User talk:UBeR/Archive 9

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 8 |
Archive 9
| Archive 10 →

Contents

Thanks

And to you as well.[1] A good opportunity to count all our blessings. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Same to you!

Merry Christmas and God Bless to you too! Thanks for the message! Happyme22 (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there.
The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful

I know you and WMC have a "thing", but comments like this[2] aren't helpful. We're dealing with a blatant sockpuppet (and yes, it was confirmed by checkuser). Even if you think he's wrong, consider the benefit to yourself of taking the high road. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's no more helpful than comments like this[3], I'm sure. But maybe you're right. I'm not sure why I bother here anymore. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was quite an amusing Judge Dredd allusion. But even you must find socks sap one's strength... --BozMo talk 09:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Only time, which I have plenty of at the moment. ~ UBeR (talk)
Well, if you are offering :) you could help with choosing articles for the 2008 Schools version? The 2007 version (http://schools-wikipedia.org) got over a million users and all I need is a list of historical versions of articles which are "clean" (and preferably not immediately after you yourself have editted them). But don't worry if not your kind of thing. --BozMo talk 09:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't sound too leisurely. Thanks for the offer, but I don't think it was meant for me. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.

I've read the guidelines and plan to embark on some edits of Global Warming Controversy. For me, it doesn't read very well -- a long sequence of references to opinions and counter opinions, and some peripheral issues (e.g. who's getting, or not getting funding). I'm going to try to devise some dimensions along which to classify all the extant opinions, but have to examine the actual items first.

Jhm15217 (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's not one of Wikipedia's best articles... It needs a lot of work. I do hope you can improve it. :) Cheers. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

AfD nomination of Average surface temperature

An article that you have been involved in editing, Average surface temperature, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average surface temperature. Thank you. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to be losing a lot of good people

Hi UBeR,

I hope you are well and your education is going according to your plans. I notice you do not edit much anymore and many other good editors seem to have left Wikipedia. I hope that isn't due to the censorship and bullying tactics of some administrators? I notice those admin's are still active including WMC. Unfortunately they are paid to persist in their manipulation of Wikipedia, while the rest of us just want to help build something worthwhile. It seems that without serious reform Wikipedia is doomed to fail.

All the best to you for the future.

Brittainia (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. The reasons I have "left" the project, or at least significantly reduced my activity, are personal. There are a host of different reasons, both internal and external to Wikipedia. These are probably best left undiscussed. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I respect your privacy and hope that you find enjoyment and happiness in whatever you do. Brittainia (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite

Really, Thanks, but I am still at odds with the prevailing idea of 'notability.' I am still out to quash a lot of bugs, and make good suggestions... I just wish to do it ... anonymously.

I was User:artoftransformation, and I am still doing work and research on the SMP ( Symetric Multi-Processing ) Page, but it has a long way to go and reflects on the reality that Wikipedia is. Somewhere I am sure my user page is archived, but what the hell.

It really ended for me, with the deletion of an article on 'aerodynamics of fruit' which, in the light of the current problems of the hive sudden death syndrome, will become extrodinarly significant. Funny, that I find my own self in the prior post.

All the best wishes. artoftransformation 67.188.118.64 (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You mean aerodymanics of food? The one which went:
For instance Groucho Marx was quoted “Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.” Scientists wonder, how was the comedian so fluent in the aerodynamic qualities of food? Simple, like all good scientists, with a sence of humor, observation and testing were nessesary. "Hey, you don't need to be an aerodynamics expert to understand that, for example, raspberries have very different flight characteristics than bananas. Obviously, raspberries would fly much more like banana blossoms than like bananas themselves. That's the main reason that I wouldn't use "Fruit flies like a banana" in its aerodynamic sense. It's simply wrong. However, the sentence is quite true in its entomological diet sense.
That was the one! It was a place holder for some research, which I am still doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.118.64 (talk • contribs)
Personally I liked it but my own attempt at humour got deleted too...--BozMo talk 09:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm very confused. But perhaps it's better that way... ~ UBeR (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Walter Tayloy Foxtrot? Really? someone else read it besides the guy who nominiated it for immediate deletion, then deleted it?
What was your attempt at humor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.118.64 (talk • contribs)
ITSOKAY, happens to a lot of us. I am clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.118.64 (talk • contribs)
I just realized, that in looking at my contributions page, that there is a lot I have done here. Just looking at that.
Someone wrote that there is a missing article on [IdaRed], an apple, so I borrowed it from the german wiki...I was asked for sources...finally explaining the exact process I used, and provided citations. A few people I grew to like, but so many nasty and just plain mean attacks. really soured the whole experence. The problem is that admins think that because of vandalism, that they have to be rigid, and it drives away a significant amount of contribution. Just look at the number of resigning admins. its really staggering. "Nuns...No sence of humor." -Kruger, Highlander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.118.64 (talk • contribs)

