Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:30, 8 February 2007

Welcome!

Hello, UBeR, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Nufy8 22:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, using the "Show preview" function before saving your changes is helpful, as saving the same article a large number of times in quick succession makes it harder for people to check what changed, and clogs up the page history. Thanks. Nufy8 23:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new here. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks UBeR 01:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

American and British English

Hi UBeR,

Since it would be a waste to have separate American English and British English Wikipedias, there is only one English Misplaced Pages, and it tries to be international in its usage. In some cases, such as spelling differences, both American and British forms are permitted, and it's ordinarily considered rude to Americanize a British spelling or Britishize an American one without a specific reason, in which case it's a good idea to mention the reason in the edit summary. (Nothing fancy, just something like "articles on primarily American topics use American spellings" or "fix strange mixture of American and British spellings within one sentence".) In other cases, there is an English-Misplaced Pages–wide preference for one form or the other. For example, American-style quotation marks are used ("quote containing a quote 'quote contained within a quote'", not 'quote containing a quote "quote contained within a quote"'); conversely, punctuation after a quotation is placed according to the British ("logical") system: if the punctuation is part of the quote, it is placed before the end-quote, and if not, it is placed after it. The Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style discusses such issues; you might wish to take a look.

When in doubt, it's best not to change existing text to match your specific form of English, as that can be seen as rude.

Ruakh 03:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your comment at my talk-page: Don't worry, I wasn't offended; I myself use American style in my own writing. (I grew up in, still live in, and am now a citizen of the U.S., so I'm really not used to any other style.) I just wanted you to know, before you ran into someone who would be offended; and lest you doubt the seriousness of the issue, see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Systematic bias towards USA names, where a Wikipedian wrote of the title of Popsicle, "This is systematic bias at its very worst, and is the kind of thing which - seriously - makes me want to quit Misplaced Pages, because I feel that it is so USA-centric, with little room for international compromise." (Well, in all fairness, he wasn't so much writing about the article title, as about the opposition of American editors to changing it once he pointed out that the word "Popsicle" is a specifically American term for a concept found in many English-speaking countries, but still. Serious.) Ruakh 04:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

John Wayne

You're right  :-) Thank you for correcting my edit in the John Wayne article.
"Please stop changing this; "a" is correct, because the setence reads "John Wayne won a Best Actor Oscar." It does not say "won an Acedemy Award," it just links)
Roaming27 07:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Love the irony!

Your edit comment: "I believe it has already been decided that British English would be used on this article, where punctuation remains outside of quatation marks.", contains the quintessentially American grammar "outside of". Tony 06:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry for my assumption. Tony 00:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Web sites"/"websites"

Hi, I'm not going to argue with you because it is a pointless topic, but I just thought I would point you to the American Heritage Dictionary Fourth Ed . As you can see, "Web site" is merely an accepted variant of the correct word, "website." No where does it state that this is the proper spelling of the term. The usage note points out the transition from the original "Web site" to "Website" and finally to "website," the accepted spelling of the word. I WIN!!!1!1!! Love, Wavy G 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding , no I did not blit away any other major edit - i did check first. The only other edits you made in your original edit were only minor layout issues - things were fine anyway. Please by all means revert to the original lowercase version of the article and remake the minor edits. Given you have made a major change throughout the article to capitalise every use of "web" then it is you that should be getting consensus for this change on the article's talk page - I only reverted to the version of the article which has had the normal/common lowercase usage for a long time. Thanks/wangi 20:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Kanye West Revert

For catching that vandal before I could:

Have a nice day :D  E. Sn0 =31337=  04:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Source citation requests

While of course anyone may request source citations, it is generally considered polite and is very helpful to those doing research if you place a notice on the article's talk page as to why you contest an assertion. In the Creation-evolution controversy article, for example, many of the organizations you have requested cites for on their support of creationism are large national or international church organizations, and their positions could well be considered common knowledge per WP:V. Thanks! Seraphimblade 01:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems, Seraphimblade, that the article Creation-evolution controversy is mostly made up of original research. In fact, it's satiated with it. The fact that the Evangelical Presbyterian Church "unapologetically promote creationism and preach against evolution from the pulpits and sponsor lectures and debates on the subject" is not necessarily "common knowledge." Like the link you posted, Misplaced Pages is verifiable, not truth. Furthermore, "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." You're welcome! ~ UBeR 01:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Will look for some sources on those positions (I believe creationism is the official position of all the ones listed, I know at least for the Seventh-day Adventists it is). Thanks for elaborating! Seraphimblade 01:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Internal linking of dates

