User talk:Knowledge Seeker/Archive11

This is an archive of old discussions. You may edit this page to fix malformed signatures or to update links, but please direct new comments to my talk page.

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

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 [1] 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)

Thank you; I stand corrected. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

[2] good luck; hope it’s fun! — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

You’re quite welcome. Oh, I believe it; I started contributing to Wikipedia and became an administrator back when I was in medical school. It is only now that I am a resident that I find my time significantly limited. You should be very proud of Harvard, of course, and we’re lucky to have you here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

For your answer to my question, and also for your contributions to RD. Your answers are very respectful and easy to understand, as well as thoughtful. vis-a-vis your answer to me, I'm not a scientist or a medical professional, but I'm writing a commercial training document on a nutritional supplement that is proven to improve both psoriasis and cardiac problems, but it's still not clear why. So I was very interested to see the connection between the two conditions. It's all speculative, but the two areas of interest are overactive infammatory response and immune response. Anyways, thanks for looking it up for me. Have a great week. Anchoress 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I was pleased to help. The supplement you describe sounds promising. I hope that additional studies will be able to confirm the link that you have found, that side effects can be measured, that efficacy can be measured and doses computed, and that eventually it will be able to reach a much wider population as a pharmaceutical agent. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply here and on my userpage. Have a good one! Anchoress 16:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[Asthma]

Tobacco is now being prescribed by physicians in Germany as the cure-all for asthma and other kinds of bronchial disorders. The basis for their prescriptions is the research shown here. http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm As well as the research shown here http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm ...American doctors are ignorant of this information, and your American prescribed asthma drugs are little more than steroids which result in serious hormonal imbalances (i.e. ugly nasty woman with hair on their arms, men that start developing female physical qualities) Tobacco is the real cure to all bronchial disease, and the B-vitamin niacin (nicotine) which is derived from it (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niacin) has also been shown to cure many diseases. Becoming oneself familiar with this knowlege, one understands why the worlds most beautiful (celebrities) and oldest living people all smoke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.36.185 (talk • contribs)

I understand that you may feel this to be true, but this is an example of what we call original research, which Wikipedia policy prohibits. It is not our place to draw conclusions or write our own opinions. Rather, we should report on what studies have shown and what experts have concluded, and so on. Therefore, this text was inappropriate for the Asthma article. Furthermore, it is not written in an encyclopedic tone. If you have some sources to back up these claims, preferably studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals, please bring them up on the discussion page. However, I must ask you not to re-add the information; a number of users have removed it now. Also, you will be in violation of our three-revert rule, which prohibits a single user from repeatedly making the same change to an article in defiance of the others’ opinions. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Message to Knowlege Seeker: What if there is no funding for your so called original peer-reviewed research? If it is so that the worlds oldest living person (Mme Jeanne Calment, 122) who chain smoked her entire life...is this some degree of factual proof beyond a reason of doubt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.36.185 (talk • contribs)

If there is no funding for such research, then it will likely not exist. Without evidence to back up such claims, then, they cannot be used in Wikipedia. No, the example you cite is not sufficient proof for a number of different reasons. Even if it were, it is not up to us to draw these sorts of conclusions, since we are not qualified (as your confusion also exemplifies). Such claims as you are citing, especially since they are in contrast with standard medical science, would certainly need solid evidence before we could use them. Please reply on my talk page, not my user page (you may edit the section that your previous messages are posted in). Also, please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I understand where you are coming from, however, why is the research performed by Swedish scientists disregarded as "original research" in your whatever means of promoting the pharmaceutical's amphetamine/steroid interests? 02:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC) [68.6.36.185 (talk · contribs)]

The study itself is not original research as defined by Wikipedia. However, you used it to support your claim “Tobacco is now being prescribed by physicians in Germany as the cure-all for asthma and other kinds of bronchial disorders. The basis for their prescriptions is the research shown here.” It does not support the claim, but rather, you use it to try to convince the reader that he, too, should believe in the benefits of tobacco for asthma, like the German physicians do (without actually providing any evidence that they are doing so). Furthermore, the study, while interesting, is no means conclusive; as it itself notes, “There is a need for further studies with a prospective design to certify the causal direction of this association.” And also, it provides no evidence that tobacco can be used to cure asthma, nor does it suggest that tobacco is related in any way to any other bronchial disorder. These conclusions were drawn by you, which is why it is original research. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this decent? SHATTERING AN ORTHODOXY: SMOKERS SHOWN TO BE FITTER THAN NON-SMOKERS IN AUSTRALIAN STUDY

From Australia, one of the most anti-smoking countries in the world, there comes a new study, conducted by the Australian Bureau of statistics. Part of this study sought to establish smoking status amongst the population, and the rates of illness within those groups.

