User talk:Knowledge Seeker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The current Medicine Collaboration of the Week is Blood pressure.
	Last week's collaboration was Hysterectomy.

Archives:
Archive 1 (11/22/2004–4/1/2005)
Archive 2 (4/2/2005–4/30/2005)
Archive 3 (4/29/2005–6/12/2005)
Archive 4 (6/12/2005–7/27/2005)
Archive 5 (7/29/2005–10/4/2005)
Archive 6 (10/11/2005–12/23/2005)
Archive 7 (12/24/2005–1/30/2006)
Archive 8 (1/26/2006–3/31/2006)
Archive 9 (3/30/2006–5/26/2006)
Archive 10 (5/23/2006–9/30/2006)
Archive 11 (9/29/2006–11/14/2006)

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [[1]] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] ??

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/n/o/User_talk%7EKnowledge_Seeker_711b.html"