User talk:UBeR

This user is currently on editor review. You may comment about his or her edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/UBeR

Archives 08 February 2007 03 March 2007 01 April 2007

[edit] Editor review

I reviewed you. YechielMan 03:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the editor review! I wasn't sure if I was ever was going to get one. Given the necessarily stressful and vivacious past few days with the ongoing controversies in several articles I'm watching, I appreciate your comments highly.

One of my foremost commitments to this project is bringing a balanced and neutral point of view, particularly in controversial subjects. One of my first projects of this was indeed with the execution of Saddam Hussein. This was around the time I was just familiarizing myself with Wikipedia, and his imminent execution was all over the news. I began when the article was little more than a stub and, as you noted, my edits soon grew to over 900 in number to that article. No doubt, much of it was vandal reverting, but many controversies and new information arose throughout. I owe the success of that article to those who have helped in keeping it balanced and factual, and hope to get it to FA with a little bit of cleanup. Throughout it, I noticed more and more people were trying to insert their opinions into the article, and while exploring elsewhere I noticed the same thing in many different articles, and that began my journey into neutrality and fairness. As an encyclopedia, this is of utmost importance.

When editing controversial articles, you do no doubt draw controversy to yourself. Unfortunately, a few administrators, not being able to debar their personal feelings, took it upon themselves to harass me and the such on an unfounded basis. Luckily, the ado turned into much of nothing. Anyway, though much is to be said, I'm rambling...

Thanks again for the kind words, and I will definitely look into the suggestions you gave me. ~ UBeR 08:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi UBeR. I've added another one. --Stephan Schulz 10:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review, Stephan Schulz. I appreciate your comments. I know I have a bit of a bad habit of going on streaks of making small corrections to errors. Most of it has to do with worrying about getting in edit conflicts or probably not noticing it until after I save. I will work on that.

As for non-controversial articles, that's were most of my substance is. When I began my work on Wikipedia, I focued mainly on the video games I used to play or still do play (note on my userboxes, I consider myself a pro-gamer ;-)). (You can see my watchlist for those articles.) As for editing articles of my expertise, I've written on the glacial history of Minnesota. I've been meaning to make more contributions to hydrology and oceanography related articles, but as you may have noticed, I've been been preoccupied with other more controversial articles, which take up a lot of my spare time. I've also been getting involved in philosophy (mainly logic, metaphysics, and epistemology) and economics related articles.

As for the more controversial parts of my experience here, I've taken it upon myself to focus on fairness and neutrality within particular articles that get a lot of attention and possibly cajole opinionated edits by editors. One of Wikipedia's fundamental principles is keeping a neutral and object view on topics, and are subject to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. So when I noticed disregard for this principle, especially on the behalf of administrators, I feel particularly appalled. If I feel it my responsibility to document these violations, I get accused of personal attacks by the very people who am I documenting or their patrons. If I take it upon myself to caution them on their talk pages, I get accused of trolling by the very people I caution or their patrons. If I take it upon myself to asseverate my suspicion on appropriate locations, what I believed to be wonted practice, I get accused of nonsense by the very people I suspect or their patrons. So excuse me when I have to resort to spelling out specifically what Wikipedia demands of us, but I've garnered no other option so as to make clear as possible to those who wish to dismiss Wikipedia's policies on the basis of their administrative title and ethos. This is the sort of enclyclopedia up with which I will not put. ~ UBeR 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So which policy forces snide remarks like this? William has a doctorate from Cambridge, and is a working scientist with a number of high-qualiy publications on climate change. What higher degree of qualification can you expect?

I think this has moved beyond an issue of policy and has become personal. The right way to deal with this is - and has always been - an RFC. This allows for an open discussion with all sides involved and feedback from the larger community that would allow us to see how your opinion is perceived by others. It certainly is more productive than the death by a thousand petty complaints and provocations I preceive you as currently trying.

As for the "documentation" page: Wikipedia is (among other things) a consensus-driven community. If you have a complaint, bring it to the communities notice. The aim is not to "win", but to achive a useful and at least civil working relationship (as we e.g. had on British Empire). Obviously, you think you had a valid reason for complaint, but instead of acting on it, you planned to "build a case" until you had (what you thought) was an overwhelming advantage. That's why people considered it an attack page, and overwhelmingly voted for delete.

Bye, --Stephan Schulz 07:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So long as people are appealing people's character rather than their edits, then Wikipedia is a failed project based not on contributions but rather a sort of ipse dixit Web site in which true progress becomes retarded. Time and again, people are ignoring the actual edits, and come up with some lame (and fallacious) excuse of how some administrator should be allowed to ignore such and such policies. You're telling me to file an RFC, truly my intention (sooner or later), but as you must know these things require quite a bit of work in terms of gathering edits, comments, etc. If you wish to call this process an attack, then so be it. "It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition." ~ UBeR 16:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Your edit comment at Global Warming was right I reverted more than I meant to. I thought I had checked the diffs but I was probably sleepy///--BozMo talk 21:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. ~ UBeR 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your user page

yea, I'm going to work on it some more, I just got side tracked. I will be changing it alot, but I just needed a base :/ lol. Thanks for the offer. Brandon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bldintx (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] OR

William, I do not understand why you want the rules rewritten so as to have them favor you. The problem with allowing Wikipedia as a source is because it entails circular reasoning. It's a bit difficult to explain but easy to understand how this leads to begging the question. I hope you retract your statements on other pages in which you say it's allowed to cite Wikipedia as a source. "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources." My regards, ~ UBeR 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, oh Valorous and All-seeing one. I've removed your comments from my talk page discussion of OR. Sorry, but you've ruined too many useful discussions elsewhere by wikilawyering, to the detriment of wikipedia. In my opinion, of course.