The conclusions that emerge are dynamite, for they shatter the prevailing orthodoxy. Smokers reported lower rates of long-term illness, and any illness, than either ex-smokers or those who had never smoked. Moreover, if smokers are shown to be less likely to suffer from illness, the study raises serious questions over the claims that environmental tobacco smoke causes harm to non-smokers. After all, if smokers suffer fewer illnesses than non-smokers despite the fact that they come into closer and more frequent contact with tobacco smoke, how can it be claimed to affect those who do not smoke?

Smokers were found to be less likely to suffer from tumours, high cholesterol, hypertension, and heart disease than either of the other groups. Of all three groups, it was invariably the ex-smokers who fared worse. It was only where rates of bronchitis and emphysema were examined that those who had never smoked came out on top, and even they had a prevalence only half that of smokers and ex-smokers.

Below we provide tables based on figures that appeared in the Australian Bureau of Statistics January 1994 report entitled 1989-90 National Health Survey: Lifestyle and Health Australia. http://www.forces.org/evidence/aussie/aussie.htm

No, it is not, for numerous reasons. 1) As you are aware, there is a considerable body of evidence showing health risks from cigarette smoking; there have been numerous peer-reviewed rigorous studies published in medical and scientific journals that document this. “Forces.org” is not a sufficiently reputable or rigorous source to use in a scientific article like this. 2) You plagiarized this text from http://www.forces.org/evidence/aussie/forest.htm. Not only is this unethical, it is illegal, as you are violating their copyright. 3) Even if you had written the text, it is still inappropriate. You are just copying an outside article and placing it in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not just a hodgepodge of disparate essays and articles mashed together into an article. If there is a specific point to make, you may make it, but this is far too much devoted to a single study. 4) Consider that your grasp of the medicine and science involved may be inadequate for editing technical articles like this. You do not demonstrate the understanding requisite to evaluating the literature. In particular, you seem to be unable to write without infusing a strong bias into your edits. 5) Your edits have been removed numerous times by multiple people. Your style of editing, by copying text from activist web sites and dumping them into Wikipedia articles, is not appropriate. Consider this your final warning. If you make any more inappropriate edits, your privilege to edit will be revoked. If you have something to change, especially in areas where you are unable to keep your biases in check, please propose it for review on the associated discussion page first. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I convinced one of your moderators (Gzuckier) to include all this information into this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#Health_benefits_of_smoking

If it is present in that part of the encyclopedia, and it certainly suggests an effect of tobacco smoking on the prevention of asthma (among other things). Shouldn't the people who want to know about asthma know this as well? 68.6.36.185 04:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the studies that I showed him, to post into that section, in your brainy college encyclopediac format, are the same ones you rejected! Are the wikipedia rules open for interpretation based on the moderators bias of what he believes to be most true? 68.6.36.185 05:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The section you cite is written appropriately, with the claim being supported by the reference. On the other hand, my objections to your edits are that the studies don’t match the claims you are making, and the claims are just jammed in as if this were a web forum instead of a coherent article. As I suggested to you, you should post your ideas on the discussion pages so that others can integrate properly into the text if it is appropriate. Since you have continued with your inappropriate edits, I’m afraid I have to temporarily block you from editing Wikipedia. Please consider working with us rather than on insisting on doing things your own way. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Reel Yourself In

