User talk:Cotman68

Hi,

I'm glad that you've registered! Just a quick note, you can leave a signature by typing (~&#126;) at the end of a comment, that way people know it's you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. :) (Bjorn Tipling 03:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

Oh and here are some links for you:

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Dear : Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:


 * Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community Portal
 * Frequently Asked Questions
 * How to edit a page
 * How to revert to a previous version of a page
 * Tutorial
 * Copyrights
 * Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes. Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advise, please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~&#126;). The software will automatically convert this into you signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!(Bjorn Tipling 03:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

Hi, Cotman68 - I'm dropping by to try to figure out what is up with you and the Kaiser Permanente page. I made the original edits to the page because the page I found was a marketing instrument by a Kaiser Permanente employee ("Justen"). I'm not the person you've been discussing this with on the discussion page (other than the last comment), but I've deleted some of your remarks. I've done this because you went under a section clearly labeled "criticism" and added remarks that amount to "or not!" That's not adding any value, and some weren't true. It seems like you decided that it was inherently biased to add a Criticism section and your so stuck on that conclusion that you haven't stopped to pay attention to why other people are deleting your remarks.

I'm hoping we can work out this problem here and save everyone a lot of typing.

--Pansophia 01:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Cotman68: the submission for peer review does make my offer to talk it out pointless. You could have saved a lot of typing yourself by adding tight, fact-based content instead of just naysaying. You also continue to make false accusations. I didn't add the links you're talking about. Several of them were already there before I edited the article.

// you made the criticism section longer than the entire rest of the article!//

It was actually a lot longer, I did some work to shorten it.

The problem is you've been making a lot of assumptions and building some sort of fighting stance on that. Please go back and look at the article written by Justen. Then you will have a better sense of what's going on here.

--Pansophia 01:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
I don't think peer review is the right place for Kaiser Permanente. Peer review is for articles that are near featured status. You might be interested in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Of course, you should always try to resolve conflicts through collaborative discussion, but some particularly controversial cases require a request for comment. Just remember to always remain civil and cooperate with other editors. If you have any questions about using the dispute resolution process, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks. --TantalumT e lluride 04:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)