You recently reverted my date linking at Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. You cited some section of the Manual of Style concerning linking. However, more appropriately would be the MOS section concerning individual dates. As the section reads, those users who prefer to read dates in the European style where the date precedes the month (i.e., 26 November 2006), can do so if the date is linked. Otherwise, everyone is forced to read the date in the American style (i.e., November 26, 2006). Pepsidrinka 13:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the link you provided in your edit summary says the same thing under the Dates and numbers subheading. Pepsidrinka 13:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Debatepedia.com - query on your minimum wage contributions

Noticed your good contributions on the "minimum wage article" and am curious if you'd be interested in the minimum wage debate article on Debatepedia.com, and helping edit and develop it. Minimum Wage Debate Loudsirens 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh interesting that you ask. Well, currently I'm writing a research and argumentative paper for my college course on the issues of the minimum wage controversy. Though I will be busy until after the finals here, I'll take a look the Web page. After I have written my paper, however, I should be able to contribute a bit of material. ~ UBeR 22:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. You may find it useful already for your paper too. May be worth a look. Good luck. Loudsirens 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Finals end on the 20th, so I'll be done soon! :) ~ UBeR 02:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Reports that disagree"

Which reports? Surely you can appreciate the subtle difference between something being among someone's last words, and being his final last words. Would you be making an issue of this if we were talking about someone who spoke English? Gazpacho 01:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No I wouldn't, but what's wrong with the current sentence? ~ UBeR 01:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with what I inserted? It provides more detail. We have templates for citing non-print sources; presumably they were meant to be used. Where's the policy that only print sources are allowed? Gazpacho 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

See, for example, this link (p.2) and this link. It conflicts with what you're saying, which is why I was removing your statement. Because I don't speak Arabic I ask for a reference to your statements. ~ UBeR 01:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Three-Revert Rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Execution of Saddam Hussein. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Reverting vandalism is okay and does not count toward the 3RR, but you have begun to start reverting legitimate edits and that's not okay. -- tariqabjotu 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The image violated fair use. ~ UBeR 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No Personal attacks

With regards to your comments on Talk:Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein#External_Links_.26_Spam.3F: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Sfacets 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I only state the facts. Sorry. I dictate my External Links edits per Misplaced Pages's policy. ~ UBeR 22:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the policy also cover calling other editors idiots? Comment on the edits, not the editor. Sfacets 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever called you an idiot. If I did, I apologize and will remove it. ~ UBeR 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

re- saddam video

Hi,

I think the direct link should be changed for the reasons listed on that discussion page:

"We should not have a link, direct or not, to this website http://www.contemporaryinsanity.org which contains jems such as "retarded asian porn" Not to mention, who knows how long that site will host the file.

I found a link on Digg to box.net hosting the file, which is ad free and permanent, and much more PG to visit.

I suggest replacing http://www.contemporaryinsanity.org/download/index.php?Saddam-hung.wmv with http://www.box.net/public/static/lpg6ob997l.avi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magic5227 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)."

Thank you for your concern. It is well merited and I replied to your comments at Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein. ~ UBeR 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

From Laurenjf

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!

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)

Vandalism??? Mistake???

Why do you - or someone - keep deleting my link on the St. Paul Central High School website??? Did you try it???

It's a link to our CHS Class of 1961 website. I am the webmaster. I'm also a graduate of that class. I'm also on the Reunion Committee. I also administer the name and address list for 1961. My mom and dad also graduated from that high school.

I did not "mis-read anything in the newspaper".

The link is appropriate for the Wiki article (unless you think only links for teachers and the current administration are appropriate), and provides a great deal of information for our class -the 615 graduates.

The link to the current, official CHS website (spps.org) provides SOME information, although quite limited, and doesn't relate to our class or older classes AT ALL. The old school has been completely destroyed via renovation by the process of local politics, and is unrecognizable inside and out. In fact, it should have been renamed "New Politically-Correct Central High School". The neighborhood demanded a "new" high school like Highland Park High School, so they gutted the inside of CHS, tore down the towers and art deco stonework, and poured cement over what remained. It now looks like a prison from the outside, and somewhat like a prison on the inside. I was just there a few days ago. There were 2 police cars in the parking lot, most of the outside doors were locked, and the detention list (posted on the main office window) was 8 inches deep and 3 columns wide. Somehow, we managed to produce notable achievers for several decades despite having to study in an old school, with unlocked doors, and no cops.

I will add the link again to our Class of 1961, which contains some pictures of the old, beautiful school, and much other information.

