:I'm not. I'm just doing a big cleanup that it needs, regardless of where the previous information came from. Most of it, if I can remember, was from before you started editing the article. Remember, we're here to write an encyclopedic article, not a game guide. (Also please sign your comments using four tildes.) ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not. I'm just doing a big cleanup that it needs, regardless of where the previous information came from. Most of it, if I can remember, was from before you started editing the article. Remember, we're here to write an encyclopedic article, not a game guide. (Also please sign your comments using four tildes.) ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
::If it were a game guide I would have given in depth detail, added a quest list, monster locations, etc. Don't really understand why you keep chinese masteries but remove european masteries?? Ought to check into what you're deleting before you actually do it. I was tidying it up myself, putting SOx into its own section instead of randomly placing it in the article, between chinese and european equipment. I see everything is essentially how it was. Unordered, misinformed. [[User:Windedhero|Windedhero]] 04:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
::If it were a game guide I would have given in depth detail, added a quest list, monster locations, etc. Don't really understand why you keep chinese masteries but remove european masteries?? Ought to check into what you're deleting before you actually do it. I was tidying it up myself, putting SOx into its own section instead of randomly placing it in the article, between chinese and european equipment. I see everything is essentially how it was. Unordered, misinformed. [[User:Windedhero|Windedhero]] 04:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
::It's been re-added now. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:::It's been re-added now. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
::Also if you might, the chinese equipment section has been reverted to before my work on tidying it up, and the european equipment references to information that is no longer there. Thanks. [[User:Windedhero|Windedhero]] 04:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Also if you might, the chinese equipment section has been reverted to before my work on tidying it up, and the european equipment references to information that is no longer there. Thanks. [[User:Windedhero|Windedhero]] 04:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 04:22, 6 August 2007
Welcome to UBeR's talk page
I reserve the right to tidy up; format; edit; and, yes, even delete messy, disorganized, spurious, fallacious, or insulting messages.
I'm sorry you're leaving. Just before I started my Wikibreak, I meant to leave a note saying that, despite all our run-ins, I thought you were making a positive contribution. JQ03:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Quiggin, I cannot thank you enough for the powerful insights you have provided. I must apologize with my deepest sincerity if I ever offended you with any of my comments. Despite our differing opinions on a few issues I think you are a genuinely good guy. Keep up your good work on Wikipedia. ~ UBeR19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hey
hey man, it's me Jampend, sorry your leaving man, btw we won that debate I told you about. I kinda forgot my pass to jampend lol, thats why Im on here. But hey, thanks again, and thanks again for all that help you gave me.
O and btw...I looked at your article on the Execution of Saddam Hussaia...man that thing was so goooood. The way you stayed nutruel...nuetrul...something like that...ANYWAY...the way you stayed however you spell that word was amzing man...good job. Jammerocker16:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good bye and Do not Come Back!
Sure, you were accurate on Saddam's Execution, but you were overdoing it way too many times, argued with people over stupid things like the time of his execution, 6:05 was the official time and you did not like that, then you did not like the links, the hangings video, you wanted something perfect without any respect to execution itself. People like you (and they are majority here) do not deserve to screw around with important biographies, no wonder wikipedia is not taken seriously anymore, hope it never will be and people like you contribute to it!!!
Of course this languange here is inappropriate and certain people...(administrators dont care about accuracy as usual) will revert it, ok fine-no neutrality, never here buddy! Top Hypocrisy rules here! I mean, you can not live on details.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.247 (talk • contribs)
Sir, whoever you might be, you ought to be more polite if you really want people to pay attention to what you write. (Just a note to any administrator or editor: feel free to delete this section if you feel it's uncivil--I don't mind.) To address your issue, however, you say Wikipedia cannot be trusted for accuracy, but then you get on me for trying to create an accurate article, even if it gets down to the fine details. I don't quite understand what you mean by perfection without respect to the execution, but be assured I mean for nothing but the best for the whole article. If there's something you disagree with, you are free to discuss it on the talk page. ~ UBeR01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UBeR, you're kidding, right? "feel free to delete this section if you feel it's uncivil". It would only be uncivil if you were a part of an admin's clique. -- Tony G06:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UBeR, you're kidding, again, right? "you are free to discuss it on the talk page". Have not learned how Wikipedia works yet? If you are in an admin's clique the procedure is to delete content without discussion and demand discussion occurs prior to undoing your changes. If you are NOT in an admin's clique the procedure is to discuss everything but do not change anything without the blessing of the admin owning the page. -- Tony G06:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tony. Although being an administrator is no big deal and wields no special power over normal content editing, it does seem like quite a few people appeal to the fact that they are, or someone else is, an administrator, and most people seem to fall to this appeal. You might call it argumentum ad verecundiam.
