User talk:UBeR/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

What do you want sourced?

In the Half Life 2 article you placed the {{unsourced}} tag. I see maybe three more spots that need a footnote directly. What exactly do you want referenced?

Those three. :) My main problem is that, even though these claims may indeed be true, Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Also see their policy on original research. ~ UBeR 03:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, don't use "Rvv" so gratuitously- not everything is vandalism. --Wafulz 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. ~ UBeR 03:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears, however, you've done your work and the article has benefited from it. FA articles face scrutiny only to improve them. ~ UBeR 03:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Regarding this edit, "rvv" stands for "revert vandalism" and is highly offensive if what you are removing is not actually vandalism. Before you start talking about Wikipedia policies, do you realize who User:Raul654 (who you accused of being a vandal) is? He is responsible for directing the featured article process on Wikipedia, and is also an administrator, a bureaucrat, and an arbitrator. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-11 09:11

Please see my statement two posts up. Thank you. Keep in mind, however, if a user reverts my edits that pertain to Wikipedia policy, and said user does not assume good faith, I will call them out on vandalism, administrator or not. They are not gods. ~ UBeR 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Minimum wage external link confusion

Hi, UBeR.

I'm not trying to make your life difficult! I'm probably terribly confused. I've been trying to enter a link to a famous, internationally-used article on Minimum Wages to the External Links section on Wikipedia. I think I've misunderstood what the External Links might be about. I apologize for my misunderstandings.

I don't understand how an article in a respected encyclopedia by a well-known professor, published and in use in the U.S. in classrooms and internationally in libraries for over 10 years, and in the top 10 of Google's rankings, is rejected by Wikipedia in its External Links section.

I apologize for re-entering the link when it confusingly kept disappearing. I see now that you are begging me to look at some kind of discussion on the matter. I will stop re-entering it! I simply didn't understand why it kept disappearing. If it is unwanted on Wikipedia, so be it.

The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics has the finest articles in the world, including dozens of articles by Nobel Prize winners. If you look up "economics encyclopedia" on Google, we do better than Wikipedia. It seems a small thing to ask to not have links to the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics deleted by Wikipedia, eh? It looks kind of self-serving.

http://www.econlib.org/library/ENC/MinimumWages.html On Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=economics+encyclopedia&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=minimum+wages&btnG=Google+Search

laurenjf

Thank you dearly for bring up and discussing the issue with me on my talk page. Recently there was some controversy on the Wikipedia article for having linked to a blog by Harvard professor, presidential economic advisor, and textbook author Gregory Mankiw. As it stands, the minimum wage is a controversial topic for debate. It was felt that a controversial opinion of simply one person, no matter how highly regarded, was not suited in the encyclopedic article--nevermind the fact is was nothing more than a simple blog. If we were to continue that trend, there would be literally thousands of external links to blogs or other unofficial Web sites of pundits stating their opinion. We feel that is detrimental to Wikipedia. At any rate, the External Links is reserved for special purposes. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, resources, or links. It would be highly beneficial to go over Wikipedia's policy on external links at WP:EL. Here is a short copy of some of what it says:
What should be linked
  • 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
  • 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
  • 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
  • 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
Links to be considered
  • 1. For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews.
  • 2. A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories.
  • 3. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.
Thus, what must be considered first is whether the information from said article can be placed into the Wikipedia article, rather than simply linking to it in the external links section. But to address the specific issue of the specific article at hand, please keep in mind one of Wikipedia's founding principles is to keep a Neutral Point of View. Nonetheless, unless the opinions stated by Linda Gorman are the official opinions of The Library of Economics and Liberty, then we feel her opinion lacks space in the article's external link section (though perhaps beneficial to the mainspace of the article).
Again, thank you for contacting me. Hopefully this has cleared any confusion; if, however, you have questions or wish to continue discussing this with me, feel free to add your perspective here. ~ UBeR 20:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh! Thank you, UBeR. I apologize first for just not knowing how to respond in an appropriate medium or even read your response or respond to it! I hope I'm doing that okay here. I just can barely make out how to use Wikipedia's syntax to make entries to things like External Links. Thank you for responding in a way I could read!
You've done a very credible job of explaining the problems.
Though I don't think your actual objection has anything to do with this, the article by Dr. Gorman is a neutral point of view. It is a republication of an article published in 1993 in print in the _Encyclopedia of Economics_ (1993, David R. Henderson, ed. Time, Inc., NY). It is not any kind of official view of the Library of Economics and Liberty (Econlib). The _Concise Encyclopedia of Economics_ is a republication that happens to be one of hundreds of economics books available online. Econlib is an online publisher of hundreds of books, since the late 1990s. Dr. Gorman's article just happens to be relevant to the Wikipedia article on Minimum Wages.
It's like your asking Project Gutenberg to say that, because they publish a work by Karl Marx, they should affirm that a link to one of their online publications of some of Marx's work represents their view before it can be put forth as a new link in the External Link section on Wikipedia.
All the same, I appreciate your response.
What I think your actual objection is about is this: that the content of the Wikipedia article on minimum wages is far afield for Wikipedia editors, and that you can't really parse it all, so you are putting a stop to further additions.
That kind of frankness I can understand!
From Laurenjf
That's not exactly my objection, from the way I see it at least. Seeing as how Linda Gorman takes sides, stating, "the law is simply one more example of good intentions producing hellish results," I feel it lacks a great deal of neutrality towards the minimum wage. While her views are perfectly substantiated and informative, they lack any kind of official statements. The external links section should be reserved for official Web sites that pertain to the minimum wage (e.g. the BLS Web site). The external links should also be reserved for information or data that isn't readily or easily able to be put in the main sections of the article. No doubt, her information at that link you have posted could be useful if added to the main article and using that link as a source (rather than simply inserting the link to the external link section without context). ~ UBeR 23:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, UBeR. That was much clearer. I'm certainly not going to quibble about details. The Wikipedia Minimum Wages article is obviously the object of controversy. The last thing I ever intended to do was add to that, or to your editorial burdens in addressing any controversy! I appreciate your taking the time to respond to a Wikipedia novice, and I apologize again for any inconvenience I may have caused.--laurenjf

