User talk:Cinnamon colbert

14 jan 2007 APOLOGIZE for messing up format Iraq war

speedy

First of all removing speedy deletion tags is considered vandalism and therefore a blockable offense. If you disagree with a speedy deletion tag then simply type {{hangon}} below the speedy tag. Second of all the page you created is infact pure nonsense. It does not even come close to wikipedia's standards. I speedy'd it because of that reason. Please see: Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Second of all if you are going to create a page then do not state your future ambitions for it on the main page, place them on the talk page. It is quite obvious that you do not know what you are doing. Before creating anymore articles or even editing I would more than strongly suggest you look at the following pages: Wikipedia: Tutorial and Wikipedia: Manual of Style. Until your "future" article is up to par I believe that it shouldn't be on wikipedia. First read the forementioned pages then go through the creation process slowly so as to find any mistakes before you save anything. --Tainter 02:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your note

Sorry, bud, I am an atheist. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia -- it's not the right place to preach about what religions people should or shouldn't follow. Our task is to relay verifiable facts we can attribute to reliable sources, in as neutral a manner as possible. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in the strongest possible terms -- statements like "atheism is the bestt!!!!" and "Buddha for the win!!1" are all over the religion pages, on Wikipedia. They're not helpful, they make the encyclopedia look bad, and they damage the project's credibility. We are not here to decide which religion is best. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but one way or another, you're arguing the merits of a religion, and that's not at all the purpose of an encyclopedic article. Our duty is to describe the subject, and nothing more. You may wish to see what Wikipedia is not for more information. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to give precedence to anything. Again, we're here to present verifiable facts which we can attribute to reliable sources, in a neutral manner. We are an encyclopedia, not an authority on which religions are or aren't correct. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statins

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did at statin. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Additions should be attributable to a reliable source. MastCell 23:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston

Please do not add any biased unencyclopedic unsupported material into wikipedia articles. Thank you.--Loodog 13:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Building of the World Trade Center

Please write in a balanced, neutral style and cite your sources. If you know the sewage flowed untreated into the river, say how you know so someone else can look it up. "Monument to Governor Rockefeller's ego" is right out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZS Genetics second opinion

If you're still around ... ZS Genetics got re-added to the DNA sequencing article. I ended up removing this section and then restoring some the old writing about unproven commercial proposals for DNA sequencing methods. I tried to be neutral, but I know there's an apparent of a conflict of interest for me on the issue, if you get a chance I'd like you check over the situation and decide what you think is best. Many thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 21:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Source Material for News Stories

A tag has been placed on Source Material for News Stories, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk

If you have a question about editing, please try the Wikipedia:Help desk Dloh cierekim 15:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted material

It was not an Encyclopedia article. It was basically incoherent. It was at best an essay exploring a subject. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Please read the Manual of Style for more information on how to write an article. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

day middle school notability

"perhpas that would be a good project" Indeed so, but not an easy one or one that I would like to get involved in. Generally, consensus, such as it is, holds that secondary schools are of themselves notable but that primary/elementary schools need something more than the fact that they exist and serve their local community; at least, that's what a few years on Wikipedia has led me to believe. Personally, I would tend to err on the generous side. In the case of Day Middle, to be honest, there's not a great deal in the article to suggest that the school is any way notable. The awards were two years ago; the feted teacher has retired. You will notice, however, that I did some work to improve the layout of the article and left it to others to sort out notability. Emeraude (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Day Middle School

I think that what was written are facts unless they can be unproven. You have not edited the section concerning the celebrities who have supposedly attended Day Middle School.

"Some current modern day celebrities who have gone to Day include Matt LeBlanc, Ian Mclean and Matthew Doeringer"

There is no source on the fact that these people have attended the school. Without a source, those facts should be edited from the page as well.

Unless you can disprove what I have added to the page, I think that they should stay up, and they will stay up. I'm sorry but why did you remove my edits to the Day Middle School page? Do you have a personal connections to the Daytime? And can you prove my facts as untrue?