Nonetheless, the talk page proves to be a very helpful place to voice one's concerns. Even if no one listens, it will still be on the record. And thus, on the article at hand, execution of Saddam Hussein, we actually ran into an administrator named William Connolley. This was before I began editing global warming and was my first run-in with the administrator. He was attempting to censor the execution, and actually abused his administrator powers by locking the article and editing content--a big no-no. But overwhelmingly the editors rejected this type of thinking and behavior that is contradictory to Wikipedia and, through countless discussions and votes, reason prevailed. So even when it seems like you're the underdog, conducting yourself professionally and engaging in discussion in such a way that people can actually agree with you, one's time here may not seem so fruitless. ~ UBeR18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hey mister no name...what the heck is your problem man? O and btw if UBeR wrote the article dont you think he should have a little say so with what goes into the article? And when you said "people like you(and they are majority here) do not deserve to screw around with impportant biographies." Well have you ever used your eye's and read the part in some articles were it says "this page cannot be edited" (ok maybe this is kind of uncivil what im doing but o well") i mean come on dude, when you insult someone...make sure you got the facts strait...and if i get blocked for this then o well. one more thing...UBeR, you were not being uncivil...i am sorta lolJammerocker13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodbye - Wikipedia is richer for your contributions and poorer by your loss
UBeR, I am glad you contributed so greatly to Wikipedia and I hope many others will follow in your footsteps. I hope that one day you will once again take up your role as "Defender of the Truth" at Wikipedia. I wish you great success in your education and future career. Warm regards. ~ Rameses01:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is too bad that the hateful, vindictive people who targeted you have pushed so many good editors like yourself out of Wikipedia. To what end? To advance their political views in the most intolerant and cowardly way: eliminating all who do not endorse their opinions as fact. The sad part is I run into more and more people who refuse to refer to Wiki-pinionsBias-pedia Wikipedia because of how bad the bias is. I encounter more and more professors in my office who prohibit Wikipedia being used as a reference whatsoever because the content is questionable in too many articles.
Sir, please keep in touch...and feel free to call in the show as we go through the facts and fictions of Global Warming this summer and fall with a list of interviews on both sides of the debate coming on. -- Tony G06:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, same here. feel free to e-mail me for contact (through wikipedia), as there's some fun stuff i'm sure we could chat about. Automobiles and games are quite a passion with me... ammong oter things I'm sure you'd dig.--Zeeboid20:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that you are leaving. It would be nice if you stayed and edited. It might be less stressful if you just contributed to less controversial articles. That way you wouldn't have to worry about crazy lunatics attacking your ideas. As any good student from Central would say, "Don't let those player haters get you down." On another note, I am very curious as to your relationship to this great educational institute . It would be very nice if you could elaborate. P.Haney19:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked! As a skilled and careful writer, you should know that the singular is "alumnus" (or, possibly, "alumna"). Seriously, though, best of luck wherever life takes you next. Raymond Arritt15:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just as shocked. It must have slipped my mind... I was just talking about the word "visa" with a Dutch man. In Dutch, the word is "visum," and "visa" for plural. This obviously made things more difficult to understand when discussing visas. :O ~ UBeR19:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UBer, we butted heads a few times on the GW article (all part of the process, I hope you will agree), but I just wanted to say that your input was valuable and your contributions are missed. Cheers, Arjuna08:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm awarding you this prestigious Defender of the Wiki Barnstar because you have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Jammerocker09:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article that im making
Hey I am making a article on Geyre and i could really use some helpl if you get any spare time man...thanks...Jammerocker
Perhaps GW is caused by intergalactic worms which were released from the spaceship whose crash caused the Tunguska event? LOL - does this mean you are now an AGW skeptic?