Do not be so hard on yourself! Wikipedia asks you to be BOLD! Wikipedia asks you to IGNORE ALL RULES, if it means that you can make Wikipedia a better place. ~ UBeR 20:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

Given Raul654 removed the word "popo" six times from the Global Warming article I don't think that describing his own actions as rm idiocy was unreasonable. He wasn't referring to your edits. --BozMo talk 19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the edit with the description of "removing idiocy," it is reverting my edits of adding the unreferenced section, as per Wikipedia's policies. ~ UBeR 19:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding {{fact}} tags to information that is both (a) readily obvious, and (b) already linked from the previous sentence is a misuse of the fact tag. Do not do it again. Raul654 20:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you obviously did not do as I suggested. But I'll reiterate: please review Wikipedia's fundamental policies on verifiability and original research. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not truth, but rather verifiability (as discussed earlier in Global Warming's discussion page on the fallacies of Wikipedia). It's long been held, by Wikipedia, that other Wikipedia articles are not to be used as a source for information in other articles. That is not how it works on Wikipedia, Raul654. It still stands, the section is unreferenced. I was not wrong in my edits.
Second, the problem was not so much about the protocols intent, as we all know its intentions. What's less obvious is the fruits of the protocol, the extent to which its intents are being carried out by the signatories, and its enforcements. My regards. ~ UBeR 22:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm well acquainted in our verifiability and NOR policies, seeing as how I helped write them and have spent 3 years as an arbitrator interpreting them.
Citations are generallly not required for common knowledge. But you know this, because you have already been told that on this very page.
So, as to your specific edits on the global warming article, you added fact tags to two statements:
  • "Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases"
  • "or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases."
Both of these are plainly common knowledge, and covered *at length* in the linked article. And, policy specifically says that no references are needed for these facts: "There is no need to repeat all specific references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article: the "Summary style" article summarizes the content of each of the subtopics, without need to give detailed references for each of them in the main article" -- Wikipedia:Summary style.
In the future, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipeida policy before attempting to quote it at people who know it better than you do. I will be restoring the section to the version that was there before you disrupted it.Raul654 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It's my understanding that, per WP:SUMMARY#Citations_and_external_links, references are not needed in a summary paragraph that links to a subarticle, if the facts are covered by the subarticle. The references and more detail should be available in the subarticle. --Aude (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Raul654, you are not understanding what I'm saying, or perhaps just not reading it, if you are so capable. First and foremost, the section is not a summary of any sub article; check for yourself. Second, the intent is obvious. The intent is to have the signatories commit to the protocol. I have not seen the fruits of the protocol. Have you? Most certainly not. It's not so plain as day, ergo it is not "common knowledge." So please, familiarize yourself with topics far beyond the scope of your education, lest you misinterpret the people who know it better than you. ~ UBeR 22:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Uber, I have great respect for both you and Raul. But it does no good to have an edit war over minor points like this. Try backing off from the article, and discuss the matter on the talk page. --Uncle Ed 20:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Glacial history of Minnesota

Do you think it would make sense to combine your efforts in this article with Geology of Minnesota, which is also under development (albeit more slowly)? Incidentally, an excellent source for matters glacial and geological is Ojakangas, Richard W. and Matsch, Charles L, Minnesota's Geology (University of Minnesota Press, 1982) ISBN 0-8166-0953-5. I'll watch your page if you want to keep the thread together. Kablammo 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking notice in Glacial history of Minnesota. I've just finished all of my major edits. ~ UBeR 00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your mangling of talk:Global_warming_controversy

