User talk:UBeR/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:UBeR. 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Good eye
I'm not sure where this originates either, but very interesting.[1] DurovaCharge! 17:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. My bet is some person from The Daily Telegraph added it to the original Reuters story. But it could be just as likely someone from Reuters removed it from their story after I notified them. ~ UBeR 17:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool heads please
The "rvv" here was out of line. I don't think your original comment was helpful, but if you insist on keeping it then a constructive summary would be better. Upping the ante in a personal dispute seldom helps one's case. Raymond Arritt 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- You said What ought to be done is that anything not relating to somehow fixing or editing the article should be deleted from the talk page, per WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:TALK. [2]. That was sensible William M. Connolley 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Of course. But we already know that isn't happening and won't ever happen. So what's the point if no one else is? ~ UBeR 21:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- We may as well start somewhere. I don't buy the argument that because something can never be perfectly achieved we shouldn't even try. Raymond Arritt 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if something can't even be remotely achieved we shouldn't even bother. ~ UBeR 21:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- We may as well start somewhere. I don't buy the argument that because something can never be perfectly achieved we shouldn't even try. Raymond Arritt 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Of course. But we already know that isn't happening and won't ever happen. So what's the point if no one else is? ~ UBeR 21:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
What would you think of this?
Back during a recent thread at WP:CSN I suggested some sort of community based measure to cool down the global warming articles (erm...sorry about the pun) without prejudice toward either side. What would you think of something like 2RR? I don't suppose anybody really likes restrictions, but if they apply to everybody equally and avoid yet another arbitration - I'm interested in your input. DurovaCharge! 04:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Like Dr. Arritt and I said at WP:CSN, there isn't a big problem with reverts. If there ever is, it can be handled in the normal way, which is to warn or report users at the proper location. I don't think a 2RR will do anything but make things more tense. ~ UBeR 13:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point. May I phrase this another way? Things are chronically tense there and I wouldn't be surprised if it goes into yet another arbitration. I'd do my best to stay out of it - I've been through arbitration enough times and the best instances are as fun as a root canal. Given that all of the arbitration remedies are crude and imperfect, do you think any of them would improve the situation on that subject? Have a good look at some precedents to see the options.
- Article parole has actually done some real good for Waldorf education/Anthroposophy (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education). The arbitration case was a nightmare, though. So I'm curious if a community-based solution could achieve a positive end result for global warming without pulling so many teeth.
- I'm trying to think out of the box here because it's pretty much given that, on a topic as contentious as global warming, a periodic influx of new editors will continue making the articles and their talk pages sites for hot debate. That's been going on for a couple of years now. If a case-by-case approach would work for this topic, wouldn't it have achieved more harmony and stability by now?
- If you aren't offended by these comparisons - and I hope you're not - I see some parallels between this, Anthroposophy, and Scientology in the sense that some deeply entrenched views exist among people in the "real world" and that bleeds over into Wikipedia. Since one of the areas where I do a lot of volunteering is dispute resolutions, and I've shepherded some of the chronically contentious stuff through arbitration without taking sides on content, I hope you'll respect that these suggestions and observations are made in good faith. DurovaCharge! 16:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Quite frankly, Durova, I don't see such a huge problem as you might. What I see is Raul654 wanting to ban someone he disagrees with (and luckily that attempt was laughed away), which acted to do nothing but overexaggerate something that is commonplace and not difficult to deal with. For example, currently in Talk:Global warming, there's someone complaining about an instructor who instructed them not to use Wikipedia and how Wikipedia is biased. It serves a purpose to discuss one's point of view about any particular subject, but little more. It's not a huge problem--even Dr. Schulz chooses to engage in debate there. It can occasionally escalate into heated discussion, but there are proper ways to deal with that. To avoid such contentiousness, I suggested at the CSN that anything not relating to somehow fixing or editing the article should be deleted from the talk page, per WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:TALK. ~ UBeR 16:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think 1 or 2RR might well help, but the problems at the moment don't seem severe enough for the pain of getting it invoked. But re talk pages... I would support a rigorous enforcement of NPA, SOAP etc on the talk page (whatever may have been written in the past) William M. Connolley 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's a great idea, but is there any way to codify it. I tried it in the past and was chastised for doing so.