Misplaced Pages

This user has asked for Wikipedians to give him/her feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his/her edits at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/UBeR.

People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid.

Archives

/Archive 1 - 08 February 2007 /Archive 2 - 03 March 2007

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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. It seems a small thing to ask to not have links to the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics deleted by Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. At any rate, the External Links is reserved for special purposes. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, resources, or links. It would be highly beneficial to go over Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

All the same, I appreciate your response.

What I think your actual objection is about is this: that the content of the Misplaced Pages article on minimum wages is far afield for Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages novice, and I apologize again for any inconvenience I may have caused.--laurenjf

Do not be so hard on yourself! Misplaced Pages asks you to be BOLD! Misplaced Pages asks you to IGNORE ALL RULES, if it means that you can make Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's fundamental policies on verifiability and original research. Just keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not truth, but rather verifiability (as discussed earlier in Global Warming's discussion page on the fallacies of Misplaced Pages). It's long been held, by Misplaced Pages, that other Misplaced Pages articles are not to be used as a source for information in other articles. That is not how it works on Misplaced Pages, 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" -- Misplaced Pages: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 out 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 out 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 out 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages; administrators, in particular, are not above the policies; Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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.' Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages wonderfully, and many of Misplaced Pages'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. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages policies. Again, thank you for your concerns. ~ UBeR 23:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Concern

Hi UBer. I recognize your many good contributions to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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: -- Brittainia 05:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, this post 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 , , 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 - thus they are bringing Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's fundamental policies. It is important because it reflects Misplaced Pages'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 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. 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. --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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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.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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages demands of us, but I've garnered no other option so as to make clear as possible to those who wish to dismiss Misplaced Pages'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: Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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).

OR

William, I do not understand why you want the rules rewritten so as to have them favor you. The problem with allowing Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages as a source. "Wikis, including Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Marking reverts

You promised not long ago to mark your reverts as such at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/UBeR. It doesn't seem to have taken you long to forget that 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)

Gender politics

Your consistent reference to User:KimDabelsteinPetersen as being female (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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)

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, I am 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 Misplaced Pages should be saying it. ~ UBeR 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)