Please do not change other peoples contributions to talk pages, as you did here. Apart from the snide "trollish" comments that might violate WP:NPA, its not acceptable to take other editors's comments out of context in this way. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz 20:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No comments were edited, but rather were simply moved to the appropriate section within the discussion page. ~ UBeR 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Appropriateness is in the eye of the beholder. You took them out of the original context. That is generally considered bad form. --Stephan Schulz 22:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing was taken out of context. Every single comment was left in the exact same location in relation to the other comments. Discussion of inadequacies of climate models ought to be in the section of "Inadequacies of Climate Models," not "Datasets and Methods Are Not Available for Audit," as the author of that section promptly explained. My regards, ~ UBeR 22:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we misunderstand each other. As an example, RonCram's "Somehow this discussion has gotten off topic. The discussion of computer models is in the section above..." used to follow Childhoodsend's comment on models, where it made sense. Now it does not. The development of the discussion is much harder to figure out now. I'm not necessarily claiming that your version is not better organized (although I do object to the uncalled-for "trolls"), but it's not authentic. --Stephan Schulz 22:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: I appreciate that you took out the trolls now.--Stephan Schulz 22:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right. Feel free to revert it or organize in to a better way. Keep in mind, however, its impolite to the author of a section to engage in discussion wholly irrelevant to what the author was speaking about (and should probably be kept in a more appropriate or new section). ~ UBeR 22:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Help me!

Could you help me at all to make a cool looking user page such as yours? I'm not very good at this... ~ UBeR 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice comments. I would love to help you with your userpage, though it would be easier if you asked something a bit more spesific.
For me my userpage is more or less a sandbox where I try different designs and styles. If I like the designs, I use them on articles/templates/etc.
Cat chi? 13:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I tried fooling around with the code on your userpage. I was able to get the "My watchlist" in a small table (like the user box list) that was just one column, but it was messy. Having that though, with small text, and on the left side of my user page would be awesome, especially then I could write inbetween that and the userbox (so the main text is in the middle). And maybe some table or something for my awards... Not sure. Do you think you could help me out with that? I just noticed your user page and thought it was very well done. ~ UBeR 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry for the somewhat late response. I'd be glad to help, but if I do all the work, I wouldn't be really helping you. :) You may want to create a few sub pages.
Could you draw me what you want on paint so I know what exactly is you want. (userpage is often a matter of taste)
Cat chi? 17:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand. I tried messing around trying to get a little better. Didn't make much progress lol. I am not very fluent in this coding language ^^. But anyway, here's an example of what I'm trying to do. Not sure if you'd be able to do so, but any help would be much appreciated! ~ UBeR 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
How is it now? Note that I created two sub pages for you: User:UBeR/Userboxes, User:UBeR/Watchlist Cat chi? 21:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That's precisely it! Thank you very much! ~ UBeR 21:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Block warning

Your continued trolling on WMC's talk page will not be tolerated. If you continue to harass him, you can expect to be blocked. Raul654 19:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Raul, I am not sure if you aware of this, but Wikipedians, administrators or not, are human. Humans are fallible. To think that because Mr. Connolley is an administrator and therefore not fallible is illogical. The warnings serve no other purpose other than to do exactly that: warn him politely. ~ UBeR 19:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Please consider WP:POINT. The fact that you chide WMC on WP:AGF, and yet give other editors whose behavior has been much worse a free pass, is a bit odd. You have made good contributions here. Please don't blow it by making things personal. Raymond Arritt 20:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your discussion on my talk page, Raymond Arritt. I hold your opinion with high regard. Let it be known that I do not support abuse of Wikipedia policies by any user. In particular, however, I do support the systematic disregard of these policies by appointed administrators. I am a firm believer in equality amongst every user on Wikipedia; administrators, in particular, are not above the policies; Wikipedia does not endorse elitism, nor should it ever. While I recognize the common user typically comes in discord with some of the policies, it is especially baneful to Wikipedia when these users are administrators. It is of utmost importance to me that I acknowledge those administrators so that we may come to some sort of concord with those who respect the policies at hand. ~ UBeR 21:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think that William is close to violating the 3RR on an article and you have reason to suspect that he is likely to go over, the correct thing to do is to drop him a note - "You're getting close on [Article x]. You only should use {{3RR}} when (a) you have reason to suspect that the editor is unaware of the 3RR, and (b) you can't be bothered to take a minute to put it in your own words, which is impolite, but not horrible. Using boilerplate meant to warn newbies on an established editor is an insult...and if you actually wanted to insult William, I'm sure you could find a way to do so with far more finesse. Cheers. Guettarda 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your explanation, Guettarda. In a mere paragraph you've helped more to explain the problem than was accomplished through the impolite remarks from what is supposed to be an arbitrator. My regards, ~ UBeR 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Since the point has been made, there's no reason to re-state it. Once the sentiment has been communicated, there's no need for it to stand on the page. Talk pages are not a "public record" where points need to be made, they are vehicles for communication. What you are doing reflects badly on you.
While some people will stick up for their friends no matter what, admins (we have over 1000 of them) are as fractious a group as any. If William or Mark were actually behaving as badly as you perceive them to be, there would be a chorus of complaints. If you have a complaint, raise it at WP:AN/I or file an RFC (although that takes at least one other person who has had the same problem with the editor). If no one takes your complaint seriously, then you really need to ask yourself whether it was a valid complaint, or whether you are misreading the situation. These are two very high-profile people - if there is valid criticism of them, lots of people would jump on board. You may not trust me, or Stephan, or Raymond to be unbiased in our reaction to your criticisms of William, but there are a lot of people who either have no horse in that race, or have reason to be hostile to one or both of them. Don't seek out conflict - if you have a case, lay it out publicly, see what people have to say...and try not to take what's said through the lens of your opinion about the community. But doing what you are doing will only exhaust people's patience with you, and if most people see you as disruptive it's really hard to change that opinion. Guettarda 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Guettarda, I'm disappointed that you feel that way. But I can assure you, my strifes with Mr. Connolley are not unfounded and I am not alone in my dissent and discord with this user.
There is more than just "a chorus of complaints". There are numerous choirs for years...and each time the actions are hidden by high-volume minor edits, ganging up on the choir members to chase them away or blocking them to the point of frustration. -- Tony of Race to the Right 02:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed that by removing it. User:William M. Connolley