[3]Raymond Arritt 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Doing it on an individual basis hasn't worked terribly well in the past. As a community matter, it might be worth trying William M. Connolley 17:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- That is one thing I was trying to figure out. If someone were to delete discussion not related to amending the article, I'm sure they could argue somehow their discussion was in fact pertinent. But I honestly believe if you simply abide by the policies already set in place, there shouldn't be too much pother. ~ UBeR 17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- It also raises the question as to whether templates such as {{off topic warning}} and {{notaforum}} actually work. I'm actually quite tempted to just go out removing discussions not related to changing the article, but the problem is that these discussion don't really seem to be hurtful. ~ UBeR 20:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- That is one thing I was trying to figure out. If someone were to delete discussion not related to amending the article, I'm sure they could argue somehow their discussion was in fact pertinent. But I honestly believe if you simply abide by the policies already set in place, there shouldn't be too much pother. ~ UBeR 17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Doing it on an individual basis hasn't worked terribly well in the past. As a community matter, it might be worth trying William M. Connolley 17:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's a great idea, but is there any way to codify it. I tried it in the past and was chastised for doing so.[3]Raymond Arritt 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think 1 or 2RR might well help, but the problems at the moment don't seem severe enough for the pain of getting it invoked. But re talk pages... I would support a rigorous enforcement of NPA, SOAP etc on the talk page (whatever may have been written in the past) William M. Connolley 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Quite frankly, Durova, I don't see such a huge problem as you might. What I see is Raul654 wanting to ban someone he disagrees with (and luckily that attempt was laughed away), which acted to do nothing but overexaggerate something that is commonplace and not difficult to deal with. For example, currently in Talk:Global warming, there's someone complaining about an instructor who instructed them not to use Wikipedia and how Wikipedia is biased. It serves a purpose to discuss one's point of view about any particular subject, but little more. It's not a huge problem--even Dr. Schulz chooses to engage in debate there. It can occasionally escalate into heated discussion, but there are proper ways to deal with that. To avoid such contentiousness, I suggested at the CSN that anything not relating to somehow fixing or editing the article should be deleted from the talk page, per WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:TALK. ~ UBeR 16:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) The policies are imprecise. In practice, we err on the side of inclusiveness - anything vaguely relevant gets to stay, and removal of any comment is very rare. I suggest we move to err on the side of need - anything impolite, or anything containing substantial irrelevance, gets removed. And anything rehashing old discussion gets pointed to the old discussion. Of course that requires a discussion, and then a note on the page should it be decided on. There are enough admins watching to enforce this. We would need to be scrupulous about equal treatment, though William M. Connolley 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, UBeR, I'll hang out and hope things remain tolerable for all involved. May I express the difficulties of intervening as an unbiased administrator? Most sysops don't like to use the tools at disputes where policy and content issues dovetail unless it's to protect a page or the block is a really obvious call such as clear WP:3RR violation. Other blocks get very messy because they're likely to get disputed, likely to lead to a lot of side discussion, unlikely to resolve anything, and the odds are good that some time or other somebody on the other side of the dispute took an action that was equally bad. Also, one's neutrality is likely to come under fire from whichever side of the dispute had somebody get blocked.
- So, if my hypothesis is correct, a really long running dispute eventually exhausts the supply of sysops who are willing to intervene: some get sucked into the quicksand and others stay the heck away. Low level anarchy reigns, punctuated by attempts at dispute resolution, until editors either quit the article or go into arbitration. Then the swamp fills again. If the regulars at this page are okay with that then I'd just like to let everyone know that I'm standing by with sandbags and a shovel if you want to try to dam this thing some other way. DurovaCharge! 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- That nice little passage about global warming or the whole of wikipedia? --BozMo talk 15:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Erm, maybe just the whole of Louisiana? ;) DurovaCharge! 01:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- That nice little passage about global warming or the whole of wikipedia? --BozMo talk 15:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just ripped out a section that was turning into SOAP. Keep watching... William M. Connolley 11:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Giving it a whirl.[4] Raymond Arritt 18:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I dont think that you should delete parts of an editor's comments. Either delete them in whole or not at all. But from the start, I should say that I am afraid that we will end up giving arbitrary powers which will sometimes produce bad unintended results. --Childhood's End 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Its worth a try; I can't see why parts shouldn't be deleted, as long as the deletion is clearly marked.
