2) My arbitration case is NOT in the voting phase, it is in the EVIDENCE GATHERING STAGE - just perfect for you to contribute if you believe you can sustain your blocks of me. You will be one of the focal points of the arbitration case, so you should try to make your case there, as it is very relevant. 3) There is plenty of time for you to state your case, as I also am very busy right now, such that we will not be getting the "response" phase for quite some time - how much time do you think you will need to try to state your case for blocking me? pat8722 23:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

We really don't need your condescension. 1) You should know that I volunteered not to edit articles until my state court cases are over - that is the only condition under which I am not editing. I will be editing again once my time schedule frees me such that I have time to participate in my arbcom case, which I promised arbcom I would notify them of. 2) I don't know what you mean about "duplicate copies of comments". When you don't respond here, I copy the relavant portions of conversation to your talk page, as being necessary to obtaining your response. pat8722 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of your very serious problem is that you try to "command" things that make "no sense" or are your "personal preferences" and then try to enforce your nonsense or personal preferences by using the blocking power. If you have a "problem" with anything I did, please produce the diffs, and you may then also wish to include them in the arbcom case as another "example" of what you block people for.pat8722 23:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Arbitration Committee disagrees with your assessment of the status of your case. In fact, by the time you left me your message, it had progressed to the "motion-to-close" phase, and has since been closed. It would appear that your finding time to make these comments despite professing a lack of time to contribute to your case (and despite notifying the committee) played a role in the decision. I wish you had followed my suggestion of informing the committee of your return. Since I place copies of my replies on my talk page, it is unncessary for you to later place another copy. You can see the original version of the post you copied directly above your statement now. If you do not need my condescension, you do not need to participate in further dialogue with me. I am uninterested in your assessment of me or my personality; please find another person with whom to share them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you card!

Dear Knowledge Seeker, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.
Dear KS, this is the perfect opportunity to finally speak to one another after reading your words for months and months. I am sure that we'll be able to talk often, and trust me, it'd be my pleasure. Both your contributions and, most important your warm way to deal with others made me notice you long, long ago; and being supported by a person I look up to, like you, meant the world to me. I sincerely hope this is but the beginning of a friendship, and such thought fills me with joy. And btw, thank you so much for sharing your selection at the Wiki Soundtrack - but please, be brave and choose a few more, there's plenty of space just for you down there! Enjoy your wikibreak, and come back soon! :) With a big hug, your friend,

Phaedriel ♥ tell me

You're welcome; I was pleased to offer my support. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Pat8722

Please note that a request for arbitration has been made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Pat8722. Your input would be most valuable. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I was away from Wikipedia for a while. I'll take a look at the case if it is reopened. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We're still waiting for you. The arbcom case was never closed, and is still open. See also "your abuse of the admin power" above. It's important that you contribute. pat8722 23:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois -> Chicago vote

There is another vote to change the name of the Chicago, Illinois page to Chicago. This time, reason and logic seem to have the upper hand. See: Talk:Chicago, Illinois. --Serge 23:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd inform you that Knowledge_Seeker finished contributing to Wikipedia on 29 July 2006 with the edit comment "It's been fun", and may not return for a long time (or ever). He's a great user, though, and hopefully he returns. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` [discl.]} 23:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Serge. I was away from Wikipedia but do agree with the name change to Chicago. CIS, thank you for the kind words. I see now that I have returned that you are away. Good luck with resolving whatever is transpiring. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:MED

Hi,

The main page of WikiProject Medicine has been redesigned. Comments are welcome, and please consider listing yourself as a participant. Enjoy your WikiBreak and hope to see you back someday, but hey the real life still is more important.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; I have returned and listed myself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipostcard

File:DRMN 01.jpg

Hope your never-ending search for knowledge extends its grasp and continues to indulge you in the real world, at least while your Wikitime eludes you.

With love, tenderness, and good quality fortune cookies,
Reference Desk Kru 2006 4eva
 freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I have returned to more active editing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Kentucky

I removed inappropriate tags that you placed on several articles. For instance, you placed {{unsourced}} on Kentucky, which states that the article "does not cite its references or sources"; in fact, they are listed at Kentucky#References. I realize you would like to have extensive inline citations for all articles, and while that may be a criterion for good article or featured article status, it is certainly not a requirement for articles in general. Please do not misuse tags in this manner; support is clearly lacking for this position. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It says in WP:V that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research."