Here is a clear example of how William M. Connolley works, I have bolded below to highlight obvious censorship and biased POV This is from the Talk:Global warming page in the section titled: == Svante Arrhenius ==

Unfortunately, Svante Arrhenius has some problems (i.e. the standard sceptics claim that water vapour is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect). Will somebody with more knowledge about sources than I write a sufficiently nuanced sentence there? --Stephan Schulz 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed that by removing it. It wasn't relevant there anyway William M. Connolley 09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We have to start the process of having Wikipedia review his actions and remove his Administrator status. -- Rameses 21:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. See User:UBeR/WMC ~ UBeR 21:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Internet capitlization

I saw in one of your edit summaries that you believe that "Internet" is always spelled with a capital "I". That's not quite right. There's even been debate here and in various other places in Wikipedia about this issue. I'm pretty sure that some manuals of style also mandate a lower-case "i" - mine are all at home so I can't check right now. I agree with you, though - it's a proper noun and should be capitalized. Just wanted to share this interesting historic note! --ElKevbo 22:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me on my talk page about this issue, ElKevbo. I am well aware of the detractors of proper nouns, including those at the BBC and Wired. And I dissent. In fact, I, myself, have engaged in some of the earlier debates here at Wikipedia on whether to capitalize Internet and World Wide Web, both clearly proper nouns. I soon found such discussions as futile, as there were always the few who cried "nationalism" and "bias," because it is more of a tendency for British English to not capitalize these words, as it is for American English. The simple fact is, however, that these both are proper nouns, and to not capitalize them is to go against very long-standing syntax of the English language. And I do believe the writer of that BBC commentary said it nicely: "Forgive me for saying, but those who choose "internet" over "Internet" are as wrong as those who would visit london, meet the queen or go for a boat trip down the river thames."
So whilst it is becoming ever so futile to have the articles of Web page actually change "webpage" to "Web page," or Website to change "website" to "Web site," as both are clearly shortened versions of "World Wide Web page/site," I still feel it important that articles that do not directly relate to this subject at least use the proper and correct usage, as this is still an encyclopedia, albeit online. ~ UBeR 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
W/website doesn't bother me. Not capitalizing Web does. And they'll pry the capital "I" in Internet from my cold, dead hands. I understand the desire of journalists to make their job a bit easier but they shouldn't sacrifice clarity and accuracy in their quest for ease. --ElKevbo 22:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is a big difference between a web and the Web, as there is between an internet and the Internet. The BBC article you linked to tries to point this out as well. Wikipedia has tried settle some of the disputes, writing,
In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If it has been stable in a given style, do not change it without some style-independent reason. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk.
See the #National varieties of English section below for an example of such an issue.
But there are still problems for articles such as Website, which are neutral in terms of national relationship (though America dominates in number of Web sites). So in articles that are clearly do not relate to a specific region, or at least do not contain any sort of consistency, I still try to do my part by using correct spelling and capitalization of the terms.
Edit: Here, a renowned grammarian and the copy chief of The Washington Post, Bill Walsh makes a compelling argument for the proper usage of "e-mail" and "Web site." ~ UBeR 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Now they are trying to delete Solar system warming too!

Now Raymond Arritt and William M Connolley are trying to eradicate the Solar system warming article. I am sick and tired of this continuing censorship. If you agree with me, go and vote to save this article. Thanks, ~ Rameses 04:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I voted, because the version I read seemed to have sources. My general opinion, and that of the quote on my main user page, is that Wikipedia is here to tell what it is being said. If it is important enough, it will merit its own article or, at the very least, its own section. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. ~ UBeR 05:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome - thanks for voting. ~ Rameses 05:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone should have caught it before it passed the speedy deletion deadline

Here is evidence of more people who are willing to delete articles to stop people reading and deciding for themselves - from User talk:Michaelbusch:=I think you'll enjoy this one=

Solar system warming Someguy1221 04:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty bad. Someone should have caught it before it passed the speedy deletion deadline. Michaelbusch 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to get NPOV on Wikipedia against these tactics? ~ Rameses 05:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of an encylopedia

On the AFD page for Solar system warming, you wrote...