As to the sources point: I can no longer be so certain. I think the answer appears to be at the moment that WP:OR says what you say, but that in practice this is mad and no-one implements it. I look forward to your tagging History of the Yosemite area to death if you disagree. I'm trying to establish what others think on my talk page now. I don't need to know what you think - you've made that clear elsewhere William M. Connolley 19:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but you will find most agree with me. To think logically is not to think in circles. I do not think it is so wrong to present Wikipedia policies where they are being violated. If you chose to ignore them, they will forced upon you. ~ UBeR 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I say... I look forward to your assault on Yosemite William M. Connolley 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

William, this is not about lawyering. It's about people thinking they don't have to adhere to the policies that Wikipedia is founded on. If you don't want to follow the rules, I suggest you find some other encyclopedia that allows for more lax insertion policies for original research (encyclopedia, maybe?). This simply isn't the place. ~ UBeR 21:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't take an Environmental Activist who edits on Environmental articles seriously, Uber. Activists don't need to know what others think or what the facts are, they just want to make sure their point of view is the one that is published.--Zeeboid 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please make up your mind on whether you're going to strip my comments out or not. And re-ordering things is pretty weird too - its your userpage, but it could well be seen as deceptive. As to Yosemite: its a nice counter example. It demonstrates that using sub-pages to support statements is useful and convenient. Naturally, since you so strongly disagree with that view, you'll be off to edit that page and put in fact tags... won't you? Oh, and I removed some tripe from Zeeboid. My apologies if you want nonsense like that on your talk page - do restore it if you want it William M. Connolley 21:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. You make much ado about nothing, William. I'm here to provide context, not the opposite. (As you may have noted, nothing was reordered, just my original statement placed on top, as it would appear if I posted it first, which I did.) You and I differ in ideas on ownership of talk pages. Clearly I'm not here to censor discussion. The same cannot be said about you, but that's elsewhere.

To the topic at hand: You may have noticed your article was awarded FA status prior to the criteria for third-party references was required. This article would have no chance of getting FA under today's criteria. Your example is moot, and if you don't believe me, this article could be quickly demoted. Convenience means nothing compared accuracy. I'm puzzled as to whether you recognize how simply putting two brackets around a word as means for sourcing entails begging the question. Do you? Do you see how allowing for such faulty logic would impede the purpose (and credibility) of this encyclopedia? Seriously, I'm having trouble fathoming why you think the convince of doing so succeeds the importance of factual accuracy. ~ UBeR 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marking reverts

You promised not long ago to mark your reverts as such at Wikipedia:Editor review/UBeR. It doesn't seem to have taken you long to forget that [1] William M. Connolley 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When I was writing that, I was thinking to myself, "Oh boy I think this might piss off William." But I said I would work on it. That's pretty different from promising to never to forget every single time. But like I said, I'm working on it. ~ UBeR 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

0 out of 1 so far is unimpressive. Keep trying William M. Connolley 22:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this comment? ~ UBeR 22:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender politics

Your consistent reference to User:KimDabelsteinPetersen as being female (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGlobal_warming&diff=117859324&oldid=117851193]), despite his self-identification as male, could be seen as an attempt to provoke. It could also be seen as denigrating toward women (i.e., implying that being female is a grounds for needling). I hope this is an oversight on your part. Raymond Arritt 00:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Raymond Arritt, I was not aware of this. Given the user's name could be identified as Kim Petersen, I overlooked the fact that Kim often refers to males as well as to females. Thank you for informing me. ~ UBeR 00:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Count yourself fortunate that Kim is a tolerant guy. This could have turned out quite badly for you; had he noted this in response to your 3RR report, it would have looked like you were on a campaign to harass him. Raymond Arritt 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You around?