In the first paragraph, it says "In 1792, it became the fifteenth state to join the Union." Which of the references in the article tells readers where that material was previously published? Is it the ARDA site? Is it the governor's "Unbridled Spirit" reference? Is it the Census bureau link?

WP:V says that any editor may challenge or remove material which has no citations. By placing that tag on the article, I'm challenging the majority of the content. Was I supposed to remove everything that wasn't supported by the ARDA, the governor's site, or the Census Bureau instead? ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 02:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts to improve Wikipedia's referencing, but I don't feel you are going about it in the correct way. Just because something is permitted by or is consistent with a policy doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Having articles well-referenced is a laudable goal, but you must realize that most articles are not currently written that way. You can't just stick a "violation" template on or remove the bulk of the article and then move on, expecting people to patch it up. I realize that it's difficult to get people to reference articles better, and I think that's part of why featured and good articles require good citations. Another side to it is that there are different opinions on just how many citations there should be. Someone mentioned Pennsylvania as an example of an over-cited article, and I tend to agree. Perhaps a new solution to be able to hide superscripts or such is needed. Finally, I can't speak for other editors, but something like the date and order of statehood I would consider common enough knowledge to not require citation. That's just my opinion, but I feel that basic information like that does not need a specific, inline reference.

As for what you can do, the most important thing is to discuss with other users and work collaboratively. I think your attitude towards this put a lot of editors off. I'm not sure how best to get everyone to use extensive inline citations the way you would like. For a specific article, you can work with the article's editors on the talk page, perhaps listing major points that you feel should be explicitly cited. Doing it as part of a push for featured status could be especially productive. Try to be non-confrontational about it. This would be a slow, article-by-article project, but I don't think you'll be able to just tag a bunch or articles and hope they improve. I hope this helps a little; please let me know if I can be of further assistance. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Hey Knowledge Seeker, welcome back from your break. It's wonderful to see your name pop up on my watchlist again. Cheers. KOS | talk 12:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why, thank you; I'm glad someone thinks I'm useful around here... — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agreed - it was quite pleasant to see your name start popping up on my watchlist again, but since your "don't know if I'll be back" note was still up I wasn't sure if you were actually back or not. Good to see you back - you're one of the people I respect most around here. Guettarda 09:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And here I was thinking that no one cared heh...as always, I appreciate your kind words. This friendly, supportive atmosphere is one reason I enjoy working on Wikipedia so much. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Hello and welcome back. I know that you don't know me very well, but right before you left you had helped me out with a few things and I was sorry to see you go. When you left I was still fairly new and mostly just kept to my own editing, but I've since gotten more involved with things. I think that the help that you and some other admins gave me early on really gave me the push to become a better Wikipedian, and I thank you for that. Anyway, it's good to see you back. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much. Yes, unfortunately with my career I get too busy at times, but I try to edit more when my work hours are lighter. I really appreciate your words; telling me that I helped guide your behavior is probably among the nicest things someone could say to me. There were several Wikipedians who moulded my Wikipedia personality, and I do my best to be a good example to others. I hope you'll still come to me if you have any questions. It's good to be back! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Taking you up on your offer

Hopefully you are still on-line. I am just about to put the following box here. I've never seen anyone do anything like this before, so Please let me know if you think this is too bold (I'd like not to get censured or anything).

I'm terribly sorry to put this ugly box here, but I really want to get people's attention to clarify a point. Some people have realized this but from the discussion it is clear that not all have. A number of people are suggesting that this article be changed into a category. I think that you should know that the reason that this list article is here at AfD in the first place is likely because I placed Category:Famous lefthanded people on CfD about 9½ hours to prior (or it could be just a coincidence). At any rate, it may be prudent to let the CfD run its course and then possibly re-list this AfD at that time. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...of course everyone has his own preference, but I think this is reasonable. Especially since you proposed the category for deletion, I don't think there could be any concerns for appearance of bias or attempt to sway the vote. Though at this point I think it would be less likely that the AfD will be postponed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I agree, probably too much inertia there for a re-list. I'll modify the text just a bit to add "(or at least be aware that the category may no longer be there by the time that the AfD is closed)". --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I'm glad I could help. I wish there were more editors like you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Eixo

When did you change from "Pages the Eixo has created" to "Pages I've created"? I always thought the former was rather amusing, though I understand if you thought it was time for a change. Just a comment from a random stalker... — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice to have fans out there. I decided the old profile was a bit too vitriolic in many ways. Besides, if anyone I knew should come across it, they might think I was weird.