- I dont think that you should delete parts of an editor's comments. Either delete them in whole or not at all. But from the start, I should say that I am afraid that we will end up giving arbitrary powers which will sometimes produce bad unintended results. --Childhood's End 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Giving it a whirl.[4] Raymond Arritt 18:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, so where are we here? Is it time to (1) try this out as a policy for t:GW or (2) advertise this discussion on the t:GW page and see who else cares to respond? I rather like having the discussion not on the t:GW page; putting it on a user page places certain unknown restrictions on what can be said. If Ubers patience will stretch to more people using his t:page? William M. Connolley 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm willing to whore out all the space needed. ~ UBeR 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- UBeR wants to give the case-by-case approach some more time. Ideally it'd be better if a proposal for a community-based remedy on the article had some level of bipartisan support. If anyone absolutely can't take it anymore then look me up; I could be persuaded to try this unilaterally although the odds of achieving a result would be lower. Ball's in your court. DurovaCharge! 01:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I thought to drop by the GW wiki after doing some bashing on a right-wing blog site on the topic of the NASA corrrection. Overall the GW wiki is solid, if a little conservative in my opinion. The fundamental issue seems to involve chronic attempts to insert the -- and let's be honest here -- crackpot nonsense pushed & endlessly recycled by the conservative mediasphere, especially the blog sites. If you assume good faith in that the bulk of these posters, who are essentially trying to second guess 100+ years of evolution in climate science, are simply badly misinformed and have little or no knowledge of what the science is and what things like the recent NASA correction actually mean, then you may want to think how best to address this. I've noted that the same "points" keep getting brought up by the deniers regardless of how many times and in how many ways those points have been shown to be factually wrong or outrightly nonsensical. What I suggest is that the talk page starts with something FAQish, but more along the lines of, say, STADD -- Summary of Topics Already Discussed & Dismissed, perhaps modeled after this New Scientist article. So instead of someone yet again bringing up Habibullo Abdussamatov and "global warming on Mars" as though this is late breaking news, it would be already covered at the beginning of the talk page, with a short summary of the point and the best evidence regarding it. I think this would be better at least in terms of being informative rather than to just do something like 2RR or such to save time and effort in dealing with recurring confused postings. For what it's worth.... -BC aka Callmebc 20:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- On the GWC article, sure, but not on the main Global Warming article. I'd even favor many of those sub-points getting their own appropriately named article. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I thought to drop by the GW wiki after doing some bashing on a right-wing blog site on the topic of the NASA corrrection. Overall the GW wiki is solid, if a little conservative in my opinion. The fundamental issue seems to involve chronic attempts to insert the -- and let's be honest here -- crackpot nonsense pushed & endlessly recycled by the conservative mediasphere, especially the blog sites. If you assume good faith in that the bulk of these posters, who are essentially trying to second guess 100+ years of evolution in climate science, are simply badly misinformed and have little or no knowledge of what the science is and what things like the recent NASA correction actually mean, then you may want to think how best to address this. I've noted that the same "points" keep getting brought up by the deniers regardless of how many times and in how many ways those points have been shown to be factually wrong or outrightly nonsensical. What I suggest is that the talk page starts with something FAQish, but more along the lines of, say, STADD -- Summary of Topics Already Discussed & Dismissed, perhaps modeled after this New Scientist article. So instead of someone yet again bringing up Habibullo Abdussamatov and "global warming on Mars" as though this is late breaking news, it would be already covered at the beginning of the talk page, with a short summary of the point and the best evidence regarding it. I think this would be better at least in terms of being informative rather than to just do something like 2RR or such to save time and effort in dealing with recurring confused postings. For what it's worth.... -BC aka Callmebc 20:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't see much of a problem. Debates sometimes get heated, but rarely does it get out of hand. The status quo with regards to "rules" and discussion seems fine to me. I still maintain there are significant issues with the article itself, but that is a subject different from the discussion at hand. Zoomwsu 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not here to discuss whether global warming is real or not, or even to adjudicate the proper application of WP:NPOV#undue weight. Just suggesting a couple of possible community-based remedies to keep the topic discussion from getting too heated. DurovaCharge! 01:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. I, for one, am going to implement this. Anyone who wishes to join in can feel free to help. If you do't like it, then I suppose you should babble irrelevantly on t:GW William M. Connolley 11:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm....this may all be moot now -- the postings on the talk page at least have abruptly and drastically fallen off. A minor correction by me to a prior post of mine was the only "contribution" yesterday, and so far the only thing today is an also likewise minor correction by you yourself, and there is nothing today so far on the main page. If you check the posting histories, this is really unusual, but probably not entirely inexplicable (let's just say that perhaps some of the politically motivated deniers and their possible socks perchance got cold feet, so to speak....) -BC aka Callmebc 17:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Global warming talk
You might want to fix the indent of your recent comment so that it looks like you're talking to HillChris1234 and not Brusegadi. (Either that, or you confused who was bringing up what.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- [5]. It's been fixed, nonetheless. ~ UBeR 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- You crazy non-mainstream indenting fool. It's now clear, at least. :) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh please! If it's become mainstream, it has only done so within the past few months. Such indentation practices are boorish. ~ UBeR 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea if it's actually mainstream or not. I was being purely tongue-in-cheek. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Me too. ;-) ~ UBeR 20:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good to hear. I was about to mention a folk expression regarding topography and the burrows of small animals. Raymond Arritt 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Me too. ;-) ~ UBeR 20:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea if it's actually mainstream or not. I was being purely tongue-in-cheek. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh please! If it's become mainstream, it has only done so within the past few months. Such indentation practices are boorish. ~ UBeR 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Stop that ... that's silly"
- You crazy non-mainstream indenting fool. It's now clear, at least. :) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Got the hots for ice, eh?
You seem to be rather interested in ice (semi j/k) What lead you onto this sort of thing?
Also by silly people Im guessing you mean doubters of global warming (if your anything like global warming advocates Ive met anyway) Dont call people silly because they doubt it, its not fully (or even partially) proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.111.194 (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Writing glaciology related articles is a lot easier because the people who patrol them are nicer and smarter, so there's no stupid bickering to get in to. It's actually much more relaxing to write, even though it's quite tedious. As for silly, it's not necessarily global warming deniers; it's anyone who chooses to be fool. ~ UBeR 13:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Listen Global warming has been proven. You must have heard about how a chunk of ice the size of florida broke away from the polar ice cap and melted? Trying to deny the fact that global warming is a problem is not silly. People just need to know the truth before we ruin this planet. Thanks for reading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.161.61 (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Global warming talk reversion
I understand that you and William are working hard to keep that talk page on topic, but I feel there's a difference about talking about new information about the topic and rehashing old news. Because of the tension that exists on this article, I think it's admirable to discuss proposed changes prior to actually making them. I can't be certain, but I think that is the intention behind this section. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- While you might see it that way, I don't. If you're just here to discuss what's going on the global warming field of research, i.e. discuss the topic of global warming, I would suggest a different location to express your interests. I can't be bothered if it has been discussed 20 times before, if you're just brining up a new topic. The deal was to eliminate threads that are not discussing the article. ~ UBeR 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- So, would it be different if the original editor prefaced it with a statement that says: "I'm thinking about adding a section about..." (This is not a rhetorical question, and I'm not trying to be argumentative. If you delete it again, I'll leave it deleted.