Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:05, 1 March 2007

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

Archives

/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References

Hi UBeR, sections or parapgraphs that are just summaries of a referenced main article (as Snowball Earth in Global warming) do not need to reproduce the original sourced. WP:V is ensured via the link to the main article. Reproducing everything in full would be cumbersome and antiproductive. If you insist, I'm ready to stick a {{main}} tag onto that section, but given the prominent link given, I find that rather inelegant. --Stephan Schulz 23:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I, too, was going to (rather am going to) add {{main}}, as currently the section is not a subsection of any article. Please remember the burden of evidence lies with the editor. Simply putting two brackets around a word does not make a statement referenced. This is something Misplaced Pages has explicitly stated. This, too, apparently, is something that Raul654 cannot wrap around his head either. ~ UBeR 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are unable to understand the policy, as quoted to you not a few hours (and reinforcement of what you had already been told) is your problem alone. Raul654 02:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from talking on my discussion page if you lack anything useful to say. Thank you. (P.S. Note that any further erroneous statements will not be tolerated.) ~ UBeR 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on, UBeR. You have some good ideas to contribute, but you've got to be more polite. When you said Raul654 is no stranger to violations of Misplaced Pages's policies it hurt my feelings. Your disagreement with Raul need not become so personal.

Please come to my talk page (Raul will stay here, right?) and tell me about it. I think I can help resolve this. --Uncle Ed 13:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

SB XLI game summary

Just curious, what do you think constitutes original research in the Super Bowl game summary? It seems entirely factual to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atarr (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello. Thank you for contacting me. I added the {{original research}} tag to the "Game Summary" section of Super Bowl XLI because its content constitutes original research. Please read over that policy as well as the verifiability policy, which go hand in hand. While the contents of that section may very well be true, Misplaced Pages is not truth, but rather verifiability. (Also see the quotation at the top of my user page.) So, in all, the problem is that the section lacks sources, which is a serious problem within Misplaced Pages. My regards, ~ UBeR 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What's not verifiable there? It's essentially a narrative built from the game summary. I don't spot any editorial comments. I could link to the play-by-play from NFL.com if that would make it better. I could link to one of any number of game recaps that refer to various details, such as the squib kicks.

Again, it's not analysis, its not editorializing. It is, as it says, a game summary. Where is the original research? Can you cite a specific section of the summary that is bothering you? - Atarr 20:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well its not that the content isn't necessarily verifiable, it's that the the article gives no source for which we can verify the content with. If you read over the policies that I linked to (no original research and verifiability), you'd notice that statements need to be backed up by sources. Currently, there are no sources. So, for example, while it may very well be true that "on the first play after the turnover, Thomas Jones' 52-yard run moved the ball to the Colts' 5-yard line," I have no way to verify this through Misplaced Pages (that is, because the section does not provide and citations). Do you understand what I'm trying to say here? ~ UBeR 20:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. So, if I include the NFL play-by-play link in the "external links" section, then it is verifiable, and then the section would be fine. Right?

Oh, wait a minute, the NFL play-by-play link is already listed in the external links section. So, no, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I still don't understand what the problem is. The source is cited. - Atarr 20:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of a way I can make this a bit more clear for you, but I can't. I think the no original research and verifiability policy pages explain it fairly well. Simply putting the link the "External links" section doesn't quite do it for citing a source. As I said earlier, the section is what is lacking sources. Putting the source in the External links section doesn't quite clarify to the reader that the content in in "Game summary" is coming from the source.

Ideally, every statement should be sourced, but this is superfluous when every statement in a section is coming from one source. So perhaps what might be suggested is that there is some sort of note that states that this information is coming from that particular source, or simply stating that the following is a summary of the game and then link to the source.

Do you see what I'm saying? ~ UBeR 22:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, there's nothing in the no original research and verifiability pages (hey, I can link too!) that is being violated here. Now, it's entirely possible that the standard is that a given citation has to be listed in every relevant section. It just doesn't say that on the no original research and verifiability pages. Those pages say lots of great stuff about how information of Misplaced Pages should be verifiable and referenced, all of which I wholly agree with. But those pages do not explain exactly how something ought to be referenced.