"It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelize your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it."

I have been trying to convince another editor of just this point on the talk page of another article. I'm sure I could find the source for the above quote if I looked hard enough but I figured I'd ask you and see if you could save me the trouble. --Richard 05:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky to answer, as it was not really specifically stated as such by any one person. The quote (currently at the top of my user page) is a bit misleading, as it isn't really a quote. I originally got it from Mike, who wrote on the talk page of Global Warming about a particular theory, "I would agree: 'It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge.' Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelise global warming, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said - even if you don't like it." So the first half is him quoting someone, of whom I do not know. The second half is what he said. And obviously, I have changed it to become more general to apply for all of Wikipedia, as it does indeed. Plagiaristic, perhaps. Sorry if this doesn't really help you, as it doesn't really help me either. I'm too confused to know who to use as the source, and would feel too guilty to use myself, as very little is of my own writing; eventually I just settled with putting quotation marks around the saying, despite the lack of a source. So in reality, it doesn't quite belong to anyone, yet it still applies to all of Wikipedia wonderfully, and many of Wikipedia's policies concur this.
P.S. may I ask what article in particular you were referring to? ~ UBeR 06:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

Regarding the external link you removed from Global Warming, would it be appropriate for the website to be re-added under "Others"? Jamesino 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for contacting me on my talk page. To answer your question, probably not. My main objection is that the Web site is unprofessional, in spite of the hard work I'm sure was put in to it. If in doubt, always refer to WP:LINKS. ~ UBeR 03:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Complaint pages

Creating pages of complaints against certain users is strongly frowned upon. If you wish to use such evidence in an RFC or RFAR then please do so. Pages that exist solely to document alleged abuses, with no further purpose intended, are often nominated for deletion. Dragons flight 18:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, Dragons flight. I will be keeping the watch board so that people who wish to view it may do so at my user page. It will serve as a notice board that will be updated when necessary. The evidence gathering process is ongoing and, along with other users, I have begun this process. My regards, ~ UBeR 18:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WMC

Hello, I was researching the page that I created, Solar system warming, and found some interesting things. For one thing, your page on William M. Connolley. I have read up on him (twice, since I have run into him multiple times), and have found that something you said isn't true.

You claimed he used a sock to vote twice; however, how do you explain the comments at the bottom of this page, where both him and the supposed sock comment (one after the other), and William did not even bother to check what was writen above (which was exactly what he wanted to know.) Their are other problems that I see, but this is the main one. I'll leave this up for debate as to if he is doing right or wrong (however, I saw a good atempt at doing what could be done with my page.) Anyway, please add this to your list of things found about him, as this charge may be false, and it would be good to point that out to those that have already seen the page and those that will be reviewing him. SadanYagci 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing that out, SadanYagci. First, I'd like to mention to you that I did not make that claim. That claim was made by Brittainia, but was left unsigned.[1] The complaints section is primarily used for other users, besides myself, to add complaints against the culpable administrator. I currently am reviewing the claims that user made, and made a suspected sockpuppetry page in suspicious of WMC, based on that user's, and other's, comments. Though both users (Philosophus and WMC) made comments on that user page, both were separated by a fair amount of time, so it doesn't necessarily negate the possibility. With all hope of settling this issue, I will recommend a checkuser so as to retire any further suspicion of sockpuppetry of this user. My regards, ~ UBeR 20:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Administrator list

UBeR -- It's not okay to maintain a list of administrators or users, in the manner you had on your userpage. It amounts to a personal attack on them. Please stop and leave WMC and Raul alone. You have done good work on other articles, aside from global warming, so I would hate to see any sanctions against you. Regards. --Aude (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, Aude. My contribution at global warming have been those of consensus or purely cleaning up the article, riddled with style, grammar, spelling, etc. mistakes. So, please, do not confuse that with anything other than what it is. In relation to my subpages on WMC, I would not considered them personal attacks. They are notices to users who may want to be watchful of such disgraceful acts on Wikipedia. My objective is to purely report on the edits, not the user. The particular edits in question are worrisome and baneful. My attempt is to gather the evidence, only hindered by real life activities that consume my time, for each claim so that our peers may in fact see detailed histories of these administrators who have, time again, violated Wikipedia policies. Again, thank you for your concerns. ~ UBeR 23:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Concern