If so please have a look at the straw poll on Talk:Global Warming. Thanks --BozMo talk 15:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. What is the name of the section? I will be around later tonight or this afternoon. ~ UBeR 17:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Global_Warming#Suggestion.2Fvotes_please --BozMo talk 20:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your option, BozMo, just seems ridiculous. You're moving us back to square one. The issue is still there. While, yes, it may be a nice way to ignore the issue, I think it's a big mistake. ~ UBeR 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, Tell me what your issue is exactly? You evidently think the page has come sort of bias. I respect your opinion on this but when I look for more detail the quality of the comments back seems low to me (perhaps I just don't get it) e.g. "calling a small number of people small is OR" or things like that. Perhaps its just the overall tone. I want the page to reflect a balance of opinion but those who are trying to push it toward "we don't really know" seem to me to be the ones who making everything rather personal and unpleasant. --BozMo talk 13:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, I don't know how many times I have told you the issue. Seriously, am I being confusing when I state there needs to be a source for your statements. I mean, have you read WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:ATT at all? Seriously, people act dumbfounded when I say if you don't have a source saying it, there's no reason Wikipedia should be saying it. ~ UBeR 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read these policies. Perhaps before condemning us all as stupid you might think about how you are explaining your point: I struggle to get it. WP should NPOV summarise things into articles, not cut and paste verbatim quotes. This is exactly what it seems to be doing in this article, and matches policy. WHAT is wrong? --BozMo talk 17:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Foremost, I'm not saying any of you are stupid. Straw men aren't allowed on this talk page. My point was whether I was being clear or not. And you said I am not. I'm not exactly sure where am I'm not getting through though. The problem is if something isn't sourced, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Of course, it should be NPOV, condensed, encyclopedic, etc. But if fails to meet the criteria of being attributable to a source, then it lacks merit for inclusion on Wikipedia. That is, without a source saying something, we shouldn't be saying it either. We editors are not here to pass judgment, make calculations, declare opinions, etc. ~ UBeR 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I agree with you totally on this bit. The "think" is because there is a difference between data and meta-data: put another way between sourced facts and their NPOV summary. There is grey around NPOV review. But what are you saying is unsourced on the GW article? Please bear in mind I am not an expert on the article: I tend to try to check changes and their sources when they are put in but I haven't tried with all sources in the whole article... I regard myself as a WP peacemaker more than specialist on GW (although I have reasonable scientific creds). --BozMo talk 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, if you look at global warming you will find the following sentence: "While this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science, there are a few scientists who disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming." It has no source attributed to the statement. With words like "numerous," "most," and "few," all weasel words that are subjective to the reader, there most definitely has to be a source which states what we're stating. If there is none, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 19:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I am going to sleep on that: but it isn't clear to me... at least it isn't clear that this statement might not be a fair summary of public positions taken, provided the detail is say further down the article. How many is needed for "few" or "numerous" etc to be accurate though is another matter. --BozMo talk 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and by that time everyone will have voted to go back to the original version you have proposed and everything will still be willy-nilly, straight back to square one. Look, I don't care if there's a source that actually says "Most scientists agree that ... and few scientists disagree (...)" If there actually is source, then use it. If there actually is a source, make sure you're stating what it is saying (that is, not verbatim--just don't change the context). If there actually is a source, attribute the claim to that source. (This is precisely what my option, "Option 2" is trying to state) HOWEVER, if there isn't a source, then that claim doesn't belong in Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 19:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this one - for the first part of the contested line: While this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous ^{[1] [2]} - and for "consensus": consensus ^[3] --Kim D. Petersen 01:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, Mr. Pertersen, that I do not have a reference section on my talk page, so best to just use single bracket without the <ref>. Second, the Royal Society does in fact provide an excellent source stating that some national academies of the G8 and two other countries support the IPCC's assessment. However, are 10 nations really numerous in context of a 200 nation globe? Does the Royal Society use the words "numerous"? This goes back to my second "actually" point. ~ UBeR 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This was an example for insertion (therefore with the <ref> - there are btw. at my count a total of 19 academies representing 18 (+ unknown for the carribean) countries. (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, UK and the US) --Kim D. Petersen 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC) - NB: Not to mention that it covers >57% of the worlds population and >76% of world GDP. --Kim D. Petersen 09:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh... what is covers is the national academies of a few dozen nations. ~ UBeR 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, you obviously acted imprudently and with bad judgment. Despite the calls and discussion of how poor the straw poll was and your attempts to make lopsided arguments, you still unlocked the article based on the straw poll. You naively asserted, "please do not star the war again," DESPITE my clear warning telling you did absolutely NOTHING to change the article with the revert and in fact we would be straight back to SQUARE ONE. If that is not a call for the whole war over again, I do not know what is. ~ UBeR 18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, I respect your right to reach this conclusion (which I don't share but I don't think I could convince you). I also am pleased that you are acting with forebearance in not restarting an edit war. If you wish to continue to try to improve the article may I politely suggest that you try to do so without using polemic language about the other editors there (esp to repeat that the comments below on WMC are not civil). I personally find it an effort to give your views as much credit as I am sure they deserve when they are expressed in such aggressive and personal language. I understand you are frustrated by what you perceive is the behaviour of others but please realise you may not be completely correct in all your judgements and concentrate on trying to improve the article not trying to take apart the people or the past. --BozMo talk 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Words are subjective and amphibolous. Anyway... to argue I am incorrect is to argue Wikipedia policy is incorrect. Have fun. ~ UBeR 20:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is why I feel this matter should be the focus of the mediation. Thanks. --Sm8900 21:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI Violations?