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- In my view, yes (UBeR can answer for himself). I agree fully with UBeR's deletion. Had Rktect given a proposed sentence or two and a reference to back it up, instead of a lengthy excerpt presented merely as a news item, I'd have had no objection. Note also that Rktect posted this same stuff to the talk pages of several articles. Raymond Arritt 16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well, I see your point and imagine that my own personal POV (that this melting is quite serious and should be added somewhere) is possibly impeding my judgment. If it gets deleted again, I'll leave it be. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I agree with you. Write up a sentence or two for discussion on the talk page, or be WP:BOLD and add a properly referenced mention in the article. The issue is not the material per se, but the fact that it wasn't presented in the context of improving the article. (Oh, and it's always nice to meet a fellow Cav - Coll 79, Grad 82). Raymond Arritt 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I decided it was more appropriate (for now) in the global warming controversy article and added it there. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I agree with you. Write up a sentence or two for discussion on the talk page, or be WP:BOLD and add a properly referenced mention in the article. The issue is not the material per se, but the fact that it wasn't presented in the context of improving the article. (Oh, and it's always nice to meet a fellow Cav - Coll 79, Grad 82). Raymond Arritt 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well, I see your point and imagine that my own personal POV (that this melting is quite serious and should be added somewhere) is possibly impeding my judgment. If it gets deleted again, I'll leave it be. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- In my view, yes (UBeR can answer for himself). I agree fully with UBeR's deletion. Had Rktect given a proposed sentence or two and a reference to back it up, instead of a lengthy excerpt presented merely as a news item, I'd have had no objection. Note also that Rktect posted this same stuff to the talk pages of several articles. Raymond Arritt 16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- So, would it be different if the original editor prefaced it with a statement that says: "I'm thinking about adding a section about..." (This is not a rhetorical question, and I'm not trying to be argumentative. If you delete it again, I'll leave it deleted.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
i hate global warming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.42.142 (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Pleistocene glaciation
Hi there, Peltoms. I know you are extremely busy, as am I. I am wondering, however, if you would like to assist me in writing articles (or an article) relating to the Pleistocene glaciation. I'm currently interested in just getting a main article that most people would be interested in to learn more about the so-called Ice Age and the glaciation's impact on our world today (which should be separate from the Pleistocene epoch article, in my opinion), and from there perhaps write more specific articles, such as it's effects in North America (currently in the main article there), and other regional locations across the globe (and perhaps get even more specific details, such as I have done with glacial history of Minnesota). It's a rather tedious project, in my mind. I'm not sure if you would be able or willing to help (I was simply told you're a professional glaciologist). Regardless, thanks for your time. ~ UBeR 19:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct they do need alot of work. Obtaining the references to backup everything you point out is the key. This will insure that you are accurate, at present their are many mistakes in the articles. That is fine, you have to start somewhere. Do not try to do too much with the Minnesota article let the Pleistocene article do the heavy lifting. I will help but I am not promising much time until October. I will also direct you to material you need to both read and comprehend so the glaciation process makes more sense. It takes more time than one would think to put together a good article. Peltoms
- Thanks for the reply, Peltoms. I understand references are key here, as they act the crucial component of verification that is essential to this encyclopedia. As I did with the Minnesota article, I find it easier to write a cogent article and later find references to support the article. This may or may not be the ideal manner in which to write an article for Wikipedia, but it works for me. There are enough supporting sources to verify most of what's in the Minnesota article, it's just a matter of making them correspond to the article, which may or may not require a little bit of content change--but it shouldn't be anything too drastic. I hope to do this with the Pleistocene article, but any other way would be fine. The goal here is to make a comprehensive article that is both accurate and complete. I can't distinguish what you find as erroneous at the current moment, so any specific insight you might have would be quite helpful. I also understand the glaciation process quite well, but I'm sure your expertise in this area will be invaluable if you do decide to help. Again, thanks. ~ UBeR 01:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I find it more troublesome that there is a long-time behavior issue with this user...