Your comment to User:UtherSRG was quite inappropriate. Please treat other editors civilly and courteously. If you have a point to make, please do so without insulting others. If you feel that contributing to this project is a waste of time, then it is not necessary for you to hang around here. Your previous edit was not appropriate, and your later response to UtherSRG was way over the line. If you make any more comments like that, your privilege to edit will be revoked. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, if you block me from editing, I can just edit without the account, or create a new one. Thus, your empty threats are nothing but laughable. Secondly, you and your buddy Uther whatever, need a little yank on your chain. You don't own Wikipedia. There are many ways to phrase information, some of which you may not agree with. That doesn't mean that they are wrong, and it especially doesn't mean that they deserve censoring. I'm not talking about my last edit: it was a joke. But if you look at my edit history, you will see that all of my other edits make a positive contribution. I responded to Uther because his response to me was snide and inappropriate, for it is not his position to be making comments to other users like me in a fashion such as that. I had over-stepped my boundries, essentially in the same way that he had over-stepped his, and you have over-stepped yours. Maybe you don't like my comment, and that's fine. You can block my account, and that's fine - I'll just create a new one. But you should listen to the point that I'm making: your title of 'administrator' is a fake and unjustified sense of authority. It is not you that has created Wikipedia, and it will survive with or without you. You need to recognize that you do not have, and should not have, the ultimate voice on that which will be entered in to this encyclopedia. Just read the comments of other people on your discussion page. People are trying to make contributions to Wikipedia, and I find it despicable that you, and Uther, think that you have the right to censor them. It is pathetic that your title of 'administrator' has fed you the idea that it is your job to impose your intellectual opinion on others. You have not that right. Check yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S. Augello (talk • contribs)

Yes, there are ways to evade blocks; however, if you return to your previous behavior and have no constructive edits, you will find those accounts blocked quickly as well. Whether your edit was right or wrong is irrelevant; expressing that the pygmy marmoset is the best monkey in the world is an opinion and cannot be verified; personal opinions such at these are not appropriate for Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Yes, I realize you have good edits too, which is why you have not been blocked from editing. However, making a few good edits does not entitle you to act rudely or uncivilly. His message to you was a standard template which is used when people make inappropriate edits such as yours. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but monitoring the quality of articles and ensuring appropriate behavior towards other editors are both within the purview of my role as an administrator. I neither stated nor implied that I created Wikipedia, that it will not survive without me, or that I am the ultimate voice here, though if you are imagining these sorts of statements, it could explain why you seem to be so upset. Wikipedia is not a random collection of what people wish to write; there are established guidelines for what sort of material is appropriate and what is not. If people add material inconsistent with these guidelines (whether they mean well or not), it will be removed, by administrators or regular users. That is how Wikipedia works. If you do not like it, you do not need to contribute here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sosckpuppetry

I've seen your name quite a bit, so I decided to contact you about this. I did look up procedures for reporting this sort of thing, but it's a bit confusing.

You may like to check out Prof Buck Rogers, Prof Bukksk and Prof Bukksksdf. Prometheus^-X303- 19:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow…I’ve had to cut back on my Wikipedia time so I’m surprised you came across me! But I’m glad to help. You’re right; they are certainly the same user. It looks like he’s been warned, so I’ll try keeping an eye on the accounts for further vandalism. If you spot any that I miss, feel free to let me know. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution

I agree completely with the archival, but, er, where is the archive, old chap? Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I just added it to the end of the most recent archive. Was there somewhere else I should have put it? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Weel, might've been good to have changed the link to read October-November, but, arr, sensible enough. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to change any links to it as you wish. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I had wanted to thank you for archiving that material earlier. Would you be willing to do the same again with ken's current nonsense section? I would do it myself, but I've only ever used a bot to archive, and that's not kosher on an article's talkpage. If you would either take care of it or tell me how it would be much appreciated. Since I lack the academic credentials to contribute to the article itself, I'm thinking of appointing myself the "talkpage police" and removing this kind of foolishness as soon as it crops up, thereby leaving more serious contributors free to actually edit the article. Thanks for your help! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion is not relevant to improvement of the article and is unproductive at best. After evaluating the discussion, I did decide to archive it. For future reference, archival is easy: just copy-and-paste the relevant section(s) to the archival page. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks KS! I was trying to use the "move" button, but copy-and-paste sounds easier. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You’re welcome. Moving can only be used if you wish to archive the entire page at once. There are some advantages and disadvantages of using copy-and-paste or move, but I prefer copying and pasting for several reasons. You may be interested in Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The joke's on me. I had, in a rare fit of common sense, read through Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page prior to this. I decided that I wanted to try the "move" technique, having missed that bit about "whole page only". Re: Evolution, I'd like to help minimize these non-productive digressions, and I think it's reasonable to enforce the warning at the top of the page. You're an experienced wikipedian and a long-time admin, and I know you're keeping an eye on the article. Feel free to bring me to heel if you think I need it...just whistle real loud and say "Down Doc, Down" in a firm voice. Otherwise, I'll try to see that the talkpage is used for working on the article, not debating various opinions about its subject. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen carbonate etc