By the way UBeR, I wanted to add my voice to all those who regret your decision to depart Wikipedia. You were a staunch advocate for neutrality and the truth - I don't think Wikipedia has a chance if hard working, honest editors like you leave in disgust. -- Brittainia22:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you did. I did not always understand you but I always accepted that you were working in the interest of a good wikipedia. That is how I am too. I have sorta had to leave wikipedia because of too much work, but also because I am tired of having to fight for tiny scraps of NPOV. Like in Global Warming, where I do not really have an ax to grind either way, but just wanted articles to be fair, balanced and neutral. In your case, even if I did not always agree with you, I felt I could trust you to be working toward the same objective -- so I always thought discussion with you was possible. --Blue Tie02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I left in the sense that I am no longer an active participant in this project, but I will show up when there are major errors needed to be cited or fixed. Anyway, I am glad you did stumble across the global warming article in your adventure though Wikipedia, as I feel you were a voice of reason, whether others thought so or not. I recognized your intent in civilized discussion and motivation for neutrality. For this, I thank you. It's too bad not too many others recognized this, but that I guess that is the nature of the free-for-all they call Wikipedia. ~ UBeR01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a Wikiproject Grammar member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sheerness article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr12317:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't re-write your talk page comments to fix your mistakes [3] once I've pointed them out, because it makes my comments incomprehensible. If you must do this, please strike out the old and clearly indicate whats new. Better would be simply to add a reply after mine. And while you're re-writing, please get rid of the "Will", unless you're deliberately being offensive William M. Connolley21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll remember to strike next time. (Although, I don't know what I would have struck in this case.) It is what I originally meant, however, so I thought it innocuous enough to change. I also just noticed you actually deleted my talk page comments--an offense much more egregious than simply clarifying one's self. Please see Wikipedia's talk page guidelines here for further details. Also, I use Will as it a much simpler variation of William, much as one might call Richard Cheney Dick. If it is in fact your given name, I see no reason to not use it.
Like I say - don't use Will, unless you wish to be deliberately offensive. It seems that you do so wish. As for talk etiquette, please read the page: It is best to avoid having to change one's comments. Other users may already have quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise reacted to your statement... Changing or deleting comments after someone replied is likely to cause problems, because it will put the reply in a different context. In that case you have several options: Ask the person who replied (on their talk page) if it's OK to delete or change your text; use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration. Notice how "silently alter your original comment" isn't on this list? William M. Connolley22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't use Will if you do in fact find your given name to be offensive.
Now that you have read the talk page guidelines, I'm sure you ran across the part where it stated quite clearly, "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is not allowed." It does go on to list exceptions, no of which your edits fall under. I have left a warning on your talk page so as make absolutely clear you are aware that your actions are completely counterproductive and offensive. Your actions are in direct conflict with Wikipedia's vandalism policy, so I suggest you re-think what you're doing. I would also like to make clear my edits were not "silently altering" anything, but rather clearly marked clarifications of what I originally meant. Please cease and desist further vandalism of my comments. Thank you. ~ UBeR22:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I'm committing vandalism, I invite you to report me for it, where you will be clearly told that your interpretation is wrong. I did not change the meaning of your comments: I restored them to your original meaning. I know you find making errors very embarassing - your editor review demonstrated how hard it is for you to admit error - but silently correcting your mistakes isn't permissible. And yes, its silent, in the sense that people reading the exchange afterwards won't know about it. You are, as the ettiquette page sez, allowed to strike things out, or add new in [brackets], if you want William M. Connolley22:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will report you if you do continue your vandalism. Whether or not other administrators waive their interpretation for the benefit of other administrators, I do not care. The policy is unambiguous: you are not allowed to edit other's comments where it is completely unwarranted. Your actions here are unbecoming of an administrator; I thought you would have learned after all this time. If you do not believe you are in fact changing the meaning of anything I am saying, that is, the meaning wouldn't change with your edits, then why are you deleting my comments? It is completely counter to policy to do so. My meaning has always been the same: it was warmer sometime between 450 and 800 kyr ago than originally thought. Because you could no understand this when I first wrote it, I clarified my comments. Clarifications of my original meanings are far from "correcting errors" and are completely permissible. Your misinterpretations of my words as errors give you no right to remove my comments. And if I did in fact correct an error in my comment (which I didn't)--you still reserve no right to remove my comments. It is contradictory to Wikipedia policy. Also, the talk page guidelines don't state that one has to use brackets to clarify their original comments, although I recognize it as the de facto manner in which it done. In fact, I was going to do this--that is, until you completely vandalized my comments. ~ UBeR22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you two please stop bitching around about what should be a trivial incident that could have been avoided with minimal good faith by either of you? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I would very much desire. Like I said earlier, my edits were innocuous--his were vandalism. ~ UBeR23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not miss it, I ignored it. I was trying to stop a useless and belingerent back-and-forth without mixing in content issues. Your new version is still unneccessarily provocative, but a massive improvement that at least does not reinstate to very problem you (plural) were wasting your time and my patience on. Get rid of the name-calling, and I'll be happier still. And have a good night (I will, now). --Stephan Schulz00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be for the community to decide. The purpose of the talk pages is to improve the article. Your (plural) debate (to misuse the word) wasn't going to do that. --Stephan Schulz00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(remove indent) Well, Dr. Schulz, my post was to start discussion for the improvement of the article. William M. Connolley asked why have the DNA paper and gave several explanations as for why he removed content from the article. My post was to address the problems people who study climate, such as William M. Connolley, have with the paper and why they feel uneasy about the findings of fact in said paper. Also, at least one user was curious as to what the findings in the paper showed, so I felt obliged to discuss those findings so as to further discussion on Dr. Willerslev et al.'s paper. So while it might be convenient to simply ignore all of this, it isn't exactly constructive and most certainly could result in something neither of us wants. ~ UBeR00:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 24 hours
For continue deliberate incivility and general trouble making, including but not limited to:
Modifying your own comments so as to invalid WMC's
Revert warring with him over such edits
Reverting him with the edit summary "Rvv" - revert vandalism
Referring to WMC as "Will" despite him telling you that he found it offensive
Putting a ban notice on WMC's talk page
Referring to Stephan's above edits as vandalism ("Also your deletion of comments could be considered vandalism.")
Raul654, have you even read any of the policies at Wikipedia? I am allowed to edit my own comments to correct typos and clarify statements. This is 100% permissible, and banning someone for it is completely unwarranted. Nothing of William M. Connolley's was invalidated other than the clearly false statements made prior to any editing. Likewise, one cannot edit war with theirself--there is always another party; William M. Connolley reverted the same edit more than I did, yet I don't see you banning him. I wonder why. Next, Wikipedia's policy on vandalismclearly states, "Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged." The talk page guidelines goes on to say, "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is not allowed." Clearly it was vandalism, and I marked it as such. I called William M. Connolley by his given name, "Will," in my original post but made no further reference to this name subsequent to his reference of his name as "offensive." Either you want to me correct my edits or you don't--which is it? Putting a warning on his talk page was explained above, and is typical protocol for warning users in violation of Wikipedia policy. Also note William M. Connolley did not take it upon himself to remove the warning from his talk page (and instead called me "stupid.") Last, I said Dr. Schulz's comment editing could be considered vandalism, which is not calling them vandalism in itself. There is nothing wrong with saying what might potentially be vandalism (see quoted policy above) as potential vandalism. Please reconsider your actions here, as your actions are clearly based on misguided personal vendettas rather than findings of fact. ~ UBeR05:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I am allowed to edit my own comments to correct typos and clarify statements. This is 100% permissible, and banning someone for it is completely unwarranted. Nothing of William M. Connolley's was invalidated other than the clearly false statements made prior to any editing. Likewise, one cannot edit war with theirself--there is always another party; William M. Connolley reverted the same edit more than I did, yet I don't see you banning him. I wonder why. Next, Wikipedia's policy on vandalismclearly states, "Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged." The talk page guidelines goes on to say, "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is not allowed." Clearly it was vandalism, and I marked it as such. I called William M. Connolley by his given name, "Will," in my original post but made no further reference to this name subsequent to his reference of his name as "offensive." Either you want to me correct my edits or you don't--which is it? Putting a warning on his talk page was explained above, and is typical protocol for warning users in violation of Wikipedia policy. Also note William M. Connolley did not take it upon himself to remove the warning from his talk page (and instead called me "stupid.") Last, I said Dr. Schulz's comment editing could be considered vandalism, which is not calling them vandalism in itself. There is nothing wrong with saying what might potentially be vandalism (see quoted policy above) as potential vandalism. The block appears fueled by a rather misguided personal vendetta rather than actual violations of policies.