I find it more troublesome that there is a long-time behavior issue with this user. Please don't dump this stuff into the middle of another conversation. If you believe it, raise it in the appropriate place William M. Connolley 11:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a relevant conversation. ~ UBeR 16:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
With regard to this edit, see WP:PUNC. Punctuation only goes in the quotation marks when the punctuation is part of the quotation. 17Drew 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I take it you've learned punctuation the British English way, but then again your userbox says you're a native American English speaker. In American English, punctuation goes inside the quotation marks, with a few exceptions. Seeing as how the article is quite American based, it really ought to use American English. Thanks for your query though. ~ UBeR 17:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Meetup in Minneapolis
- I won't be back into the cities until the 10th. Bummer. ~ UBeR 18:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Bummer is right. Well I hope to meet you someday. Glacial history of Minnesota is wonderful. -Susanlesch 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Timewasting
I didn't appreciate your contribution to Counterpoint (Radio National). There's nothing controversial about the fact that Duffy showcases GW skeptics (if anything the fact that someone smart like Duffy pushes this stuff should be a welcome inclusion in Wikipedia for skeptics) and you had the Google results right there in front of you. Rather than wasting time with reverts and wikilawyering, how about making a positive contribution, as I suggested?JQ 01:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The problem, John Quiggin, is that you are not allowed to insert opinions or unreferenced material into an article, no matter how trivial the subject matter. I think Wikipedia and Mr. Wales express this clearly, as it's very important to the process of making an encyclopedia that can separate itself from other projects like Conservapedia, etc. ~ UBeR 04:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, the material was referenced. If you didn't like the format of the reference, you could have fixed it, making a positive contribution, instead of blanking and making a negative contribution. JQ 05:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to keep in weasel words and possibly unverifiable content, read WP:V, and note specifically the section titled "Burden of evidence." ~ UBeR 05:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- For the last time, the content was easily verifiable. If you were actually worried about the encyclopedia instead of wikilawyering, you could have improved the formatting. Signing off now.JQ 05:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, the burden rests on the person who wants the information kept in the article. It's a very simple concept. Get used to it. ~ UBeR 19:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Mind you, you only did a pithy Google search. Anyone can do that. If you had found real references, you might have a case for yourself. ~ UBeR 16:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- For the last time, the content was easily verifiable. If you were actually worried about the encyclopedia instead of wikilawyering, you could have improved the formatting. Signing off now.JQ 05:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to keep in weasel words and possibly unverifiable content, read WP:V, and note specifically the section titled "Burden of evidence." ~ UBeR 05:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, the material was referenced. If you didn't like the format of the reference, you could have fixed it, making a positive contribution, instead of blanking and making a negative contribution. JQ 05:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations
On your birthday. --Kim D. Petersen 03:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! ~ UBeR 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday dear UBeR. Happy birthday to you! -Susanlesch 12:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations! I'll refrain from singing ("cruel and unusual pubishment"), though ;-). --Stephan Schulz 12:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday dear UBeR. Happy birthday to you! -Susanlesch 12:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You Comments on my Home Page
I deleted your comments because they struck me, for some strange reason, as being a bit too related to WP:GAME, WP:TE, and WP:HOAX. Try to play nice, now. -BC aka Callmebc 14:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Climate Change
I became a member a few weeks ago but i have only recently realized that this project has become almost stagnant in the last year. Very little activity going on. I was just wondering whether you think this project can be salvaged and new life put into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seddon69 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hello there. I'm largely inactive here on Wikipedia now, so I don't think I could be of much help, unless the project can come up with initiatives that foster productive, meaningful, and cooperative involvement with climate related topics and articles. I'll reserve my thoughts on the possibility of that happening for now. I once had an ambitious project, but that waned rather quickly. ~ UBeR 21:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Argumentative tangents
Re this, any response to such things only encourages them. Raymond Arritt 21:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good timing: Just as I clicked to hit edit, I got a new message. I do suppose you're right, although I think it prudent to let new users know how talk pages ought to work. ~ UBeR 21:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
GW 3RR
I know you know, but careful with 3RR. Brusegadi 05:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
3RR Warming on Global Warming
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe your last revert is grounds for a 3RR warning at least. So consider yourself officially warned.
Life in Wikiland would be considerably simpler and more pleasant if editors simply focused on actually improving the articles: making them more accurate, better balanced, less confusing, and up to date. I think. You think? -BC aka Callmebc 05:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- See the thread above. You really like to repeat things unnecessarily I've noticed. Anyway, in lieu of keeping the articles accurate, balanced, clear, and contemporary, I suggest you stop reverting me, because in doing so you're completing just the opposite. Good day. ~ UBeR 06:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)