Hi UBer. I recognize your many good contributions to Wikipedia. And it is refreshing to have a contrarian on global warming and related articles who is both more than a single purpose editor and actively helping to improve the article in non-controversial ways. I very much think you are factually wrong, of course ;-). Your recent behaviour with respect to WMC (and, to a lesser degree, Raul) is unacceptable, however. User:UBeR/WMC is a clear violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The sockpuppet report is nonsensical harrasment. Please remove these pages before the community does. I have worked with William for a fairly long time on Wikipedia. He is probably the least likely person ever to create a sock account to edit controversial topics. --Stephan Schulz 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for contacting me, Stephan Schulz. It should be known that I do, in fact, support the consensus view, as purported by the IPCC, so lets hope you don't disagree with me on that ;-). My goal, however, is to bring balance among the terribly POV policers. I recognize your concern, and I am disappointed that you feel that way. As discussed at the administrator notice board, my suspicion was nothing more than a suspicion. There is no other way to resolve that suspicion, as far as I know, other than the suspicion notice board. For my views on the administrator watch list, please view my comments on the administrator notice board and (especially) my comments in the above discussions on my talk page. Thank you. ~ UBeR 23:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Uber, we have all seen how much WMC has been pushing around everyone who disagrees with him through revert warring, deletions, AfD's which have eliminated a number of pages etc. I am disturbed that Raul654 has now started a groundless complaint against you. I am working on a submission in your support and hope that the Administrator's concerned do not rush to judgement but rather take a hard look at WMC's activities. You should also point out his previous history of being charged with wrongdoing and barred from reverting more than once per day on Global warming related articles. While this has expired, I believe simply going back to his old way's shows that WMC has learned nothing from this punishment and that a more lasting prohibition is warranted. Rest assured, you have my support as I have seen the true nature of WMC's activities over the past month. As long as Wikipedia is managed by well meaning and fair minded people, they will see through the methods of WMC and Raul654. -- Brittainia 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to use a third party talk page, but "While this has expired..." is not correct. ArbCom has explicitely revoked the 1RR parole as unnecessary.--Stephan Schulz 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
As is typically done when people refer others to policies, there is a lack of specificity and a decent amount of misapplication of said policies is the result.
Data collection, while I have not seen the referred to (and since deleted) page, is not necessarily a violation of WP:NPA. NPA states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." In many case of collection efforts the content or issue is the actions of contributors, though not the contributor personally. If there are attacks (e.g. "that Nazi", etc) those would be unwarranted entirely. Copy/Pasting edit history, actual comments, etc are not attacks of the source.
Such data collection is also not a violation of WP:AGF for two very distinct reasons. (1) AGF states, "Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions." The data collection is collecting actions/words. The collection of those actions does not say anything about the Good Faith or lack of Good Faith. (2) AGF states, "Assuming good faith does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized". Some actions very much deserve criticism and the collection efforts are about those actions which either by themselves warrant criticism and/or sanction or which establish a pattern warranting sanction. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
All the edits of said user are still there, waiting patiently. ~ UBeR 04:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Final Proof of conspiracy by William M Connolley, Raul654, Raymond Arritt & Stephan Shulz

UBeR, you will be glad to learn I have finally uncovered the proof of the conspiracy group (which was so obvious) who have been controlling the global warming pages (as they are still doing). The following is from my recent post, please go to the Admin noticeboard and post your views on this now exposed conspiracy by a group of Administrators. It is at: [2] -- Brittainia 05:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, this post [3] that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". The next step should be to stop this intentional diversionary complaint against UBeR and investigate your activities instead. Your entire group [4], [5], orchestrating these illicit activities should be thoroughly investigated by all those who have wasted a lot of their valuable time on your "getting this monkey off WMC's back". It is now clear that you yourself are guilty of most of the accusations which you have levelled at UBeR above, I believe that you and your co-conspirators should be permanently banned from editing global warming articles in order to stop the kind of bias, frustration and witch hunts which you are causing by your devious tactics. Everyone should know that this group are currently being investigated and exposed by a radio show for their hijacking of global warming articles as this group already knows [6] - thus they are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. -- Brittainia 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming skeptic userbox

Thought you might be interested in having a userbox on your user page that expresses your skepticism of anthropogenic global warming. It looks like this and will also add you to Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. If you're interested, put the following on your user page:

{{User:Oren0/GWSkeptic}}

Feel free to tell your friends. Thanks! Oren0 21:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of this userbox, Oren0. However, I think I will hold off using that userbox for now :-). It look well done though! My regards, ~ UBeR 22:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

British Empire

Discussion moved to Talk:British Empire by general consensus. --Stephan Schulz 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems that your so-called "consensus" is invalid and bogus. Took about 30 minutes, which such little research eh? Nice link posted about the book right??? It's close to 14 years Old, MY VERSION is a FEW years old.

So Yeah..Go back to the Talk page...