UBeR, I am trying to get more information to see if it is a Conflict of Intrest violation for an Environmental Activist/Green Party member to be actavly editing pages that have to do with Environmental issues. Your thoughts?--Zeeboid 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure. The COI policy is somewhat flexible, and I think it changes from case to case. I think you should ask a more learned person on the policy about the current situation, such as an outside administrator. ~ UBeR 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably as it stands they can if they are a member of a party provided they are not an officer of the party of some sort. If they are employed by the party (perhaps even as an unpaid officer) then it is very grey and depends on whether the green artivles have some POV. If you are prepared to give me any more details by email I will have a look...assuming of course that you regard me as "outside". Whether they are NPOV is likely to be regarded as more important than COI in general. --BozMo talk 17:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most political parties have positions on a very wide range of topics, from abortion to social security to the defense budget. I can see WP:COI keeping a party member (or official) from editing an article about the party itself. But stopping him or her from editing all articles on topics on which the party has an official position (that he or she may or may not share!) is nonsense. And of course Zeeboid's transparent attempt to somehow equate party members and "Activists" (with a capital A) is nonsense as well. Many party members are no more active than the population at large.--Stephan Schulz 18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I feel as though I stepped on a hornet's nest. Maybe you can help. Why are the editors on the Global Warming page so insulting to others? Even Raul, who is on arbcom is that way. Is there some sort of vapor that wafts from that page and turns people mean? Or am I missing something of the history and thus do not know what is happening?--Blue Tie 05:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, I am sorry if you are upset. The tone on the page is pretty aggressive and I don't like that either, and I have complained when its worst. However I don't think the editors there invented this themselves: there are so many different types of attack on the page that people have got very terse. --BozMo talk 13:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I am not sure I would say that I am personally offended but something is weird about the way the discussions are handled there on that page. I just sort of stumbled in and I am immediately savaged. If I were of a mind or nature to complain, I am sure that Dr C would be chastized by some authority for his treatment of me and others who have not been quite as intent in their focus on me have been no less personally insulting. From someone like Raul that is simply amazing to me. I note how many arguments do not go to the issues but are ad hominum. It is just weird. I have not experienced anything quite like it before on wikipedia and I wonder if I have missed something of the history here or something else. It feels like it because I am lumped in with other editors -- people I do not know and have no idea if I agree or disagree with, my comments seeking discussion seem to be ignored and I am personally attacked. I don't get it. What is going on? I am confused about it. --Blue Tie 14:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I know how you feel. Actually I think there is something similar at some other contraversial pages... Antisemitism, Circumcision and even Catholicism all have quite a few editors who jump on you quite a lot if you as much as try to move a comma... and who are quick to imply you are something worse than a "denier". How to handle these pages is beyond me: there is a mixture of very deep knowledge by some editors and also to a degree a problem that every word has already been fought, compromised and recompromised over several times. Perhaps with "featured articles" be bold might be weakened a bit. It isn't a good situation. --BozMo talk 14:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And maybe a special precaution that experts take on extra-ordinary efforts to assume good faith. I would even support a policy that allows experts such as Dr C to be guardians of pages (contrary to the current ownership policies), but on conditions that they actually encourage and listen to other ideas and that they feel a special sense of obligation to follow NPOV in articles. Even experts (or perhaps especially experts) can have serious POV problems and not even recognize them. On the other hand, experts are beyond valuable in judging the quality of content. --Blue Tie 14:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Update opinion. Not sure I have it right. Maybe guardians would stiffle discussion too much and injure the project. So maybe ignore what I said above. --Blue Tie 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know either. I think WMC is a net asset and he puts up with a lot of personal abuse etc from others so I am not surprised if he is sometimes terse. I am up for improving the GW page though. When it comes out from protection lets talk about what to do with it, --BozMo talk 14:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we are from different cultures and speak different languages: Blue Tie for example, TedFrank is an attorney, while WMC and I are scientists. Neither is necessarily better or worse than the other. But we have vastly different worldviews, especially on the relative roles of process versus truth-seeking. I was going to write a long essay on the implications of this difference but have some other things to do for a while, and a third party's talk page probably isn't the appropriate venue (see, we can use legal words sometimes!) anyway. The bottom line is that each side could make more of an effort to understand the other's perspective. Raymond Arritt 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(Replied on Raymond's Page)--Blue Tie 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, Blue Tie, the problem is ownership. There are a few people, especially William, who feel as though they control the article and they should have the last word. They don't believe in democracy, but rather hold a fascist mentality on what they think is theirs. Specifically, William believes anyone who doesn't specifically study climate (he's a mathematician who makes models) has no right to make any edits to the article. He thinks that because he makes climate models that he's always right. With that people often come to his defense with fallacious appeals as excuses for his behavior which is obviously contrary to Wikipedia policy. They, contrary to policy, look at the editor instead of the edits. I've had this same experience with Raul. So if you plan on sticking around in the global warming articles, best to get used it because people are reluctant to change. ~ UBeR 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, these remarks are pretty personal and rather inflamatory. There are also a demonstration of why the GW page keeps going personal. Please withdraw them and try to express your feelings in a more civil manner. --BozMo talk 17:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascist mentality? Please, I've often found that people who like to toss the work fascist around are clueless as to its meaning, and often use it to cover up their own agenda. Besides, what precisely has democracy to do with presenting facts? 60% of Americans believe in the Noachic Flood; does that make the flood a real occurance? Hardly. But, based on your comments above it seems that you may very well think that we should present that flood as fact against all evidence to the contrary. Remember, the vox populi is far more often the vox stulti and has no place being represented as scientific fact.

Secondly, I echo the last post by BozMo. While the spurious Limbaugh-like ad homs may sell radio advertising, they don't work here. •Jim62sch• 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I was simply answering the question. He asked about specific people, I've explained to him my experience with them. If you are oblivious to the dictatorial behavior, ignoring of criticisms, and superiority complex of the few, then you are oblivious to the obvious. Now obviously Wikipedia is not a democracy, lest we entail argumentum ad populum, but Wikipedia is based upon consensus. Wikipedia is about listening to what others have to say, listening to the criticism, and working in tandem so that we may achieve to the correct outcome. You could argue then Wikipedia is in fact the collection of vox stulti, but that's elsewhere. I'm not sure if you are at all aware of what we're discussing or the context in which it is in. I'm not arguing against any scientific fact on climate change or whatever you think it's about. This is about people not abiding by the Wikipedia policies. So before you go on your own ad hominem arguments, please at least be aware of the situation. ~ UBeR 22:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope I will not be seen as intrusive or rude, but perhaps I can suggest a different way to have said what you had in mind without being quite so harsh. Here goes:

