User talk:Coldbourne

Jellyfish

You've done some great editing on this subject. Could you please explain why you removed this scholarly reference at Talk:Nomura's jellyfish? Thank you — Catherine\^talk 00:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Global Warm/Cooling

I prefer the Flying Spagetti Monster theory that it's all linked to the decline in the number of pirates. I have avoided that page as there are only so many controversies you can handle at once but I'll toddle over and have a look. Are you wandering wikipedia looking for the Holy Grail? Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 23:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW - love the user page!Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 08:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Community Justice Newsletter

Welcome Previously, various notices regarding Community Justice have gone out to our members; though this is the first actual newsletter. This issue will contain information regarding decisions made on the first meeting, our new council, and more...! If you wish to unsubscribe to future newsletters, please add your name to Wikipedia:Community Justice/Do Not Spam. New Council Following our first elections, a new council has been elected.Computerjoe and Ian13 remain as chairman and chief executive (respectively); while Eddieh, Wiki alf and Xchrisblackx are replaced as councillors by Ilyanep, Osbus and Covington. The Giant Puffin and Pureblade remain as councillors. Member Conduct In the last meeting, the conduct of 4 members were discussed. Ethnopunk will be put on probation, supervised by Ian13, if he/she is uncivil during this probation, he/she will be expelled from WP:CJ; the same was decided for Misza13 (voluntarily), and his probation will be supervised by Computerjoe. No action will be taken against Computerjoe. Barnstar The Civility Barnstar which our member's have designed has been sent to Barnstar and award proposals. We'd appreciate your feedback! Also, we are planning to make a Community Justice barnstar to give to hard-working CJ members. If you're a budding designer, consider trying to make it, then post your proposal to WT:CJ! Name and logo change There has been no consensus reached regarding changing our name and/or logo neither at WT:CJ nor at WT:CJ/M/1. While suggestions are still welcome, no action will be taken at this time. Programs We are going to try to create programs to more actively involve our members. If you have any ideas, please drop a line at WT:CJ. We will try to work with WP:ESP on one of these programs, at some point in the future. Thanks! Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at WT:CJ or come into our IRC channel [1]. Computerjoe wishes to extend his thanks to User:Robchurch, a non-member who assisted in making {{tracker}} redundant, as well as Misza13 for his continued support and to the whole of this and the previous council. This newsletter was delivered by CJBot, written by Computerjoe, with technical help from Misza13. Computerjoe's talk 19:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Sophia 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. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

My first barnstar! Thank you so much I'm thrilled! Sophia 07:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Concordia Newsletter

Community Justice is no more. It has been reformed to Concordia. Membership has been transferred.

Concordia is an organization of editors on Wikipedia that strive to encourage civility and fair treatment among all editors in the Wikipedian community, from the Wikignome to the Wikiholic. The project was designed to have a friendly and helpful environment to support any unfortunate Wikipedians that have become victims of incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect.

We currently need help in getting going, and making the community understand our aims. We work for civility. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you have ideas, let us know at our talk page, or on the IRC channel. We aim to spread civility in every way we can.

Should you wish to unsubscribe to future newsletters, please add your name to Wikipedia:Concordia/Do Not Spam.

Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at WT:CCD or come into our IRC channel [2].

- The Concordia council. Delivered by Ian13 13:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

there's power in numbers. Lonecanine

Concordia Newsletter

NEWSLETTER

Concordia is currently trying to relaunch. I, and all the members of the ex-council, wish to welcome new members to the group. We are a group who aim to promote remaining civil, in an environment where messages can easily be interpretated wrongly.

Help out now!

• Try and help people remain civil! Talk to them, and help them in any way possible. Do not be afraid to use the talk page.
• Give people the Civility Barnstar.
• Make and spread some Wikitokens so people know there are people to help if they want assistance.
• Add banners or logos to your userpage to show your support.
• Suggest some ideas! Add 'em to the talk page.

We are a community, so can only work though community contributions and support. It's the helping that counts.

Decision Making

The council expired one month ago, but due to the current position of the group the current council will remain until the position of the group can be assessed, and whether it would be sensible to keep Concordia going. For most decisions, however, it will be decided by all who choose to partake in discussions. I am trying to relaunch because of the vast amounts of new members we have received, demonstrating that the aims are supported.

If you wish to opt of of further talk-page communications, just let us know here.

- Ian¹³/t 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC). Kindly delivered by MiszaBot.