God forbid... Eixo 23:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, definitely a fan. I get bored with my user page from time to time, too. Though I'm lucky; my friends already know about my significant weirdness hehe...— Knowledge Seeker দ 06:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, see my friends are fine with the fact that I'm a necrophile, jihadist, Nazi-rapist, but I dread the day they find out that I edit Wikipedia (btw, that was a joke, in case this site is monitored by the FBI). Eixo 11:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:MCOTW

Sorry! Just trying to give credit where credit is due! -AED 23:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the list of maintainers. I didn't know you're THE creater... NCurse _work 05:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, don't apologize! I should thank you both! AED, I appreciate you looking out for me and making sure I get credit. And NCurse, I think it's great that you've been able to take over MCOTW now that residency's gotten too busy for me to be very active. I just have an unusually large ego. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

History of World - edit suggestions

[Hello, Knowledge Seeker, Myles325 (abzorba) here. I am a medically-retired writer of manuals, with extensive experience in both creating and editing work of an essentially educational nature. Since discovering Wikipedia, I have become very interested in it, both for what it offers educationally, and for the concept in general. I read your comment on my note in the talk section of Timelines for Biological Evolution, where you suggested I look up this article. I must say that I am very impressed with both articles and would like to do some work on them. Because "History of the World" is quite long, I thought that a good way to proceed would be to post my corrections here, for by yourself and interested parties, prior to going any further. I am going to do this now. My comments on the text are in square brackets] abzorba 13:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have transferred these suggestions to discussion page for History of World, for discussion prior to incorporation. abzorba 06:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Myles, thank you for your compliments; I have worked hard on History of Earth and I am pleased that you enjoyed the article. At present, my time on Wikipedia is limited, and I have not been able to work on History of Earth for some time now, though I hope to eventually resume. I'll try to take a look at the suggestions at some point, but if no one's objecting on the talk page, please feel free to try some of the changes out to see how they work. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota meetup

A meetup of Wikipedians in Minnesota is proposed: please stop by the discussion page if interested. Jonathunder 01:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, Jonathunder! I will keep an eye on the discussion page to see when you guys decide to meet; I probably won't be able to attend, as I work six days a week on average and don't think I'll be getting any days off that weekend. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just on the chance you can, we'll meet up October 29, one o'clock, Mall of America. Jonathunder 20:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject participants lists

Hello again, doctor. There is a discussion regarding the possibility of merging the participants lists of the various medicine-related WikiProjects. Since you were involved in getting a lot of this rolling, would you mind offering some input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Participants? Cheers! -AED 04:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, AED! I made some useless comments there. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hello. One area that I still haven't done much with is learning about the copyright rules. I know what to do with copy/paste from websites, etc., but I don't always have a good grasp about other types of material and when copyrights expire. A specific case: I came across Wealthiest Americans (1957). I believe that it is normally a copyvio to put a list on Wikipedia from a magazine, for example, I've seen Lists of Top 100 Albums from Rolling Stone Magazine and similar things get removed. I also know that some copyrights expire after 70 years or something like that. I do not know if any of this applies in this case. I guess someone could argue that this list is factual and therefore not proprietary of the magazine, but I think that since the methodology for producing lists of "richest individuals" are often debated, that would mean that Fortune Magazine's list is unique thought. I figured that I could post a {{Cv-unsure}} on the talk page, but if I am way off base or the copyright expired 20 years ago, I would feel like an idiot. Do you have any advice on this or know any other admins who you might refer me to that are "expert" in these matters? Thanks as always. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, I understand your confusion; I'm not sure what should be done, either. I guess I would recommend asking on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems for feedback. You could leave a note on the article's talk page as well. If you don't get a satisfactory reply, tagging the article or asking on the village pump might be good next steps. Keep me updated, especially if you run into any problems. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The list was republished widely in American newspapers at the time. Fortune was in effect claiming that these were facts; facts aren't copyrightable. If Fortune wanted to assert they were fiction and speculation, maybe they could assert copyright, but then who would care. David 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