Neither of us is a chemist, but I'm pretty sure that "hydrogen carbonate" full stop (as opposed to, say, "sodium hydrogen carbonate" or "hydrogen carbonate ion") means H₂CO₃. Which is not strictly speaking "carbonic acid" unless dissolved in water, just as anhydrous hydrogen sulfate, H₂SO₄, is not properly called "sulfuric acid" until dissolved in water. I can look this up in my Dad's old inorganic chem texts, if I can find them. --Trovatore 19:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my reference desk post, which I assume you already saw, I would like to see sources for this usage you propose. Though I can easily find references to hydrogen chloride, hydrogen sulfate, hydrogen phosphate, and so on referring to the compounds, I cannot find any reference to hydrogen carbonate referring to H₂CO₃, nor does it match what I was taught (I was a chemistry major back in college). I did not mean to imply that I thought the term was logical or preferable. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Your conmment to HappyCamper about entropy was helpful. Wish you would glance at the WK Entropy article that has long appeared to be the personal property of 'Sadi Carnot', but who is finally being challenged! [65.60.106.148 (talk · contribs)]

You’re welcome; I’m glad you found it useful. I am not very active on Wikipedia these days, but it looks at least like he has not edited the article in several months. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

MOS; Medical articles.

Hi there, again. Just thought i'd drop a message to try to chip in a few things to be added to the MOS for medical articles. [[3]] Cheers :-) James S 20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my lengthy absence. Do you still require any assistance? — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Knowledge Seeker, I admit I've been rather impolite and have not been portraying a good image for creationists. Just wanted to say I'm sorry, and to thank you for being so polite and reserved with me. I'm not going to try to force my beliefs on anyone; there's no point in that. So anyway, as per my last block, I'll be making constructive edits (there are plenty to make). Thanks. Scorpionman 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have behaved quite poorly here. The anti-science sentiments and rudeness you show have probably had a negative impact on many people's views on your religion. I don't know what purpose you are trying to achieve here, but attacking science and being rude to other editors will likely not win you any converts to Christianity. And as you have probably seen, there have been several calls for you to be indefinitely blocked. However, I do feel that you make some constructive edits, and this is why, so far, I have limited my blocks to extended but temporary ones. I hope this will assist you in selecting the productive edits. And thank you; I appreciate the apology—though of course, it is not necessary. If you can cut out the bad edits, I would be pleased. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Break

Hi KS, I noticed you're not one of those petulant, irritable users on here, and wanted to thank you for being civil. Also, though, if you're taking a wikibreak or something could you at least let us know? Thanks, Ratso 03:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. You may consider me on an extended partial wikibreak. I am a doctor and it is difficult for me to predict my schedule; in addition, my free time can be quite limited. I edit when I have time; if you wish to see if I have been active recently, I would suggest taking a look at my contributions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Geofiction

Hi, I was browsing through the "Wikipedians who play NS" category, and decided that you were good for my project.

I was wondering if you would be interested in collaborating with me and some other Wikipedians to create a wiki-based geofiction game. Please contact me for details.--Whytecypress 23:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. Unfortunately, I don't think I will have time to participate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Thanks for responding though.--Whytecypress 21:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hello

Hi, Knowledge Seeker. Thanks for checking in on me. I'm sorry that it has taken me so long to respond. I've not quite resolved my personal issues, but things are looking better and I hope to have things settled by the start of the new year. I've got to make sure that I am taking care of my family and my career, first and foremost, but I would like to be able to be back here again with more regularity soon. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is good to hear from you. From the frequency of your contributions, it looks like you have settled your other matters. I am glad things are working out for you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you have returned after a bit of an absence. I know that your schedule is limited; it is nice to see you here from time to time. Thank you very much for the good wishes. I hope I'll be seeing you around more. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Hello Knowledge Seeker,

Just wanted to thank you for pointing out how to revert vandalism (which I deftly applied to Battle of Saratoga) and the nice welcome. So thanks.