A quick look at the "external links" section of the citing sources page does state that a reference should not solely be in the external link section. So, certainly, we should take the reference and put it somewhere else. Someone else initially put the citation in the external link section, but I'm fine with fixing it and putting it in the article somewhere else.

The question I have for you (and, honestly, I don't understand how you can't "think of a way I can make this a bit more clear" for me when you haven't answered this) is, where do you want me to insert citations? Do you want a footnote link put in after every sentence of that section? Clearly that's overkill. Do you want a sentence at the beginning saying all accounts come from the gamebook link? Certainly possible, but it's really awfully clunky. Do I just put a reference in after the first sentence of that section, and then assume that the reader can follow it from there? A bit arbitrary, but this seems the best to me.

I'm being difficult here, and I apologize, but really, I'm fine with editing this to conform with whatever you think is appropriate. It's just that you've never really explained what you think that is. - Atarr 00:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally (and admittedly, this is really nitpicking) wouldn't the appropriate tag to put there be the {{Citations missing}} tag? - Atarr 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you've got the idea! Additionally the ideas you have brought forth just now are identical to the ones I suggested. Like I said earlier, ideally every statement should be sourced, but that would just be redundant is all the statements in said section came from one source. So I gave some suggestions that mirrored yours. For example, there could be a statement that the summary is from the source you provided. Or you could simply state at the top that the following is the game summary and then, per per WP:Citing sources, you could reference that sentence, and that would constitute as sufficient for verifiability. (The latter is probably the preferred method.) My regards, ~ UBeR 06:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, you did make the one suggestion (albeit after saying you couldn't think of a way to make it more clear) of adding a note that specifically states that this is a summary, but like I said, this is terribly clunky, and given the title of the section, it seems unnecessary. I went with the option that I said seemed best to me, which was simply footnoting the first piece of information derived from the summary. I hope you find this satisfactory.

You're not planning on throwing a {{Citations missing}} tag on the game summaries of the other 40 Super Bowls, are you? - Atarr 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't. But I want you to keep in mind the paramount importance of referencing sources. This is a big problem in Misplaced Pages, and is often source of many a criticisms from the pundits. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and as such it must maintain its credibility and integrity through is verifiability. So keep in mind, Misplaced Pages is not about telling the truth, but rather to verifiable knowledge. (See the quote on my main user page).

Keep in mind as well that what is being stated in Misplaced Pages must also be what is being stated by the source that is being referenced. ~ UBeR 19:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Word of thanks for UBeR Good morning (GMT time); I'd like to thank you for supporting, opposing, taking a neutral stance to, closing, suggesting I close or otherwise contributing to my recent RfA; unfortunately, I felt that although there were more support than oppose votes, the weight of the latter was too great for me to accept the promotion with so many not trusting me with the janitor's trolley - I therefore decided to end my nomination prematurely. The feedback I received was invaluable, and I am striving to start afresh with all of the advice my fellow Wikipedians offered. In order to meet the aim of adapting to your advice, I've drew up a list of aims (located here) which I intend to follow from this point onwards. If you have any further advice or comments for me, don't hesitate to post me a message at my talk page where it will be graciously and humbly accepted. Once again, thank you and I do hope to bump into you around the encyclopedia! Regards, Anthonycfc

Behavioural Aims: edit  User:Anthony cfc/Aims/Behavioural Participation Aims: edit  User:Anthony cfc/Aims/Participation

Don't hesitate to add to these - just drop me a message so I know!

Award

In recognition of your efforts to tidy up the spelling, grammar, and formatting of various Misplaced Pages articles, I hereby award you an Umlaut for your U. Use it wisely and well, ÜBeR. Raymond Arritt 05:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Thank you very much and thank you for noticing. A vast majority of my edits are those of small tidying ups. Often going unnoticed, I feel they actually contribute quite a bit for the overall appeal to an article. It's so dreadful reading messy articles! ~ UBeR 06:04, 13 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.

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)