User talk:Nicola Cola

Greetings
Greetings. I was just leaving a note for User:Forestgarden when I got your message. What you've mentioned on my talk page is another example of the "usual back and forth of Wikipedia" I was mentioning to Forestgarden. Things like what the anon IP thinks Dahn Yoga represents are emotional for some people, but in the end all we want at Wikipedia are neutral, factual reports. Adults should be able to make up their own minds, and not have opinions yelled at them with profanity. The anon IP hasn't edited in a week or so, but if any more "poetry" comes from them, they will be quickly blocked from editing. Regards, --Bradeos Graphon 03:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bradeos. I was feeling a little taken aback by the whole thing. I feel happier in Wiki-land now.Nicola Cola 04:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack Section
This is a special section reserved for those of you who have solid belief in two fundamental precepts: 1) Everything that appears on the Internet is true. 2) People can and should be considered guilty by association. Please feel free to expose your hatred here.

''Disclaimer: All attacks reflect the mental level of the user leaving the comment and do not neccessarily reflect any sort of factual truth. All rumors and innuendo contained within remain suspect until proven otherwise.''

You are a vile bitch!!! May you rot in Dahn forever, you cult apologist! Get a brain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.197.77 (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

only you will survive the atomic winter..its because you dahn people are such kind hearted decent folk. your ethics really give us all something to stop and ponder, they are greater than those of Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.27.199.168 (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do Dahn adherents always use personal attacks against their critics? Just a quick glance at Ms. Cola's history reveals that she does anything to protect her bogus organization.
 * Just for the record, I am not the one using profanity and smear tactics on other people's talk pages. Also, sign your posts, please.Nicola Cola 06:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep pretending that your organization is slightly legitimate! The truth is the world is a far better place without your bogus organization scamming, pressuring, and scheming its way to make a buck. Can you list one good thing you or your organization have ever accomplished? Just one?
 * Yes, as a matter of fact, I can, but would it really do anything to change your mind? Also, I have never participated in any of the activities you list here. As far as I can tell, you have already decided to hate me, even though you know nothing about me. I hardly think you are inclined toward peaceful interaction with me, no matter what I may have accomplished in my life. That is really unfortunate, and I do pity you for whatever you have experienced that makes you so hateful. Also, what exactly is the organization you refer to as "your organization"? I don't own or run any organizations. And one more thing, you might want to be more careful about your own grammar before jumping all over my typographical errors. Please follow the basic rules of civility set forth by Wikipedia policy. Nicola Cola 07:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ilchi Lee
Greetings. The article definitely isn't a stub anymore! It has to be evaluated by the nice people at WP:Biography to get that upgraded, so I recommend that you add a request with them. I'm glad you left the controversy related news reports in. Regards, --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, great. Thanks for your help. Nicola Cola 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be okay to put a selected list of Ilchi Lee's Korean publication? Itshappyday (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Clayton College of Natural Health
Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussions in Talk:Clayton College of Natural Health. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Clayton College of Natural Healthis a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about the contributors as people. I can see, however, that there seems to be a group, you among them, that are preventing the article from improving, due to what appears to me to be overemphasis on Clayton's non-traditional accreditation. I object to that strenuously and will continue to fight this tendancy in the article and others like it in Wikipedia. I do appologize if any personal offense was taken, for that was not my intent. Wikipedia has growing influence in the world, and this is somewhat troublesome to me, given its tendancy to be lacking in neutrality. Anything non-traditional is likely be seen as "controversial" by someone, but I don't think an encyclopedia is a place to take up that debate. Nicola Cola (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT, and also WP:FRINGE --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please use the talk pages only for discussing improvements to the article. If you feel the need to discuss the contributors to the article or talk page, please find a more appropriate venue to do so per WP:DR, such as the editor's talk page or WP:WQA. Again, please refer to WP:TALK for more on talk page use. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not concerned at all about any particular contributor. I am only concerned about the obvious bias in the article, which has been consistently defended by the same group of people. Both of you are the ones making this personal by leaving unneccessary remarks on my user page. I have nothing against any particular editor, and I have said nothing personal against any of them. I don't like seeing bias defended in this way, and I will continue to complain about it. So please stop trying to intimidate me on my user page. It's not working and it does nothing to resolve the problems with the article. Nicola Cola (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Why did you leave the same comment twice? Nicola Cola (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
--  Idontknow610  (WANNA TALK??) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Help with a Bio article
I see. I can see from your contributions that you’ve been working very hard on the article about Ilchi Lee, and that you’re concerned about what’s better for it. I’ll look through the revision history, the websites, and such. What policy I’m looking at for this are the guidelines for writing biographies of living people, which also are related to neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Meanwhile, I’ll make a comment on the talk page too. Green caterpillar (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Nicole, a bot has accused me of vandalism, when I was only making sure UNSUBSTANTIATED FINGER POINTING was deleted. Please advise. Thanks much!

Matthew Laffert (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't accept these forgeries and fakes
No, no, no! I absolutely won't! Never, not ever. I will never even remotely consider the possiblity. My role here is to make sure the controversy is DELETED! Now, that is my role and no one must stop me!!!!

I understand your kindness and sympathize with a fellow Dahn devotee. Your words are meant for my well being, I appreciate them. But you are wrong! Why should I try to mediate sources like Rick Ross or Steve Hassan? Why?

Matthew Laffert (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that the controversy is simply part of Dahn's history and therefore can never be deleted, no matter how outlandish the accusations may be. An encyclopedia should simply record the events of history in a neutral point of view. I agree with you completely that Steve Hassan and Rick Ross are extremely poor sources for factual content, but it is also not right to pretend the controversies don't exist. (Ultimately, those sources will be removed, but we should get the opinions of expereinced editors first.) The fact that controversy has surrounded Dahn should definitely be included in a way that presents them in neutral terms. I also agree that there are some editors who are intent on discrediting Dahn and Ilchi Lee. This is of course completely unacceptable, but all we can do is exercise understanding and patience. I would recommmend particpating (with a level head) on the discussion board of the articles to make your points, and try to understand other points of view and Wikipedia policy before making any actual changes.Nicola Cola (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing Request
I don't know if you've been over to the Ilchi Lee article recently, but I'd appreciate you adding your two cents about some recent additions from Itshappyday. Since you were the original editor of the page, I thought you might like to chime in. Regards, Forestgarden (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lee
Please sign your posts in the future. 1. It's not a sneaky alternate account. I changed my user name months ago, and all the contributions were moved to this name. Same account, new name. 2. Yes, it's neutral. Mentioning verified court cases that don't reflect so well on a subject is neutrality. To not mention major controversies (a wrongful death suit is a major controversy), is a lack of neutrality. When people object to the removal of cited content, you need to stop and take it to the talk page to gain a consensus, not just keep unilaterally removing content that has been present for months. Steven Walling (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday and Holidays!


MisterWiki is wishing you Happy Holidays! MisterWiki  talk   contribs  wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year with all of your family, spread love during this times!

I (MisterWiki) created a video specially for you, wishing you the best for this christmas time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOAvuNbt1o

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages. MisterWiki  talk   contribs  03:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi878 (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)