To answer your question, Blue Tie, the problem is probably ownership. William and others work to control the article, probably because they believe you should have a professional, technical background on climate (he's a mathematician who makes climate models) if you are going to speak up in a scientific article. He has supporters who grant him leeway on his less attractive behaviors because of his expertise. And rather than look at the edits on their own merit, there is a problem with looking at the editor instead. I've had similar experiences with Raul. So if you plan on sticking around in the global warming articles, recognize that reality. ~ UBeR 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. You got the message down correctly. ~ UBeR 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. As you can guess, I am reading through your talk page, Uber. I agree with Blue Tie that the whole tone of the edits at Global Warming is totally wrong. This is why I feel we should use the mediation request. Let me repeat something I've ben saying; there is no reason that one article which is an overview should suddenly need to be kept as a sufficient presentation of a single point of view. It is utterly bizarre that one group of editors should have appointed themslves to do that. They are correct that they have the right to insure their theory is presented with the appropriate weight, and should be guarded against splinter opinions. Anyone has that right. they just can't give the entry a general title like "Global warming" and then use it for one topic and one theory. They need to put this in an article entitled "arguments for global warming," or something like that. thanks. --Sm8900 21:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming edits

Hi Uber. this is Steve, also known as sm8900. I support all your efforts with the Global warming article. Are they still deleting your legitimate additions, regarding dissenting views? Please let me know, and please keep me posted and let me know periodically how this is going. Thanks, and thanks for all your efforts. --Sm8900 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve, thanks for writing to me. I understand your concerns with that article, as there are people, even administrators, willing to ignore fundamental Wikipedia policies for a variety of reasons. (Some actual reasons given include: "stupid," "ugly," "convenience," etc.) Most of the time though it's either because they do not understand the policy or they deliberately ignore it to as to try to insert POV statements—the very thing the rules are trying to disallow. Obviously, some people may actually get away with this because of fallacious appeals to character or authority, or some other fallacious argument. I recognize that administrators here often care not to look at the actual edits, but instead the editor. I am trying to bring awareness of this to people, but most often people choose to ignore such occurrences, for whatever reasons. Let it be known, however, this is a dangerous path for Wikipedia to follow, lest we forget the lessons we've learned from Essjay. Recognizing this as a trend on Wikipedia, I've been committed to raising awareness and correcting this issue we face, most particularly on global warming. Again, thank you for your support and I appreciate all of you're help. ~ UBeR 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi uber. thanks for your reply. i appreciate your comments to me. I agree completely with you re the current violation of Wikipedia rules e this article. I am starting to put my views more out there. I have posted them on the mediation page. I feel we need to give a focal point to our current position. I feel the mediation page is the right place for this. If the mdiation is starting, we need to give it the attention it desrves. once it is resolved, it will not be possible to continually raise and rahash these issues again in the future. would appreciate it if you could please go to the page, and post at least a small statement of support. the more views, the better. That is the only way to give any weight or credence to these proceedings at all. Thanks. --Sm8900 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Steve, thanks for the remarks. I would like to leave a comment on a few of the pages concerning the issue, as well as attacks on me, vandalism elsewhere, etc. However, I am unable to do so at the current moment, because I have been erroneously/mistakenly blocked. My regards, ~ UBeR 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on global warming. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 8 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't aware of this double standard, Seraphimblade. Seeing as how you are totally oblivious to the happenings on global warming, I'm sure this a just a simple mistake. If you look at the actual diffs, I'm not reverting, just making simple edits. I wasn't aware you weren't allowed to make more than 3 edits per page in a timespan of 24 hours? ~ UBeR 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Even you will presumably confess that the two edits marked "rv" were actually reverts? Are you prepared to admit to any others? William M. Connolley 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. I mark all my reverts as such. ~ UBeR 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well no - I've had to remind you, and even after that you've forgotten on occaision, as you yourself have admitted. But in this case [2] is an unmarked rv of [3] William M. Connolley 16:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, William, notice the large amount of information Vsmith entered, then look at the two words I removed. This edit (not revert) was made because it made an (obviously) incorrect statement. Try again. (P.S. What am I at now, like 25/26?) ~ UBeR 16:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to try again, since the blocking admin (correctly) judged it a revert. I suggest you read WP:REVERT, especially that easy-to-miss but at the very start: in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article.. You can talk endlessly about this, but 3RR admins are rather used to people trying to weasel out, and it tends not to work William M. Connolley 16:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's funny... I wonder if you've read the global warming article. You obviously agree that removing "a dozen" was correct, because the page currently has 20. So either disagree with the 20 statement, or you agree with my edit. ~ UBeR 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter if anyone "agrees" with your edit or not. I've not yet seen one person revert-warring and say "Well, you know, the consensus really is against me," because people who are able to come to terms with that situation don't tend to get blocked on 3RR in the first place. If someone reverts you, even once, they're not going to suddenly like your edit if you make it again. When that happens, it means it's time to talk, seek mediation, get a third opinion or article RfC, whatever the case may be. And even if you do every last one of those, consensus may turn out against you in the end anyway. I realize that can be frustrating, but I've never seen anything but bad come of edit wars. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, you mistaking legitimate edits for reverts. For example, this edit surely is a partial revert of some edit someone made, but no one in their right mind would actually consider it as such. Corrections ≠ reverts. ~ UBeR 21:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation for Global warming

Hi Uber, again. Just want to leave another suggestions. please go to the mdeiation request page for global warming, and leave some comments. We need to start getting our views out. please also encourage others to do the same. you can find it at this location. --Sm8900 13:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Uber. here is what i just posted on the talk page there> Please come over when you have a chancem and post your views. Thanks.