Dave Morton

IBM mainframe systems programmer, Writer

marspyrs@aol.com

www.spchs61.org

http://home.ix.netcom.com/~spchs61/index.htm? (same website) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.147.6 (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for contacting me, Mr. Morton. The "Perhaps you misread something in your newspaper" comment was directed to another editor, and was only relevant to my addition of student enrollment. As for the class of 1961 link, I originally removed it due to it's "relative irrelevance." To me, and I believe the article, the class of 1961 lacks significance. Now, of course, this may be completely different from you because you were in that class, and I don't mean it to be an insult to you or your class. I'm simply trying to think in the perspective of what would be best for the encyclopedic article that it is supposed to be. What is historically more important than the class of '82, for example? You may disagree with me with about the link's benefit to the article, but then I would simply ask that we try to reach a consensus on the article's talk page.

As for the design of the school, there is not much I can do about it. I am not here to deal out rhetoric on why so and so has changed. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. The current CHS Web site does have information on the schools history, however. ~ UBeR 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Uber. I will take up future discussions on the Talk page. The reason I didn't do so before is because there was nothing from you or anyone else regarding the removal of the link(s) to our CHS61 website except the comment "Perhaps you misread something in your newspaper" written at the same time as an edit apparently for a different reason.

Let's keep in mind a couple of points:

1. If the class of 1961 is relatively irrelevant to the article, then so is the class of 2007 and all previous and future classes from Central High School, making me wonder why the school even exists. I thought it existed for the benefit of the students, thus making the students, and collectively, their graduating classes, highly relevant. "No students" equals "no school".

2. I realize Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and chose to make my additional soapbox comments here on your page - not in an article Talk section or on our CHS61 website. This was to explain that the school you are documenting and linking to in this online encyclopedia bears no resemblance whatsoever to the school prior to the 1970s. If the article were simply an advertisement, as in, "Visit Today's Harvard - Tour Our Campus", etc, there would be no need to point out that the new Central is completely unlike the old Central, and that they hijacked the name. Since you've supplied no pictures of the old Central, people can visit our CHS61 website and see what the beautiful, old Central looked like (more pictures will be added). Referring to "St. Paul Central High School" as it exists today, is like discussing the BASIC computer language by referring to "Microsoft's Visual BASIC" with links only to Microsoft. The two are light years apart.

3. The History section at spps.org is somewhat difficult to find.

4. While I was at Central, last Thursday, a girl asked me if the school had changed much since 1961. What she didn't realize is that her question was like asking if Berlin had changed much since 1938. I replied that the only things I recognized were the high school jackets and the old trophy cases. Everything else had been obliterated. She's another island in a sea of history with no connection to part of her school's past.

5. From the History page at Central Online: "In 1998, due to qualities like strong leadership, clear vision, a high-level of teaching and challenging up-to-date curriculum, Central was given the “Blue Ribbon Schools Award” from the Department of Education. As Central moves into its 2nd look at a turn of a century, it continues to educate, challenge, and reflect the changing American population."

But the first sentence of the History page reads: "Before 1866, there was no educational opportunities in St. Paul after grade school." Did you catch it?

There are also multiple errors in the History section.

1. The first sentence is grammatically incorrect.

2. The streetcar system in St. Paul was not replaced during WW2. In fact, streetcar usage increased during the war to save on gasoline and rubber tires, reserved for the war effort.

3. In the pictures section, University Avenue has been labeled as "lexington" - the wrong street.

4. In the pictures section (Buildings), 2 pictures of the MINNEAPOLIS Central High School are incorrectly displayed as being the 1888 version of the ST. PAUL Central High School.

+5. The last name of the teacher and her daughter in the 1866 school is spelled 2 different ways: Haynes and Hayes.

+6. Someone named "Miss Fannie Hayneswith" supposedly presented the first-ever diplomas to "Miss Fannie Hayes" and the other graduate. Doubtful and confusing.

+7. "Rhodes Scholar" is spelled incorrectly.

+8. "1970" information is out of sequence in both the main text body and the Timeline sidebar, falling after "1982".

+9. The date of the fire (5th floor during reconstruction) is referred to as both "1980" and "1982". Main text body and Timeline sidebar.

+10. The first picture of a building on the History page is not identified. It could be the 1866 school or the 1872 school.

Additionally, most of the pictures are very dark (via selection on the right side of the page).

+Ref: http://central.spps.org/home/history/index.html

Rather sloppy, incorrect, and unprofessional for an official website of the St. Paul Public Schools.