Cheers, broquaint 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome; I'm glad to be able to share my experience. Please let me know if I may be of further assistance. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Boston

Hi! In the past, you've noted support on my talk page for naming U.S. cities consistently with other countries (only disambiguate when necessary). See Talk:Boston, Massachusetts. --Serge 22:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know; I'm sorry I was not active at the time of the discussion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy Zoeller edit controversy

Hello, there. As you may or may not know, the Miami Herald recently revealed that professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller has filed a lawsuit against Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. for adding false statements to his Wikipedia biography.

For data gathering purposes, an SRS of 20 administrators has been created, you being one of them. I would like you to comment on this situation and its possible implications to Wikipedia, the accused company, and the general welfare of the community in general. (To what extent will this impact Wikipedia? To what extent will this impact those who use Wikipedia often? To what extent is the company guilty? Who do you believe is at fault?) Feel free to comment however you wish. I ask that you email me your responses via my emailuser page so as to reduce bias in your responses. (Again, don't post your responses on my talk page.)

The following are articles from various news agencies that you may use to inform yourself about the situation: Miami Herald, Herald Tribune, Web Pro News, The Smoking Gun.

I thank you for taking your time to express your opinion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at any time. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize; I was not active on Wikipedia at the time of your message. In addition, I would probably not have time to participate in this project. I attempted to e-mail this to you, but I was informed that you had either not set up an e-mail address or that you had chosen not to receive e-mail from others. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning -NPSF3000

This edit was inappropriate, as was this one. It is dishonest to change the meaning of a sourced statement so that the sentence no longer matches what the reference states. Furthermore, if you wish to make such a claim, please provide a reference, preferably in the form of a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already been talking to another mod because of this. I wasn't trying to be dishonest though i should have researched the sources more fully. If you want evidence I have right beside me a scientific journal and a scientific magasine + numeorus scientific artivles on my computer that all against evolution - that seems to point towards some scientests doubting evolution. Could i have any help in trying to change that now? NuttyProSci-Fi3000 21:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You modified a statement to say its opposite, while leaving in place the supporting source which made the prior claim. Please be more careful in the future. If you have evidence that there is significant scientific dissent regarding validity of evolution, please present it at Talk:Evolution (or, if you like, you may run it by me first). Given such strong support for the article's current position, you would likely need citations from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Also, please note that you would need to demonstrate dissent specifically among biologists. While physicists may speculate on evolution, or biologists on quantum theory, neither is qualified to make assessments in areas removed from their training.

In addition, I removed your edit from Talk:Evolution/FAQ. It is not a forum for debate. I would be happy to address the questions you bring up, but you will certainly have to moderate your tone. In particular, a call for the death of Wikipedia editors is certainly grounds for an immediate and indefinite ban. I will not block you at this time (though another administrator might). If you are able to express yourself with more restraint, please ask me your questions on my talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay i will start running things by you. However I doubt that useing logic to say that all non-christions should die in an attempt to show a logic falise should be accounted as death to wikipedia editors - is it? All i am doing is questioning some statments and am met with full burocracy not answers so from now on i will run thigs by you, and that way things should be nice and legal - hopefully. (i almost feel sorry for you :P ) NuttyProSci-Fi3000 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...perhaps I misunderstood the intent of your comment; I certainly am not following your logic or how you were demonstrating a logical fallacy. Perhaps you could rephrase it for me (and perhaps select a less extreme outcome, as well). I will look forward to helping you understand how Wikipedia works. I would like to be clear, though, that you are not required to go through me for edits or ideas. In particular, if you are dissatisfied with my responses, you are welcome to seek the opinion of others. Please let me know how I may assist you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile and Comment

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• I'm sorry if I have been a pain in the ass but I am not going to give up on trying to make wikipedia more NPOV. Just to let you know I am not going to break 3RR and will talk about it on the talk page. I hope we can come up with a compromise that we both can live with. Have a nice week:) --James, La gloria è a dio 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeping Wikipedia neutral is a worthy goal, but it increasingly seems you are promoting your specific view on the way the article should read. Couching your activism under the guise of promoting a neutral point of view will not make it any less unacceptable. I also note that it only took fifteen minutes after you stated to me "I am not going to break 3RR" for you to break it. Honesty does not seem to be a quality you have embraced. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My edits that you removed were uneccesary