My position, and I what i believe should be our position, is that the Global warming article is being totally mis-managed and mis-named. Simply that. The article currently titled "Global warming" should really be entitled "Scientific details of global warming." The global warming article itself should really be an overview, and not just of scioence, but of politics, society, dissenting views. an article solely on the science should really be a sub-article. there really is absolutely no justification for a small number of editors to be continually scrutinizing each submission, and removing anything which does not give sufficient weight to their views.

I am also really appalled and mortified at their continued deletion of any other topics, themse or ideas which do not relate to what they consider to be the main topic. An article with as basic title of "global warming" should be the overview for all other sub-articles associated with this topic. There is absolutely no justification for a small number of perople deciding that they know what the topic "Global warming entails, (and deleting any other views or ideas on the scope of this topic). That's what i feel should be our stated position in this mediation. Thanks. --Sm8900 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree. One administrator, titoxd I believe, made a particularly true statement about how the one sentence explaining the controversy and other details in the lead is totally insufficient. I supported that, adding that there are issues not being spoken about that are very relevant to global warming and that people are actually interested in. I also pointed out that there were two large articles about the topics, but got only a few words in the global warming article. As with any correct statement an administrator or I point out, it doesn't get addressed because they know we're correct. It's a shame. ~ UBeR 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Uber. I do appreciate your comments. That makes a lot of sense. Could you please go to the mediation page and post your comments. Sorry to keep harping on this. The problem is that I'm currently posting to the mediation page, bu I'm fighting this battle all by myself. I'm able to state my own position and requests, but I don't know if I am adequately covering anyone else's. If this keeps up, we may (or may not) win the battle, but there will be absolutely no tangible record of any specific requests by anyone on our side for the admins to grant, no matter how much they agree with our views.

it's crucial in these proeceedings for us to have an actual, specific set of positions and demands. So far, we don't. So I'd appreciate it if you could please post there when you get a chance. At the very least, please just let them know that you are involved in this, and aware. thanks very much. --Sm8900 17:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you had a "an actual, specific set of positions and demands" which were reasonable you would probably get them without needing a mediation process. The absence of such is part of what makes it hard to understand and help you. --BozMo talk 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to get at on the meditation talk page, but we seem to have stalled. We need more specifics. (NB. the word "demands" can be viewed as unhelpful.) Raymond Arritt 17:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Bozmo and Raymond, I am simply trying to stop the group of small users which has constantly, continually been turning what should be a general overview, able to encompass many views and beliefs, into a platform for only one topic, and one set of views.

At 6 ft 3 and 250lb I hope you don't consider me one of your "small users". Unfortunately what you say is not "an actual, specific set of positions and demands" and I think there is a widely held perception that in fact what you are trying to do is change a broad overview article to one which gives undue weight to a very small number of fringe scientists. There appear to me to be about 20 well established WP editors including about 8 elected admins and 2 elected bureaucrats maintaining a broad view and about 8 mainly WP:SPAs who are convinced that everything about GW is in doubt or a conspiracy. A few months ago someone studied several months of edits and I think found those kind of numbers. Now I am as anti-establishment as anyone, have no real personal interest in GW and would love both to find credible flaws in the status quo and to see them in the article. But I keep asking and they never turn up an actual, specific set of positions and demands. Perhaps they just enjoy the argument, perhaps they don't have a position or perhaps they just don't explain it. Do help to try to find out what the position is. --BozMo talk 18:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, please do not make false and unsupported accusations on my talk page. I think I will start enforcing a three strike rule. Again, you are misunderstanding the problem, either purposefully or otherwise. Additionally, to state you're uninvolved, an outsider, neutral, or whatever, would be completely false and misleading. Your double standards are against the spirit of Wikipedia. Your fallacious appeals trick no one. Wikipedia policy is the rule of the land, not hearsay. ~ UBeR 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, which part of the above was an "accusation"? --BozMo talk 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations of people using SPAs. ~ UBeR 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry. I meant some of the people were WP:SPA which isn't a crime or wrong, just that a "single purpose account" was someone who mainly editted on a narrow range of topics, as a matter of fact. I did not mean to imply people were using other accounts (like WP:SOCK accounts) inappropriately. -BozMo talk 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand not all SPAs are not malicious. Through implication and your fallacious appeals, however, you made the term appear pejorative. Labeling (me and) them conspiracists and doubters in such a manner is not a good demonstration of assuming good faith. ~ UBeR 21:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise for using the term perjoratively. Also for implying all were doubters or conspiracy theorists that was gratitious. Perhaps a sign that you are getting to me with your failure to assume good faith. --BozMo talk 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want call my exposition of you failing to assume good faith not good faith, then so be it. But with supple evidence to the contrary, I will not feel necessarily inclined to believe you are. ~ UBeR 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Uber, i hope you see, this is what's happening. The crucial debate is here and now. I would suggest that you go in with whatever you have. If you have any small ounce of disagreement of what has happened, this is a good time to step and express it. thanks. --Sm8900 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From above: I would like to leave a comment on a few of the pages concerning the issue, as well as attacks on me, vandalism elsewhere, etc. However, I am unable to do so at the current moment, because I have been erroneously/mistakenly blocked. My regards, ~ UBeR 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. In that case, if you want, post it here on this page, and I will make sure it gets posted in the right place. --Sm8900 17:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Titoxd and my view can be seen here, near the end of that section. I agree this doesn't necessarily need mediation, but so long as trolls and such ignore discussion or use polls to stifle discussion, etc. I think there needs to be some sort of outside involvement. My main objections to the current situation, in addition or succeeding the point titoxd made, is the lack of adherence to Wikipedia policy. People are using false and faulty arguments that lack any real logic, often assrting points no one is arguing (straw men). My debate here isn't so much about the science as it is the lack of obedience to policy. Users there often commit to a double standard where they believe their views don't have to be scrutinized by policies, while precisely the opposite holds for anything true but in disagreeance with their belief system. A sad and petty reality of Wikipedia, indeed. ~ UBeR 18:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just want to note that Raymond Arrit's attitude in this has been very positive and helpful. Didn't mean to imply anything else. thanks.