I removed your comments because they are not verifiable. Verifiablility is a fundamental policy of wikipedia ( go here, and look for the verifiable part http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria) If, according to this policy, you can provide a source, then go for it. HOwever, you have not provided any sources, therefore I have deleted your material.

wikipedia also has strict rules on biograpies of living persons; i suspect these are to prevent libel lawsuits, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons If you go to this page , I think you will agree that your material qualifies for deletion. as to your other questions - obviously i have a connecton to dya,who else wuld bother ? As to disproving your facts, this stands on its head the basic wiki policy of verifibable material: it si the obligation of the poster to show that what they write is right. It is not the obligationn of others to disprove them. regards

Entirely correct. Burden of proof falls to the person who adds content, and anyone who supports keeping it. You cannot compel non-supporters to provide proof that you are INcorrect before first asserting reliably that you ARE. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of politicians...

This was proposed by another editor for deletion --you should have been notified. However, As reviewing admin, I think it has potential. I advise you to add to this substantially very quickly, including references, before the article gets deleted by a regular deletion process. DGG (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes

Moved them to the main ace article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ace_Books&diff=prev&oldid=307359204

The do not belong in a list article.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of President Obama's Schedule

A tag has been placed on President Obama's Schedule, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RWJP (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of disgraced United States politicians

I have nominated List of disgraced United States politicians, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disgraced United States politicians. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DNA sequencing

I removed your comment (diff) at DNA sequencing. Did you intend that for the article talk page? Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I have replied with a suggestion on my talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reselling

Yes, it is a little dubious, the way they bundle articles chosen automatically. I am leaving a review of the book, this is the best response. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Fusion power: "help with old reference"

Hi, C.C. -- I just noticed the query you posted on the Fusion power talk page a year ago:

many years ago, Science magazine, published by the AAAS, and widely regarded as one of the most prestigous science magazines in the world, published an editorial or comment by an engineer on fundamental problems with fusion power, which addressed real practical engineering issues like heat transfer. does anyone have a citation, or, better a PDF ?Cinnamon colbert (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/199/4336/1403 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnamon colbert (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Any AAAS member can download a pdf out of the Science archives (back to 1880), as part of their AAAS membership. I am a member, and have just looked into their archive, where I find:

"Engineering Limitations of Fusion Power Plants", by W. E. Parkins, Science, Vol 199, pp 1403-1408. 31 March 1978.

The author was the Director of Research and Technology at Atomics International in San Diego, CA. The two problems highlighted were (1) non-competitive capital costs of proposed plant designs, and (2) the operational limitations from the effects of radiation on the first wall of the containment vessel for D-T reactors or others producing high-energy neutrons. Of course after 33 years, I presume some progress has been made on these issues, but I cannot say to what extent Parkins's concerns have been addressed. The article is the second of two in that issue of the journal; although I have not downloaded the first, the concluding paragraph ends, "... nevertheless, the strategy outlined here suggests that tokamak fusion power could be demonstrated with reasonable expenditures of money."

Hope this helps. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Beverly Hall

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing scandal section on Rod Paige

Saw your mention of elevating the Houston ISD cheating scandal in [Paige's page] -- but now there's no mention of it at all. Seems like it's important to keep on the page, though.

Speedy deletion nomination of List of School Cheating Scandals

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on List of School Cheating Scandals requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Gaurav Pruthi ^talk 04:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cinnamon colbert. You have new messages at Gaurav Pruthi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Undeletion Request

Hi,

I saw your request to undelete material, and I am willing to help. However, it appears that you don't have your settings enabled to email your account through wikipedia. Could you update your preferences so I could send the material to you? Thanks, Mike V • Talk 08:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Agarose gel electrophoresis, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hzh (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for DNA Sequencing article

Hi, As one of the main contributors to the DNA sequencing article, I thought you might like to know I've requested a peer review, in an attempt to eventually get the article up to GA (it's currently rated C-class). The review page is here; any comments you have would be appreciated (obviously any help with editing would be fantastic too!) Thanks! Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn how to edit

I have reverted your edit on Agarose gel electrophoresis. Please note that if you have anything to add on article, just add the fact on the article, do not give a running commentary on the article. Articles are not the place to state your opinion. If you have any point you wish to make about the content itself, then do so on the article talk page, or add the reason for your edit in the edit summary. Please read the introduction on editing on WP:CTW. In any case, the article does not claim that it is the only one gel suitable for electrophoresis, so your point is entirely irrelevant. Hzh (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cinnamon colbert. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]