Cosmos416 07:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the unanimous consensus was to move the discussion to Talk:British Empire. Please abide by this consensus. Feel free to dicussus the issue there. As far as I can tell, User:UBeR is very much a bystander in this, don't clutter up his talk page. And if you have a more specific reference, tell us the edition (and, as requested by UBeR, give us the exact passage you are referring to). --Stephan Schulz 09:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It Takes a Thief (2005 TV series)

I appreciate your cncern on this article, but if you're going to tag it as original research, I'd appreciate it if you'd do as the template asks and share your concerns on the talk page. Most all of the information can be sourced with one of the links provided in the article. Tell us your problem and we'll try and fix it, don't just tag and run. Thanks! --UsaSatsui 05:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for contacting me on my talk page, UsaSatsui. If you are genuinely "not seeing the issue," I invite you to read Wikipedia's policies on original research and verifiability. (Note that both of these have been been superseded by a merger of two policies along with WP:RS into one policy dubbed WP:Attribution.)
Citing sources is one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. It is important because it reflects Wikipedia's reliability as a tertiary source for information and as an encyclopedia. I hope you understand its importance! My regards, ~ UBeR 22:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
...No, I understand the policy, I'm just not seeing where the article violates it. Can you show me?--UsaSatsui 04:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The article violates the WP:A policy because it does not cite a single source. The article appears to be made up entirely of original research, hence the template. ~ UBeR 04:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case, it's "unsourced material", not "original research". In any event, the sources haven't been integrated into the article yet, they're in the "external links" section as of right now (and yes, there could be more). Much of the article (the description of the show's format, for example) is also from direct observation of the show (a valid source according to WP:RS, so long as it's descriptive and can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge), no conclusions are drawn from the information.
If you have any specific concerns or want to see a source on any specific statements, feel free to point them out (on the article's talk page), and we'll do our best to address them. --UsaSatsui 14:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
In particular, the "About the hosts" section constitutes original research (that is, without any sources given). You and I both know the "External links" section is not the appropriate place to cite sources. ~ UBeR 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
And yet, many times, that's the case. It's just a stopgap to get the sources -in- there somewhere. Anyway, I've sourced what you asked for. --UsaSatsui 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably copyvio

Well, firstly the copies of the documentary at Google video have no source information and make no claim about the copyright status of the of the film which is clearly marked as copyright of Wag productions on the end credits - the video itself appears to have been ripped from the original Channel 4 broadcast. And secondly, the reason I was going to report further insertions to AN/I was due to the fact it is being discussed on the talk page and so far appear and re-additions would be against the spirit of the 3RR. QmunkE 09:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

Your editing comment was "irrelevant to this article". I am therefore confused as to why you simply moved the material to another place in the article.

I also asked on the Talk page whether this page should exist at all, what do you think? --KarlFrei 10:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to rearrange the order of the paragraphs. I was removing the Bush stuff. ~ UBeR 17:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Make up your mind will you! Now you put the material back again! --KarlFrei 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I put back the information that was deleted, causing the article to be unbalanced. ~ UBeR 23:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
First you said you wanted to "remove the Bush stuff". However, this is exactly what I had done in my first edit: I kept only the line saying the number of pardons was comparable to other presidents (and moved this to the top of the article where it seemed to make more sense), and removed the detailed comments about other presidents, which did not seem so relevant by themselves. Now you are saying they are relevant after all? --KarlFrei 08:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, sorry. Let me try to explain myself. I'd like to keep the information that claims Clinton's pardons were comparable. I did not want to keep the "See also" links to Bush's article. Your first edit, I thought, was simply moving one paragraph up and including the Bush links. I did not notice you deleted the second half of that paragraph though. ~ UBeR 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Notification for SUSPSOCK

In the future, could you please notify the users you suspect of being illegitimate sockpuppets when you make these sorts of claims? I generally check my watchlist every day, but this whole process went through without me having a chance to join in the fun since no one bothered to notify me. --Philosophus T 10:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned I had only needed to notify the master, but that was promptly removed regardless. ~ UBeR 17:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Peppers

What was Wales' comment on the Peppers article? I know he ordered it deleted for one year, but it's unclear what happened after that. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to find his comment, though I'm hard pressed at the moment. The gist of it was that articles should not be created in the vanity of malformations or morbid curiosity. I wish I had his comment... ~ UBeR 03:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Global warming debate

Hello. IntelligenceSquared held an interesting debate on Global Warming. Based on the votes of the audience, those who said it was not a crisis won the debate. I thought you might be interesting in reading about it. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about the debate, if you have time to listen to it. [7]19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a specific link I can follow to read/hear the debate? I couldn't find one. ~ UBeR 20:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought there was but cannot find one either. Evidently they are selling DVDs, but the DVD for this debate is not yet available. Too bad because it makes it harder to cite the debate. RonCram 20:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you define a crisis? I guess I'd vote against a crisis based on how I understand the word...--BozMo talk 21:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Richard Somerville said in the debate, "The word does not mean catastrophe or alarmism. It means a crucial or decisive moment, a turning point, a state of affairs in which a decisive change for better or worse is imminent." ~ 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
If you haven't found it yet, there is a link to a transcript on the event page, that lead to this PDF.--Stephan Schulz 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Bldintx

Go to User:Bldintx - looks familiar? --Pizzahut2 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Very awkward. How did you find this? ~ UBeR 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I was checking which pages link to Fortress Forever.[8] --Pizzahut2 11:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Solar Cycle Lengths

Hi UBeR,

I'm new here. I note you removed my reference to Solar Cycle Lengths. That's OK if it's inappropriate, but I've made some related edits here: Talk:The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Solar_activity_.2F_Solar_Cycle_Length which explain.