File:Nuvola apps kfm home.png

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCurse work 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome; you've been doing a great job with the medical articles and I was pleased to support your candidacy. I must say, though, that posting your vote tally on everyone's talk page seems unnecessary and in poor taste, in my opinion. Then again, the colored box and picture seem unnecessary as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've already got plenty of RfA thanks in that way. Just take a look at my talk page. I thought, it's a custom here. I wanted to show my acknowledgement even for the opposers and neutrals. NCurse _work 09:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has become a custom—I've seen it too—but I think it's a rather poor custom. I understand the desire to acknowledge those that didn't support you, but it seems awfully tacky to leave messages on a hundred talk pages announcing how many people voted for you. Or maybe I'm just bitter that I had less than a third of the support you got. Anyway, I realize I'm in the minority on this; it just seems like such a silly thing to do. You'll make a great administrator—I didn't mean to be so critical. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Residency

Hello! I was a bit amused to see your edit to Residency (medicine) (someone else reverted before I). I don't know how familiar you may be with U.S. residency programs, but 100-hour work weeks or greater are not an exaggeration by any means. When my family friend was doing his intern year of general surgery, he easily worked 130-hour weeks. For the whole year. That's why the new 80 hour-per-week restrictions are such a big deal, and why programs are having such a hard time adjusting to fit that. (For the record, my residency program does an excellent job of staying within 80 hours per week, on average.) — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- You're right, I know all about the 130-hour internship weeks (having been there). I train residents every day, and, at the risk of sounding like an old f..., I think the 80-hour work week has had ambiguous results as regards the learning experience. I didn't mean to suggest that we go back to the bad old days, but the article made it sound like the present system is unequivocally an improvement. It isn't -- there have been definite trade-offs. I have no doubt that the present system is better overall, but we were more experienced and confident doctors coming out of residency than my current residents are. That's probably okay, as there are more fall-back systems than there were. I have no doubt the current residents are better rested than we were, and have more balanced family / social lives.

Good luck in your career!

Bticho 01:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not experienced enough to form an opinion on which system is better, and I haven't read the article in detail, so I don't know if it is biased one way or the other. However, you removed the text "(100+ hour work-weeks)" with an edit summary of "No need to exaggerate", implying that you thought 100+ hour work-weeks were an exaggeration, which they are not. Perhaps you felt that the article was exaggerating the number of residents who actually exceed 100-hour weeks? Feel free to make further changes or to balance the article; I think the way you phrased your edit made you seem uninformed, and that's why it was reverted. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Philadelphia rename vote

You appreciated being notified about the Chicago, Illinois -> Chicago move request. See Talk:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [Serge Issakov (talk · contribs)]

Alzheimer's disease

I saw that you were an MD and an Administrator, so I wonder if you could have a look at the discussion going on on the talk page for Alzheimer's. A few of us have been working on getting the article closer to Featured Status, but I know we have a bit to get there since we need to get better referencing in some sections. My concern is the Potential Treatments section. A few months ago, we did a rewrite of the section to include products in Phase 3 clinical trials, immunotherapy, and a few natural products that have been mentioned by major guidelines (Vitamin E, Gingko). Every few weeks, the section has been edited to add the latest news--blueberries help in memory, and more recently THC has been shown to have anti-amyloid properties in cells. A couple of us have removed these edits and mentioned the standard that we want to have for this section--extensive evidence in a number of humans in a trial (preferably not observational). The other side argues that we should have a comprehensive list and not censor information. We have proposed creating a Research in Alzheimer's page that would then summarize to what we have in the potential treatments section. Would you have a moment (as an Admin and a physician) to come over to our talk page and help us reach a fair balance? Also, any peer review comments would be most excellent. --Chrispounds 13:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer, but I fear my time on Wikipedia is so limited these days that I will not be able to devote the proper attention to the article. If you haven't already, I would suggest inviting feedback at WP:MED and/or WP:CLINMED; I'm sure someone would be interested in taking a look at the article. Good luck with it, and I hope I'll be able to contribute! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