Wording on the Radiative Forcing Components graph

Hi. I reverted your change to the Radiative Forcing Components graph on Global Warming. I had created a section on the Talk Page to discuss my wanting to return the wording to the original I used when I first put the graph on article page. I allowed a few days for comments and only you said you preferred your wording but gave no reason. You also mentioned a January discussion in your edit summary, but I wasn't available for that, and its unclear that there was actually an actual discussion then to change the wording (I think another thing was agreed to). If you feel that your wording is better, please use the Talk page section that was created especially to discuss that. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to revert you again. I had allowed plenty of time for you and others to discuss my proposal to change the wording back to its original, and simply saying "I like my wording, actually," and then ignoring my request to explain that, and then finally just reverting me when I finally made the change is not very conducive to improving the article via a collaborative discussion. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"I'm not getting into a revert war" Ah, but you already have. It's unfortunate you've yet to heed the advice of administrators with much wisdom. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but the evidence shows me creating a new section for discussion of my proposed change, and you being untimely, unresponsive and even somewhat insulting, and have resorted to apparently just automatically reverting my changes. Consequently I'm not touching the main page for the time being and have solicited other comments about my proposed desire to have the much more informative original wording back. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You asked if anyone disagreed with your edit, and I replied that I had. That should make it clear enough for you to know not to change it. You did anyway. As I explained, my edit was accurate--yours was not. Allowing you to ask for clarification where you are confused is hardly insulting. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
William Connolley. whom I believe knows a little bit more about this stuff than either of us, has stated that both descriptions are equally valid, and has offered a compromise. In the future, if I propose a change on the Talk page, it would really help move matters along if you engage in discussion at that point rather than wait until the change is made, and then revert because you have some sort of issue with it. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
He misspoke. Yours was not equally valid as mine, and doesn't come close frankly. You got several things wrong and used poorer English, to be forthright. If you're inserting factual inaccuracies into the article, I have every duty to remove those. William M. Connolley did write an acceptable version, but it lacks context that could be helpful to the reader. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well the "context" was that for the average Wikipedia user trying to understand these things, the graph basically showed the relative weights of the various factors that tend to warm or cool the atmosphere. That's what I tried to put in the description. But since Mr. Connolley is the acknowledged expert here, it would seem logical to defer to his call on the matter. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
William M. Conolley is not owner of the article, sorry, even if you would like him to be. You're were wrong and you're still wrong, and William M. Connolley misspoke about you not being wrong. Bottom line, the average reader is smarter than you take them to be, and so I advise you to inquire on the talk page about something you don't understand rather than go changing something willy-nilly. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah!

{{helpme}} Most every time I visit Wikipedia, I am logged out and need to re-login. I do check the "Remember me" option every time. This has only been occurring recently. I am not deleting cookies, nor have I changed any preferences. It is rather annoying. ~ 08:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I checked the Wikipedia:Help desk and saw that there are others who have had this problem in the past day or so. You might follow MoP's suggestion here, and if that doesn't work, maybe ask at WP:VPT. WODUP 08:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... yes it is still occurring. =\ ~ UBeR (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Peru

Hello, sorry for not answering to your question sooner. As for the rv in the Peru article my purpose was to keep the lead in line with the text of the article, in this case, the second paragraph of the "Demographics" section which details the different ethnic groups that have combined to form the Peruvian nation. The term "mestizo" does not refer to a specific ethnic group but rather to a mixture of any two of them (even though it was originally used only for the offspring of Europeans and Amerindians) thus I felt it was not necessary to include it in the listing. --Victor12 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, ~ UBeR (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding RfM

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the Waterboarding article concerning the content dispute in the first six words of the article. You have been named as a party and your participation would be appreciated. I believe this is the best approach to an amicable resolution of the dispute. Please indicate your agreement here. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 17:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Trying this again, thanks for agreeing to participate

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding 2, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Neutral Good (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/United States Bill of Rights

I noticed that on January 24, 2007 you placed an {{unreferenced-section}} the article on the Bill of Rights.

It may turn out that such citations are not necessary; on the other hand, detailed citations assist in guarding against copyright violations, so I think that discussion should be part of a formal featured article review, for which I have nominated the article. Please discuss here.

69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That was over a year ago. ~ UBeR (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see now. ~ UBeR (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [4] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable. --Filll (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've answered a few already. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Orange Box

Hello there. I've noticed your recent helpful edits on The Orange Box and I wanted to let you know that it's currently undergoing peer review. You can find the peer review here, where your thoughts and comments would be greatly appreciated. Any questions, please let me know. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User WMC request for Arbcomm

After reviewing the history of User: William M. Connolley, and reading that Arbcomm asks to bring all requests for removal of adminship to them directly, I have decided to begin the process. Due to the fact that he is an admin, and the misconduct examples are so spread out, I have put it in a sandbox, User:HooperBandP/Sandbox4, so that all examples can be compiled by community and Arbcomm's time will not be waisted. All parties are welcome to say their piece there and it will be sent to arbcomm when ready, or to add examples to speed the process. Hooper (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a request for comment, if you were unaware. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)