User talk:Cedrium

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Vsmith 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to bibliography

Your repeated re-addition of the King's College bibliography without discussion is approaching tendentiousness. If you still feel that the link is appropriate, discuss the matter on the article's talk page before re-adding the link. Otherwise your account will be blocked the next time you re-add the link to an article. Raymond Arritt 16:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a couple of suggestions. Firstly, it would be a good idea to edit your user page to make it clear who you are. Second, I work in Cambridge and would be happy to talk in person if you're finding this frustrating. Third, although the bibliography is a fine thing, its less clear that it should be linked from the GW page. I'm not saying it shouldn't be though. The problem is that the links section of theGW article tends to "bloat" as people add stuff to it, and so people are sensitive about what gets added. Fourth, I hope you don't find this too frustrating and get put off William M. Connolley 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Global warming. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. TeaDrinker 16:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King's College Bibliography

Hi, I am writing to discuss the issue of adding a link of our Global warming collection to wikipedia. Firstly, I apologise for the seeming stubborness but it is nothing like that, I didn't know someone was editing that quick, I thought my changes weren't saved, hence the repeated additions. But in all honesty, this link is to let people worldwide know of our comprehensive global warming collection that is free for anyone to read. King's college library is free and not for profit. Besides, there is no exhaustive literature search that includes and categorizes all the books about global warming such as our collection, which is still work in progress and growing. So we would greatly appreciate if you would re-post our link to the Global Warming page, with many thanks, Kings College Library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrium (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Global warming and related articles are some of the most closely watched on all of Wikipedia. I'm going to move this discussion to Talk:Global warming#King's College Bibliography to generate further discussion. To my mind, the two questions are (i) should there be a traditional bibliography link and (ii) is this one in particular the best available. I am more or less ambivalent towards the first, however the second one is key. The list seems to be a hodge-podge of popular and academic books, tangentially related texts, and is entirely focused on books. I tend to think that without annotations or better organization, the list adds very little. --TeaDrinker 17:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 18:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]