User talk:CoolMike

Welcome

User:Slowking Man/Regi --Slowking Man 07:22, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Plastic Engineering

Hi CoolMike The reason that environmental issues particualrly apply to plastics rather than say Steel or wood is in the nature of their imapact on limited world resources and their imapct on global CO2 levels. Few other enginnering mateerials have the same impact in terms of their whole life-cycle environmental impact as plastics do, hence my comments. Velela 08:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Woodworkers

GREAT call on that add of Studley. I've seen that case before, and wanted to include it's creator, but forgot who built it. That's an excellent add. If you find more good info, please add it! ThuranX 04:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to not reply sooner. I think both those pages could use a reference to Studley's work, or as a famous example of. You might check if there's not a list of new england woodworkers, or some such as well. A third suggestion is that the WP:Woodworking group might also help you find other places to link to and insert information on Studley.ThuranX 20:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resin code/living hinge photo

Well, thanks. It's great to be recognized!--Joel 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About viscosity article

Can you tell me why you delete the vibrating viscometer link on the viscosity article ? this website respect the rules actually the measurerment of process viscosity use this kind of system. I think you didn't check this website www.sofraser.com/viscometer.htm It is really not a spam. This link was there for a very long time, moreover Sofraser and I contribute a lot of to increase industrial articles about these subjects. Waiting for your point of view about this case.

Best regards

Marcus

Hi Marcus. Thanks for posting your question on my talk page. As a general rule I try to avoid edit wars, so I was very hesitant to delete your link the second time. In general for a link to a commercial web site is allowed in external link sections if it has a wealth of information that can not otherwise be included in the article, or if the article is about the commercial web site or company in question. Neither of these are true in this case. See WP:EL, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and WP:Spam.

I did delete it for a few reasons. First of all it has very little info of encyclopedeaic quality, especially if you are looking for information regarding viscosity without look for means of measuring viscosity. In general a link like this belongs more in the viscometer article, if it belongs anywhere. The only fact on the sofrasier website I see as being verifiable is that the vibrating viscometers require less maintenence.

Secondly, the web site you are linking to is poorly organized, and features bad grammer. Any wikipedian who follows it might be turned off to any information contained in the web site by its poor organization.

Thirdly the web site you are linking to appears to me to be non-neutral in point of view. Obviously any company is going to want to show their products in the best light possible, but this comes at the expense of a neautral point of view.

Fourthly, there are a ton of ways of measuring viscosity, and the page you are linking to only has meaningful information on a few of them. If it included lots of information about simple viscometers, capillary rheometers/plastometers, extrusion plastometers, and other forms of viscosity measurement I might be more likely to accept it's inclusion in this article.

Finally I removed it becuase the majority of edits you have done under your user name on wikipedia are related to finding ways to link to the SOFRASER web site. I felt like this was corroberating evidence to show that the link was spam, as it seemed like your main goal is directing traffic to the sofraser web site.

All that being said, I am a resonable person, and I am open to trying to resolve this issue in a fair manner. I wonder if we should put it to a vote on the talk page for the viscosity article. Also we could try asking a few admins for thier opinion of wether it should be included or not. Let me know what you think, and thanks again for posting on my talk page. I was a little worried about simply getting into an edit war. For now I will not delete the article again until after I have heard your response, and/or gotten a second opinion from a third party. CoolMike 13:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a designer of viscometry equipment. I, too, found that Marcus's focus in his viscometer page edits on the SOFRASER instrument is commercial spam. The instrument is one of many, each of which has merits and limitations. I, too, independently removed his spam, and gave my reasons, on the viscometer talk page, but he restored his version without comment. He doesn't respond to my request for a more neutral pov on his talk page. I don't quite know what to do about this, but you asked for a third opinion, and here it is. Diogenes 01:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, marcus pipo reverted all my edits, and does not address my critiqe on his talk page. I don't want to start a childish edit war. What are my options? Thanks Diogenes 23:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you remove a POV tag without joining in on the discussion?

I am enlightened that you found the questions on the discussion page frivolous but would have appreciated your reasoning behind that statement. I don't see how you, as a party that wasn't involved in the edits, can determine the article was no longer POV. 71.39.78.68 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was never POV. The sections were in a logical order to a casual reader like myself. Assuming that people are not going to read the whole article is a bad assumption and leads to people trying to get thier point of view higher up on the table of contents. I read the article, saw that both sides were represented, and that both sides had references that seemed in order, and decided that it should not have a POV tag. In fact, putting a POV tag on that article is a way of making it less neutral (more POV) and not more neutral (less POV). Basically when you add that tag you are trying to invalidate the referenced sources that were part of the article. It seemed to me that a person made some infamous statements in written form, the validity of those statements were questioned. Then one or two scources say the statements were falsified, and one or two sources say the statements have been confirmed. How is that POV? Thanks for your question though. As always I appreciate someone who takes the time to post on my talk page. CoolMike 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about re-directs to the Viscosity article

CoolMike, please note my response to your comment on Talk:Viscosity about re-directs to the Viscosity article. - mbeychok 21:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solidworks

You may find this article interesting, also this is about a reseller, but says Solidworks is the "world's most popular CAD (computer aided design) software.", which I highly doubt, I would think that AutoCAD would easily be above it....--kelapstick (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help.--kelapstick (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Griffey, Jr.

I reverted to Jauerback's version. Feel free to restore any useful edits that may have been removed. Reach Out to the Truth 23:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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 (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request board

I have removed your comment from the Request board as you do not appear to be asking for community input regarding article content, user conduct, or Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

The request board is for dispute resolution. If you just want general comments or help improving an article, then please go to peer review. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2010 (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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CoolMike. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CoolMike. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]