L.A. Vote

Since you recently voted on the Philadelphia article name change, I thought you might be interested in participating on the vote to make a similar name change for Los Angeles. See Talk:Los Angeles, California. Also, if you put my user page on your watchlist, you'll see notifications of other similar votes. --Serge 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in this matter. I am only on Wikipedia sporadically these days, but I will try to keep an eye on further developments. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Scorpionman

Pardon me, Knowledge Seeker, I've seen the little feud that you and Scorpioman have going and while he does seem to be going overboard on the talk pages don't you think you're being a bit unfair? After all, I saw the comment he put on the Gary Larson talk page and seems not to be trying to insult anyone, and he sounds just sarcastic about calling the police. Maybe you could at least unblock him on the legal threats part...BugEyedMonster 22:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're taking a wikibreak, could you at least let us know?! BugEyedMonster 02:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay in my response; I sometimes get busy with hospital work and am unable to edit. Your characterization is incorrect. A feud would imply that I feel hostility or anger towards Scorpionman, which I do not. On the contrary, I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to get him to modify the inappropriate behaviour, and you will not see me getting angry with him. Since he does not intend to call the police, I have restored the original block. I have made further comments on his talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Upon returning to active editing, Pat8722 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from any page or set of pages for disruptive editing. Should Pat8722 violate any ban imposed under probation, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block period increases to one year. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 22:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

It is inappropriate for you to insert your personal opinion into in article, especially in a manner that destroys the encyclopedic tone of the writing. Please do not do it again. Wikipedia is not a forum for spreading your opinions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry bout that buddy it won't happen again. but i must say that is not personal opinion but fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.254.232.224 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That you declare something to be a fact does not make it so. The standard Wikipedia uses is verifiability; it matters little what you think or what I think. If you have material to add, please also supply references, preferably in the form of peer-reviewed scientific journals. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing the Evolution page

MX, please do not make changes to cited facts; adding your own spin on already referenced information is inappropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Creationist views are discussed in several of the religious and mythological articles on origins; see origin belief for one such treatment. Religious views are inappropriate for science articles; a discussion of the some of the religious objections takes place at Evolution#Social and religious controversies, with links to other articles where the disparity between the scientific and religious perspectives are more fully explored. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not a proven fact at all. Evolution is no more credible than Creation. Evolution simply has more resources. I am not at all implying the fact that because religion says otherwise evolution is false. What I am saying is this page should be more nuetral. Scientifically, Creationists have proven that many of the theories provided by Evolutionists were actually hoaxes. A religious had their dog buried in their backyard years before and asked for dating. The test said the dog's bones were 1,000 years old, when it was buried only a few years before, the bones appearing fully decayed due to the family's stripping of the organic remains. I would go into detail, but it would be dumb. I don't want to prove anything, I just want the page made unabiased. :|— Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXimum Xtreme (talk • contribs)

Whether you believe scientific or religious views on the origin of life is irrelevant. My beliefs are also irrelevant. If you have credible scientific evidence that appears to contradict evolution, you may include it, properly referenced, preferably in the form of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Your personal musings or doubts of the ability of science to explain the development of life are not appropriate for inclusion in the article. For Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. There is no need for you to go into detail; I am not interested in debating with religious topics with you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe in using scientific evidence that actually proves evolution wrong. I had edited the Evolution page with links and sources, such as John C. Whitcomb's "Genesis Flood" and "World That Perished." If there was no evidence supporting creation, I too would likely become an atheist. But that is not the case. Since I probably won't be able to re-edit with it being reverted, I may as well create my own page with references, sources and quotes from various scientists.