Uber, I assume you are specifically requesting me to post that text? thanks. --Sm8900 18:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree Raymond Arritt is of the few people who is levelheaded enough to understand the strife in a logical and sincere manner. I trust fully he is working in good faith, but the same cannot be said about others. ~ UBeR 18:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Uber. I posted that text. However, now having done that, i ned to ask you something. Do you really wish only to ask for a new set of forked sub-articles and a new navigation template? Could we instead ask for a change in a general way this article has been handled, and for more inclusion for other points of view? As long as we are having a mediation, we might as well try to make all of our valid points. You can post your comments here, and I will relay them. thanks. --Sm8900 18:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not what I want. I was agree with titoxd about the summary style for the two articles. That is, I believe more than once sentence should be written about them, as the article is about the topic of global warming, and both are important subtopics within that topic. Does that make any sense? ~ UBeR 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. But what then do you mean for the main article? Do you mean a neutral summation of the entire issue, with links to both sides? Also, i feel we should start presenting the whole so-called "weasel words" and "straw poll" issues, as one of the main parts of this whole issue and debate, since that truly is what basically started all of this. Hope that is helpful. thanks. --Sm8900 18:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. ok, I have now posted a large amount of new text. i realized that much of this dispute hinged on the recent straw poll, and Uber's attempt to add new material and sources which some mis-lableled as "weasel words" So I added links and text to all of that. Hope that is helpful. I feel this is a much better and more complete summation of the entire underlying issue. thanks. --Sm8900 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This another prime example of an administrator retaliating. Everytime someone makes a formal complaint against WMC he retaliates against someone in what is perceived to be a group opposing his efforts to rid his pages of info he decrees unworthy. And every time the complaint against him is decided in his favor with strained rationalizations while the exact opposite standard is used in the retaliation. Forget dealing with this online. It is time to escalate this to the Wiki Board. When the oligarchy acts against the people, telling the people that it is for the people's own good, even though only the oligarchs benefit, it is time to go beyond the normal means of resolution. -- Tony 02:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

When is Jimbo coming on your show, Tony? ~ UBeR 02:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility

Don't make false accusations of "disruptive" behaviour. Try being civil, as is required of you by Wikipedia policy. Guettarda 04:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I call it as I see it. Additionally, just because you disagree with a conclusion a learned scientist has made doesn't necessarily suggest you should censor their ideas. Obviously, McLaughlin documented the increase extinctions rates of Euphydryas editha bayensis because of shifting precipitation patterns, but that isn't necessarily what the readers may be interested in most. They might, however, be curious if there have been many or few mechanistic studies on whether any extinctions have been documented because of recent climate change. McLaughlin explicitly states few have. You can disagree with him all you want, but that should remain elsewhere. ~ UBeR 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our effort

Hi uber. I saw your reply to me at the mediation page. Can i ask that we "please" work together henceforth, and at the very least, not actually counter or refute each other;'s messages, while we are trying to pursue this matter together? Please feel free to express any thoughts to me , at my talk page. Thanks. --Sm8900 21:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sm8900. Thanks for writing your opinion on my talk page. Note I am not out to attack you or your ideas. Your quarrel is with Count Iblis, as is mine. Just keep in mind he is not much more than a petty troll trying to sneak his personal opinions and POV into articles. Your problem was that he changed your "some" in to "few." I noted that the current version has "some," as you had originally wrote. So I don't really see what the problem is with that particular issue right now. ~ UBeR 23:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Uber. Ok, good point. my main point was to use that edit as an example as the kind of POV-pushing which has crept in. I did not mean that was the only edit I wanted; I was more trying to point out that if all these people who say they want me to get specific, really do want that, I would be more than happy to do so, only that would not address the main issue. So I felt noting that particualr small minscule edit war was a good way to illustate that this disagreement is not over any one particular edit. thanks, and thanks for your help. --Sm8900 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US officials can't talk about polar bears

US officials can't talk about polar bears

...Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.

The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, "the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears" understands the administration's position on these topics.

Two accompanying memos were offered as examples of these kinds of assurance. Both included the line that the traveler "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."

-- http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/polarbears_scientists_dc

Bleh!