Image:Bert_Petersen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bert_Petersen.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 03:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Kary Mullis

Don't remove controversial material with misleading edit summaries. And don't remove controversial material just to remove it. It is ironic that you would have a user page decrying bad editing practices when you yourself are happy to engage in them when it suits your purposes, apparently. --Fastfission 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies is not getting back to you sooner, I do not have much time for Wikipedia of late and have not logged in for some time. The "controversial" material that you are referencing is not so much controversial as it is inaccurate. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide encyclopedic quality articles that provide to readers information that is pertinent and informative. It was never meant as a forum for public opinion and unsourced information. Which essentially encompasses the large majority of the erroneous information that was provided on Dr. Mullis' page. His dissention in regards to the HIV/AIDS controversy and the Global Warming debate are well known and documented, and also pertinent information to a reader, thus it was untouched. The citing of the O.J. Simpson trial is irrelevant, as he never testified and all of the information provided on the page comes from a quick blurb on the court TV web site. As Dr. Mullis was not cross examined, any speculation as to what the defense might have done is pure conjecture. Accreditation of the PCR technique is essentially a non-issue. Dr. Mullis received multiple awards and accreditations for his invention, which are not lightly given. His contribution has been accepted and acknowledged by the scientific and academic community. The source given for justifying this "controversy" is a single book review posted by a member of the Department of Fine Arts and Humanities of the Charles County Community College. I would question this as an infalible source, would you not? And lastly, accounts from his book in the Controversy section are not controversial, as they are not a matter of dispute nor argument. They also provide no relevant information, and if they are considered a necessary part of the page, should be moved under his Authorship heading.

Furthermore (and as you took the time to speak with John Coster-Mullen I feel you could appreciate this) I have been in touch with Dr. Mullis and his wife in regards to the article, as I have done my best to provide only accurate information. They have been appalled at the lack of veracity provided by a supposed "biography". Until I took the time to do so, Dr. Mullis had no mention of awards or even his Doctorate mentioned within the article. It was simply a badly written, unorganized and poorly sourced public opinion piece that did little to inform the reader. I have taken the time to read virtually every other Nobel Prize for Chemistry winners wiki biographies. No other page is plagued as is Dr. Mullis' with such misinformation and trivialization of accomplishments. It is my hope to bring Dr. Mullis' page up to the standards of Jacobus Henricus van 't Hoff, Ernest Rutherford or in my wildest dreams Glenn T. Seaborg. Unfortunately, due to the nature of Wikipedia, a subject is guilty until proven innocent. Thus I have had to conduct an inordinate amount of research in order to counterbalance the assertation of previous editors. I am hoping to have the information, which ranges from documents from the U. S. patent office to legal documents from the law firm that successfully defended Cetus in several patent trials, successfully compiled soon. Wikipedia is far from my only concern, and serves only as a hobby. Cheers. Coldbourne 12:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming controversy.

Please stick to the guidelines set out in WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. Article talk pages are not to be used for venting your personal opinions. They are intended for comments on and about improvements to the article. Your latest comment is overly long, and doesn't contain a shred of article relevant information.

You can have your own personal opinion as much as you want - good riddance. But please take it to a forum, where it is appropriate. There is already more than enough irrelevant stuff on this talk-page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for stopping by and leaving a message for me. Unfortunately and this juncture I have provided multiple references for the points I have made, whether you choose to reject these sources is your choice. However your rejection does not automatically constitute my points as POV. I am not trying to disrupt the Global warming page, which would constitute undermining the accepted theory. I am discussing the lack of documentation provided on a page which explicitly deals with the very Debate over Global Warming. Attempting to enforce policies that have no bearing on the current situation is both bad practice and a bad example. I would expect more from a senior member of the community, and I am afraid I will not be so easily shoved aside. Thanks again, --Coldbourne (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I had prepared a longer response - but i see that you've now decided to add WP:NPA to the list of rules to break. So i'm breaking off. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Reiterated William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys are unbelievable, lol. I have put up with a lot of behavior over the years, at least you are somewhat civil (if also petty). Cheers to ya. --Coldbourne (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you are wondering[3] - WP:TWINK does not imply vandalism - let me quote from the lead (emphasis mine): "Twinkle is a set of JavaScript functions that gives autoconfirmed registered users several new options to assist them in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism." If its a vandalism revert, then there will be a rather specific mention of vandalism in the edit comment. Try to at least assume good faith - ok? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of what a vandalism revert looks like [4], as you can see - you wouldn't be in doubt :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

pic

Hi, did you upload this pic in an account with the same name as yours on commons, if you did I was wondering where you got it from? Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Bert M. Petersen for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Bert M. Petersen, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert M. Petersen until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)