As for religion itself, I am also not interested in arguing in. I just wish to let the public know evolution IS NOT as credible as most think it is, whatever religion they or I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXimum Xtreme (talk • contribs)

Please do not place duplicate copies of my posts here, especially directly below the original versions. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. The books you mention are not of sufficient rigor to be used to provide scientific evidence. As I mentioned, such references should be in the form of articles in scientific peer-reviewed journals, especially when the claims made are in such contrast to established scientific positions. There is no evidence supporting creationism. By invoking the supernatural, creationism places itself fundamentally out of the scientific realm. This is not necessarily a bad thing or a good thing, but it means that the scientific method cannot be used to evaluate such a viewpoint. I do not care if you are an atheist or not, nor is it relevant. You wish to let the public know that you are right and most are wrong. That is fine, but hardly acceptable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to propound your personal views. Within the scientific community, there is no debate or controversy over evolution, and your attempts to portray it as such are misleading at best and deliberately inaccurate at worst.

I do not believe a single or your article edits survived for more than a minute. As you will see, the community here will not take kindly to your attempts to push your religious views. Please avail yourself of a weblog or another site to spread your message. I do not doubt that if you persist in this behavior, your editing privileges will be revoked. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence of the Flood, which would explain all of the fossils in the world by the quick sediment formation, the Grand Canyon, the separation of the continents and the sudden climate shift the world had. If those are validated, creation is validated. It seems that there is too much coincedence for creation to be a real science than just a belief. I have read books and evolution and creation, and both supply overwhelming evidence of both theories. Creation, surprisingly to many, actually has the upper hand with the ridicule of evolutionists theory of "billions of years", which be impossible if one considered how far the earth would have progressed. Volcanoes grow very fast, much faster than first thought. With the pressure building so fast, it insists on a relatively young earth. Surprisingly also, creationism has less pompous and less absurd theories than evolutionism. Since creationism is tied to religion in some way, proof pf the supernatural itself could help prove it. Certain "Saints" have bodies that have no preservative chemicals, and yet their bodies are preserved as they were the day they died, even when some died hundreds of years ago. Not even mummies are that well preserved! :D Look up "Incorruptibles" here. Surely that cannot be just a coincedence that only those proclaimed "Saints" have incorruptible bodies.

Alright, I may as well stop writing and editing in wikipedia altogether. Although I try to be nuetral usually, it seems I always show some bit of controversy in everything I do. :\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXimum Xtreme (talk • contribs)

Even if evidence of a worldwide flood existed, it would not be evidence that God created lifeforms individually and simultaneously. Nor do your ideas regarding rapid fossil deposition and such. If they held scientific merit, they might weaken the case for evolution being an accurate model, but they will never be able to support creationism as a scientific theory; it simply cannot be one. There is no evidence for creationism. A viewpoint that includes supernatural forces such as God cannot be evaluated by the scientific method; it can neither be proved nor disproved. I do not see what you hope to accomplish with your claims about volcanos and climate shifts; surely you do not think I place more stock in your opinions over that of the scientific community. The supernatural cannot be proven. Even if your claims regarding preserved bodies is true, the lack of our ability to find a scientific explanation does not prove that a supernatural event took place. Even if they are being preserved by God, science will be unable to prove or evaluate this unless God were to do so through some physical means. Science is a philosophy that makes certain assumptions and proceeds in certain directions. You don’t have to agree with this philosophy, but your attempts to portray creationism as somehow conforming to this philosophy are misguided. Indeed, you seem unable to edit without your biases strongly reflected in your writing. If you cannot moderate your behavior, then Wikipedia is probably not the best place for you. I would suggest starting a weblog, or finding a religious-themed web site in which to participate, since you likely won’t have luck with science venues. Of course, should you decide to remain or to work on other areas of Wikipedia (perhaps areas in which you are not as biased or where you are more knowledgeable), I would be happy to help you. Please sign your posts. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor disagreement

Ok, getting off-topic I know but regarding [2] I would argue that science is aphilosophical. Justifying the use of science is a philosophical method but science a system of knowledge or facts built up using the scientific method. JoshuaZ 07:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

KS - I appreciate your note after my little edit last night. I'm actually dusting off my profile and hoping to start contributing regularly again. Believe it or not, I do have a decent amount of free time during med school, and helping polish off some medical articles will only help my education. Also, Wikipedia is basically the first go-to source for everyone in my med school class. Funny, huh. Mr.Bip 04:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)