User talk:Knowledge Seeker/Archive11

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)