I removed your edits to Talk:Evolution/FAQ. It is a talk page, not an article. Please do not use talk pages to debate topics; if you would like to propose changes to an article, do it on the article's talk page (for instance, Talk:Evolution. Please let me know if I may of assistance. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It may not be an article but is definitely NOT NUETRAL.--Peace237 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to place your entire comment in boldface. The neutral point of view policy applies to articles only. The FAQ is not written as encyclopedic content; rather, it is written to answer questions repeatedly brought up on Evolution's talk page. It is not designed to give a full treatment of the topic; that is the purpose of the article itself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it helps get my point across if you don't mind.--Peace237 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to quote some of the text on Talk:Evolution/FAQ: "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis." Minority Views! Unless you're head is in a rock you should know that MAJORITY of the world is against Evolution "To be frank, there isn't any. Most claimed "evidence against evolution" is either a distortion of the actual facts of the matter, or an example of something that hasn't been explained yet." This quote from the section answering the FAQ:What about the scientific evidence against evolution? Is clearly wrong. There is evidence against evolution. So you wrongly reverted my edits and basically said that that FAQ page was nuetral when it is clearly not.--Peace237 03:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not state that the FAQ was neutral. I said the neutral point of view policy applies to articles only, not to a FAQ for Wikipedia contributors. You will find that dishonesty will not serve you well at Wikipedia, since both your comments and mine are preserved precisely in the edit histories. Please limit your boldface usage to less than half of your comment, at most. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see you back in the swing of things, dealing with troublemakers in your usual diplomatic way. What's your field - paediatrics? Guettarda 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Guettarda! I appreciate it. It's good to see you too. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

archiving

I am concerned by your recent comments on WP:AN/I; they are becoming increasingly wild and I've seen editors self-destruct in this manner. As I've explained to you, the proper course will be to continue via Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In my opinion, further complaints on the administrators' noticeboard will only result in additional criticism directed as you, and this will be counter-productive. If it's all right with you, I will prematurely archive the section. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do. -- TedFrank 01:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- TedFrank 01:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wish you luck resolving your dispute. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge Seeker, I noticed you removed my comments from the discussion. Given the extenuating circumstance of having posted my message a mere two minutes after it archived, I feel my comments merit their inclusion, as they are important notes to be viewed. ~ UBeR 03:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that my premature archival is out-of-process. However, I think there is little benefit to continuing the discussion, even though I'm sure there are people on both sides who wish to get the last word in. I do not mean to trivialize the importance of your comments, but rather, I think that the archived discussion is not the proper place for them. They would better be placed as part of a productive discussion, perhaps as part of the dispute resolution process. Do you think that's reasonable? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution 2

If I was pushing my point of view on the evolution article I would say that evolution is the way all life was created. Have a nice week:) --James, La gloria è a dio 18:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I said you were promoting your specific view of the way the article should read, not that it necessarily reflected your personal views on science or religion. As an aside, I believe that others who call themselves “creationists” generally hold different views than the one you expressed here. However, as I also remarked to you earlier, I am not interested in whether or not you accept evolution or any other area of science. You may believe what you wish. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a doctor Jim, not a...

I'm a doctor, not a...

:) Guettarda 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha...did you like that? I just couldn't resist! Though I suppose it was slightly rude. Hope he didn't mind. You know, though, he has a point. I'm going to post another comment there. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not too rude and well worth the fun...especially since you conceded his point overall. It's always a fine line between educating and spoonfeeding, but mya is probably better than 10^6 for general audiences. Guettarda 05:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

hi

sorry i will behave now. [88.105.65.32 (talk · contribs)]

Thank you. If you have questions about our encyclopedia, or are interested in helping us improve it, I'd be happy to assist you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Medicine

Hey KS. Have you completely abandoned medical articles? The fun is just starting. I even managed to get coeliac disease featured! JFW | T@lk 22:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, JFW, nice to hear from you! I rarely make major edits these days; I've been too busy to really work on articles (medical or otherwise). In fact, there were several months where I wasn't on Wikipedia at all. If residency eases up a bit I'd like to get back into it more. Congratulations on celiac disease! I'll have to read it now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

??