I recommend that this be waved in front of every US science official's face at every meeting possible in public. As a US citizen, I don't think keeping it under wraps is going to help. I wish we had an article about this kind of science censorship. James S. 01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete that from Talk:Global Warming? James S. 08:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've eaten Polar Bear. It is over-rated... --BozMo talk 09:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted because Wikipedia talk pages aren't for discussion about the topic. This isn't a discussion forum. Talk pages are reserved for discussion improvements to the articles. P.S. Last I checked, polar bear population was rising. Thanks. ~ UBeR 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully intended to incorporate that news item into the article. I have further questions:

1. Why do you suggest that the instructions of the Fish and Wildlife Service to refrain from discussing polar bears would not have been an improvement to the global warming article?
2. Why did your edit summary contain no hint that you had removed the passage?
3. What reason is there for anyone to believe that your deletion was made in good faith, and not as a deliberate attempt to censor information that you find personally uncomfortable?
4. On what grounds do you claim that the polar bear population is increasing?

According to Polar bear#Conservation status, "The population of ... polar bears has been shrinking. On the west coast of Hudson Bay in Canada, for example, there were an estimated 1200 polar bears in 1987, and 950 in 2007." James S. 07:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Salsman. Thank you for inquiring on my talk page. To answer your first question: Mu. Please do not make fallacious arguments on my talk page. I took no position on the issue, so no more straw men, please. If they want to talk about climate science, let them. If they want to talk about polar bears, let them. On your second point, I apologize for not mentioning it in the edit summary. Three, again, please no fallacious arguments. I'll reiterate for you: talk pages are not meant for discussions of the topic. Comments such as "I recommend that this be waved in front of every US science official's face at every meeting possible in public" show you are there to make nothing more than a mockery. (P.S. If you're looking for an article about science censorship, just go look at scientific data withholding. Be quick though--those in favor in censorship are looking to delete it!) Fourth, looking at one area, say, for example, the Hudson Bay area, is not conclusive for a species as a whole. If you want to talk about population of a species, think of the species as a whole, not just one area of population. As to whether the decline in Hudson Bay is related to climate change, I do not know. I have not yet read the paper. As to whether other areas are reporting increases in polar bear population, there have been such occurrences. From most of what I could tell, it is currently inconclusive. My regards, ~ UBeR 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oops...

I guess I misread the heading. Fingers were faster than the brain there. E kala mai. --Ali'i 17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem at all! ~ UBeR 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Calling a good faith edit "vandalism" is unacceptable. DO NOT do so. Guettarda 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT shout on my talk page. P.S. it was far from good faith. My regards, ~ UBeR 03:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It certainly appears to have been in faith, and it does not meet the definition of vandalism. Stop your attacks. They are not acceptable. You are well aware that behaviour of that sort if unacceptable. Don't do it. Guettarda 12:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, I would suggest you review the history of those you believe should be given an assumption of good faith. Casual (but objective) viewing of the previous contributions will show you why the part of WP:AGF that applies with the user in question is, "[AGF] does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. (evidence is available, anytime it is presented the cadre of editors helping each other out delete the evidence and claim it is inappropriate to provide evidence ever...while attacking the provider of the evidence.) Actions inconsistent with good faith include constant vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. (Include those, but is not limited to just those. The premise is behavior harmful to WP qualifies.) Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. (Thus, calling a specific action out as prolematic is not automatically in conflict with WP:AGF and the editor, even if the edit is done by someone with a history of POV-pushing, edit-warring, circumventing the spirit of WP policies, engaging in retaliation, or many other behaviors harmful to WP, new users and the harmony of the WP community.) Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence. (Should not, but often do. It seems that 9 out of 10 times WP:AGF is invoked is more for the purpose of shielding someone and/or their edits from legitimate critiques or concerns.)" (bold parenthetical comments added).

In short, proper use of WP:AGF is an expectation of awareness placed on the accuser (in this case both yourself and UBeR) and is likely not being used in proper context if it is being used as any defense. -- Tony 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And Tony is once again correct. With the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary of working in good faith, it can no longer be assumed. Oh, and just as your point about WP:RS, so is WP:AGF. Have a nice day, ~ UBeR 17:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connelly is trying to delete a page

UBeR, please take a look at Scientific data withholding article. Connelly has nominated it for deletion, calling it a POV fork. However, that is simply untrue. Other editors suggested the info on data withholding would be better served in its own article. I agreed to that. Perhaps that was their scheme. Once I moved the material they wanted to delete to the new article, they called it a POV fork and have invited in a people to vote to delete. Please take a look. RonCram 04:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And this effort to protect his WP:OWN of all articles related tangentially to the church of global warming surprises you? -- Tony 15:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

This [4] isn't WP:CIVIL. So I've blocked you. William M. Connolley 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What isn't civil about it? I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't censored. If you cannot appreciate the English language, shall I speak to you in Spanish? ~ UBeR 21:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

*Soy serio. ~ UBeR 22:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hockey stick controversy

The Hockey stick controversy article needs a citecheck badly: five out of the six pro-Mann cites I checked simply did not support claims made. One cite did have a second cite that did support it, so I simply deleted the link (to an irrelevant Jonathan Chait op-ed bashing Republicans that did not mention the hockey stick controversy). The other four have had tags added. That is not an endorsement of the rest of the article; at this point, I simply don't trust the article, because someone appears to be subtly POV-pushing by using original research and seemingly credible cites that don't actually support the claims made, but I don't have the time to do that systematic a digging (often, a several-thousand word article is cited for an issue), and experience has taught me that this topic is too hot-potato for my tastes, since Wikipedia is just a hobby for me. I'll notify WMC and Uber, and let them hash it out. -- THF 11:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your notification, THF. However, I will be out of town this weekend, so I will not be online so much. ~ UBeR 16:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)