I've written to the school, listing my corrections - with pictures. We'll see what happens.

+And now a good-news bombshell - at least I think it's one. I was just contacted a couple of days ago by the daughter of one of our 1961 CHS grads, who is looking for information on her mother. Her mother (Maxine) died in 1969 at the age of about 26, and her 3 kids never got to know her well as they were infants or children when she died. Maxine was very beloved, and we were all shocked at her early death. The daughter (Linda) has no yearbooks of her mom's, and did not know a single person who knew her, except for the relatives - some of whom have been out of touch. She contacted me, and I put her in touch with about 15 people, most local to her, some of whom knew Maxine well, and I sent her several pictures from HS and grade school, etc. They have showered her with loving e-mails, etc, with more to come. I also sent her contact information for 2 of her mother's best friends, who live within 20 miles of her location. She is enormously grateful, and will send me pix of her mom and kids from 1962-1969, which I will distribute to her mom's friends.

+And how did the daughter find me?? Via the link on Misplaced Pages to our CHS 1961 website, she said. I just talked to her on the phone and asked her how she found me, etc, but made sure I didn't prompt her for an answer. This has been a truly wonderful and gratifying 2 days!

Dave Morton

That is very nice to hear. ~ UBeR 08:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. Keep in mind the CHS Web site is mostly created by one Web master and upkept by their Computer Tech. III students. Of course, however, a professional Web site is of importance for demonstration, and I thank you for reporting the errors to them. I also suggest to you, if you contain the right ownership of the photos you have published on your Web page, that you consider adding them to the Misplaced Pages article so that interested readers may enjoy the nostalgic images of the old CHS. ~ UBeR 19:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft

UBeR, I probably should have been more clear about my reasoning. The site was only Flash which I have disabled, and I ran a WHOIS and it was registered (through GoDaddy.com) to a company that is not Microsoft. This led me to believe it was not a Microsoft site. -SpuriousQ 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Apology accepted. Perhaps I provoked you with my assumptions, which were indeed antithetical to those of "good faith", so in the future I will attempt to address my own lack of objectivity and remember that most people are here to contribute in a constructive way, as I'm sure you are, too. Cheers, and happy editing.--Jackbirdsong 04:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		In recognition of your good work on the Execution of Saddam Hussein article. Such controversial topics always make for difficult editing. The topic may be too controversial to ever earn featured article status. But, to get it up to good article status is a nice accomplishment. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot Aude! I've noticed your contributions throughout the article's creation, and they have all been significant in its journey to meet the Good Article standards. I appreciate your contributions of information and help warding off the vandals, and I think with just a few more tweaks we just might be able to get a Featured Article. :D ~ UBeR 20:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Realistically, I'm not sure it would pass because people tend to come along and object on (sometimes baseless) NPOV concerns. I worked on Gun violence in the United States and no matter how well referenced, it's too controversial of a topic. Too pro-gun rights or too pro-gun control depending on who's looking at it. I think the same situation would happen with this article, but perhaps worth a try anyway. --Aude (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we could do it with a few more images, a little clean up, and a better lead. I read over Gun violence in the United States, and I thought it was very well made article. It has everything it needs for FA status, and has a large amount of sources that rivals that of the Execution of Saddam Hussein. It's unbelievable the gun violence article did not get FA. I do not think it got enough votes. Granted I have not yet read all the sources to verify that they actually correspond to what's being written on Misplaced Pages (often times a problem), I'll make sure I do. Notwithstanding that issue, there really seems to be no other problem; the article meats the NPOV requirements. Well done on that article. ~ UBeR 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

T-34

Hi UBeR. I'm going to remove T-34 from FAR, just for a few days. In the days an article is on the page (particularly the first day) reviewing it is essentially useless, if for no other reason than that its content is HEY MOM!, every half-hour or so; further, the main page days themselves count as a review experience and they should run their course. There is fairly well-established consensus for this on the FAR talk (WT:FAR). By all means re-post it again in four days. Marskell 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

St. Cloud State University

What is it on St. Cloud State University that you find unreferenced? I believe the use of {{fact}} would work better. -Ravedave 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello; thank you for contacting me. I added the {{Unereferenced}} template because the article lacks sources. Two of Misplaced Pages's most fundamental polices are no original research and verfiability. I could go around an labeling every statement without a reference with a {{fact}} tag, but that, I feel, would be detrimental to the article. ~ UBeR 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It already has 4 references, which is why I was asking. -Ravedave 19:03, 7 February 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)

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)