Hi. I've apparently committed some kind of faux pas against you. I apologize for any offense, but don't understand what the problem is. Please leave a note on my talk page so that we can straighten this out. -- Writtenonsand 05:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

On your talk page, you list conditions one must follow for communicating with you, with the following warning: "By attempting to communicate with me, you agree to this license. If that doesn't work for you, then don't try to communicate with me." I do not agree with any such restrictions and therefore am not interested in communication with you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

improvement to article

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles, not as a forum for debate. Please do not use them to propound your beliefs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All I ask is that the theory of evolution be spoken of as a theory in the first line. that is an improvement to the article.Kljenni 12:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You did ask that, and your request was rejected. This is because the word theory doesn't apply in this context. Theory has a scientific meaning that is different from the lay usage of the term. The Human evolution article discusses the observed and inferred sequence of and relationships among human ancestors. However, there is little or no discussion of evolutionary theory; that is, (roughly) the model of how evolution occurs. That article discusses the evolution of humans without going into the mechanisms behind that evolution. "Theory of human evolution" doesn't really make sense. See, for instance, Talk:Evolution/FAQ#Why is evolution described as though it's a fact? Isn't evolution just a theory? and Evolution as theory and fact for more information.

However, the reason for my rebuke was that that was not all you asked. When others disagreed with you and politely explained why, you go quite off-topic, debating the validity of evolution in general, objecting to portions of cosmology, and insulting other editors (such as in this edit). This is not an appropriate use of article talk pages, and further misuse of them may merit a block from editing or other restrictions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise

Technology has advanced beyond typewriters to render the starship in a better form. The graphics software Freehand & Illustrator are good at that. I would recommend agaisnt depicting any space ships though. It looks very juvenile & puts doubts on your credibility. I wish I had something positive to say. Wikipedia is great & I use it often. It's rare for me to make comments & until this, I've never seen a use talk/profile. Kudos for editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.180.38.41 (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Freehand and Illustrator have several disadvantages compared to simply using a keyboard. One, I have no wish to download or obtain them; two, I have no wish to learn how to use them; and three, I have no wish to purchase them (assuming they are not free). Nor do I wish to take the trouble to produce such a drawing when I already have a text version. Furthermore, while they may be able to render the Enterprise more realistically; this does not inherently imply a better version. I don't know if you are old enough to remember ASCII art (especially on BBS's) or if this sort of thing ever appealed to you, but I still look back fondly on the simplicity of those renditions and have become quite attached to my Enterprise. Furthermore, a near-realistic depiction of the Enterprise would likely give rise to copyright issues, whereas my ASCII version is probably safe. I appreciate your recommendation; however, I must decline it. I have not noticed any difficulty with or challenges to my credibility, perhaps because I am careful to extensively document my changes and cite my references. Perhaps having the picture makes a small negative impact on my credibility, but the pleasure it gives me far outweighs any distress I might feel at the former and I am quite happy to accept the tradeoff. Please sign your posts, using four tildes. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:DRMN 01.jpg

Hello, Knowledge Seeker. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:DRMN 01.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Knowledge Seeker/Archive10. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As the image in question is part of a user’s communication with me, I am content to leave the placeholder as it is. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Three-level Chicago street map

This is an awesome map. I noticed one small error, though: Lake Street should be a two way street in the half-block between Wabash and Michigan. Few drivers are aware that there is one lane running west in this block, providing a convenient route from northbound Upper Michigan to northbound Lower Michigan (via Garland Ct). Lake St then becomes one-way again in the final block between Michigan and Stetson, as shown correctly on the map. Google maps clearly shows the westbound lane. Mtford 01:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! And you are correct! Unfortunately, I have no way of modifying the image. The map was created by User:SPUI; I only assisted by driving around the city and supplying information on problematic ramps/intersections. As it appears he is no longer active here, I am not certain how the map can be changed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Chicago River Green

Hi

Chance we could use your #River Dyed Green# photograph on www.st-patricks-day.com?

Slan, Danielle [81.109.228.132 (talk · contribs)]

I apologize that I was not active on Wikipedia at the time of your query. I hope you saw the licensing information on the photograph’s page and were able to use it on your web site. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)