Do people generally prefer/use emails or comments (to Talk pages?)?

Regards, OldDigger 23:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for contacting me on my talk page. (I prefer it over e-mail, thanks for asking.) I removed it because it linked to a nonexistent article. ~ UBeR 04:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Lower case

Just saw you already reverted - it was just an suggestion anyways. --Pizzahut2 16:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup thanks a lot for pointing it out. Even though I've been using uBeR for a very long time in TFC & FF, I think I've decided I would stick with UBeR for Wikipedia. Not sure why, but I think I'll stay with it. Thanks for the hint though. ~ UBeR 16:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle

UBeR, I do not know if you got a chance to watch the entire documentary. You are can find it on YouTube here: The Great Global Warming Swindle [9] Best wishes.RonCram 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it. Thanks. ~ UBeR 16:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There's been quite a bit of ado at The Great Global Warming Swindle article, but it's beginning to die down. ~ UBeR 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sunday Telegraph/ Daily Telegraph

The Durkin article about "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was actually published in the print copy of the Sunday Telegraph (I know, because I have a copy). Given that we're linking to the website article, I'm not sure it matters very much, but I just thought I'd let you know.

Thanks for your work in general on TGGWS, by the way, I've agreed with a large majority of the edits you've made. --Merlinme 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The only reason I changed it was because the Sunday Telegraph redirects to The Daily Telegraph page on Wikipedia. I'm not from the UK. :-) Keep up the good work. ~ UBeR 19:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Great Global Warming Swindle

Can you restore the syn tags that Connolley deleted? -- TedFrank 16:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will try to. He obviously doesn't understand how Wikipedia disputes work. ~ UBeR 16:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Doing tag-teaming on tags, eh? Skyemoor 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Following policy. It's painful to watch administrators remove valid tags because "they don't like them." That's nonsense and can not and will not be tolerated. ~ UBeR 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not the issue here; these tags are unsupported, and all we've asked for is rationale, instead of just saying "they're Syn, go look at examples". You are chastising others for behavior that you yourself need to reflect on. Skyemoor 18:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should revisit the talk page and read over the discussion. WP:SYN makes it crystal clear the tags are valid. Do not arbitrarily remove them without discussion. That is to go against the nature of how Wikipedia works. ~ UBeR 18:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:SYN only describes the policy; it is up to the tagger to support their tags. If they are unsupported, and the tagger is simply using them to bludgeon his POV position, then they will be removed every time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyemoor (talk • contribs)
Holy crap, how many times have I gone over this? ~ UBeR 01:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Too many times assuming you were right. Skyemoor 02:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

Please have a look at Talk:Global warming#Protect (and move). Thanks. Raymond Arritt 19:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ UBeR 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: archival

I realize that my premature archival is out-of-process. However, I think there is little benefit to continuing the discussion, even though I'm sure there are people on both sides who wish to get the last word in. I do not mean to trivialize the importance of your comments, but rather, I think that the archived discussion is not the proper place for them. They would better be placed as part of a productive discussion, perhaps as part of the dispute resolution process. Do you think that's reasonable? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. ~ UBeR 05:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page of Scientific data archiving

UBeR, please take a look at this Talk page, especially the part on "pseudoscience" and William's reverts. The POV of certain editors is preventing them from objectively dealing with the facts. The concepts involved are not difficult but they do take a little investment of time to understand. You may need to spend some time in the Pseudoscience article to be fully comfortable. I hope you are able to find the time to help out. Thanks! RonCram 14:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me, RonCram. I will take a look at it. If you notice any POV edits or any other edits violating Wikipedia policy by William, I'd appreciate if you could link to them. I am currently looking into filing a request for comment on William's actions. ~ UBeR 23:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have had a chance to read the Talk page, you will see that I think William's deletion of the discussion of Mann/McIntyre as completely POV. Mann was guilty of withholding data and methods (especially his source code which nearly took an act of Congress before Mann turned it over). William cannot find one inaccuracy in what is written, yet he deletes the whole thing and says it is too unbalanced to be saved. It is just hogwash. By the way, the best version of the article IMHO can be found here. [10] RonCram 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at the best version now and comment on the Talk page. The best version is here.[11]RonCram 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your vote in the Mfd for User talk:Easternempires

Just to let you know someone has changed User talk:Easternempires so all it has is a welcome. Have a nice week and god bless:) --James, La gloria è a dio 02:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! ~ UBeR 07:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)