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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

[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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You appreciated being notified about the Chicago, Illinois -> Chicago move request. See Talk:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]