Decline reason:
While you are allowed to edit your own comments, changing them in significant ways shouldn't be done without trace; there are ways to indicate that you are amending a previous comment. WMC disagreed with you. You both ended up getting very heated, and a lot of the escalation was carried out by you. Personally, if I was in WMC's position, instead of re-reverting you, I would have just made a comment about what you had done instead, to make the record clear. But the point here is you've been digging yourself deeper and deeper in this little hole. You are misreading WP:VANDAL and WP:TALK badly, and this was pointed out to you already. WMC was not altering the meaning of your comments, but rather, making a reasonable protest to you changing your own comment in a way that makes his comment look dumb. I would be leaving an admonishment on WMC's page but he seems to have already come to his senses, so there's no point. Lastly, this is just a 24-hour block, it's not the end of the world. See you tomorrow. Mangojuicetalk20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
That's absurd. You and I both know banning someone for clarifying their own comments is ridiculous. ~ UBeR22:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Invite
I notice you have expressed an interest in logic. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on logic topics. We at the project invite your participation and correspondence. Be well.
Hey man...sorry I keep forgetting my passes...its Jampend/Jammerocker...long time no see...talk...hey check out my userpage and see if you can figure out the trick UserBox...its actually pretty simple....have fun!Vandalfighter10119:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UBeR: It is good to see you editing this article again. As you have noted before, it needs references. It is an impressive piece of work, and properly referenced it would be a good addition to the state's other featured articles. I hope you will have the opportunity to supply the cites. Regards, Kablammo16:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I haven't much desire to devote much of time to Wikipedia anymore. Nonetheless, I'll try to find some good references to add, and invite anyone to help. :) ~ UBeR16:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found several links, which can verify a bit of the article. Now it's a matter of citing them as sources. :) ~ UBeR16:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will be glad to help where I can. I have created or dabbled in a few related articles, Glacial River Warren, River Warren Falls, Traverse Gap, and Geology of Minnesota, but didn't want to take on your piece of work. Articles such as these do not attract people with agendas, and the editors of Minnesota-related articles have always been able to work out differences of opinion (which often turn out to be only differences in emphasis). In any case it's good to have you back. Kablammo16:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These look like some very good articles. And I'm the sure the glacial history article could be expanded or at least revised. It's just a matter of finding people to do it. ~ UBeR16:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SRO wiki
Any reason why you're undoing all my work on the silk road online wiki?
'Big cleanup' doesn't quite suffice essentially removing anything I've contributed to it. Windedhero04:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. I'm just doing a big cleanup that it needs, regardless of where the previous information came from. Most of it, if I can remember, was from before you started editing the article. Remember, we're here to write an encyclopedic article, not a game guide. (Also please sign your comments using four tildes.) ~ UBeR03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a game guide I would have given in depth detail, added a quest list, monster locations, etc. Don't really understand why you keep chinese masteries but remove european masteries?? Ought to check into what you're deleting before you actually do it. I was tidying it up myself, putting SOx into its own section instead of randomly placing it in the article, between chinese and european equipment. I see everything is essentially how it was. Unordered, misinformed. Windedhero04:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you might, the chinese equipment section has been reverted to before my work on tidying it up, and the european equipment references to information that is no longer there. Thanks. Windedhero04:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
