User talk:UBeR/Archive 5

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Thank You

Thank you for your efforts to defend the ideals of Wikipedia. I recognize the abuse you have endured, and am deeply saddened by it. At the risk of being banned (how unfortunate that I should even have such a fearful thought), I must say that in my personal opinion, WMC should take a self-imposed, long-term hiatus from Wikipedia. This would go far to alleviate the crushing level of demoralization surrounding the GW discussion, as felt by myself and I suspect several others (again, this is only my opinion, and should not reflect poorly on UBeR). Anyway, thanks again, you have my respect. --64.222.222.25 06:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

References work on GW

I'd just like to extend my thanks for your work formatting the references in the global warming article. Although we may have differences in opinion regarding what the focus of the article should be, I appreciate the effort you've given towards improving the article. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Cielomobile. Thanks for you kind words. ~ UBeR 00:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks very much - it's no easy task! Hal peridol 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice job

Hey man I saw all your awards and stuff, nice job man. Jampend 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the comments, Jampend. ~ UBeR 17:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No prob.Jampend

And thanks

O and also thanks for helping me with my electoral college debate man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jampend (talk • contribs) 17:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

No problem. I'm willing to discuss politics and government with anyone. :-) Cheers. ~ UBeR 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

lol

Lol now I get why you seemed like such a expert on minimum wage...you wrote the page. Well let me say that was a big help in my paper man.Jampend 17:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, helped write some of it. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. :-) ~ UBeR 17:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
true Jampend 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wondering what your reasons were? Martin Blythe 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I have self-reverted myself. I took the domain name, sexualfables, to be inappropriate at first glance.
Thanks for restoring it - Martin Blythe 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

World Climate Report

Somebody, (Connolley or Arritt maybe?), has raised the question of notability regarding the WCR article. The notice threatens deletion in the absence of references to published, third party sources. Is this a strong arm tactic since I challenged attempts to bias the article? Geoffrey Allan Plauche 15:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong arm :)? Connolley started the article, and isn't likely to delete it! I put the notability notice on it because I have never heard of these people and there is nothing in the article to suggest they are more notable than a parish gazette. --BozMo talk 15:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, BozMo. I read the differences between revisions wrong. Your short note read at first like you were surprised at the notice. I suspected Connolley had started the article. What kind of evidence are you looking for exactly? That is, what would satisfy you? Please respond on the WCR article page. Sorry to clog up your talk page with this UBeR. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 15:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary Definition

re: User:UBX/Zero Carbon Emissions

net
  1. remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross): net earnings.
  2. sold at a stated price with all parts and charges included and with all deductions having been made.
  3. final; totally conclusive: After all that work, what was the net result?
;-)
--One Salient Oversight 23:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

link

God point. I think I missed the "net." Cheers. ~ UBeR 23:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Your personal attack on the GW talk page was uncalled for. What precipitated such a comment? --Skyemoor 01:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a personal attack, just a personal observation of you inconsistencies. ~ UBeR 02:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Somehow or another I managed to delete your comment [1] - this must have been an edit conflict, I'm unsure. Anyway, my apologies William M. Connolley 20:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. ~ UBeR 20:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Solar system warming, Mark II

WMC and I have had a brief discussion on my talk page. How would you feel about retitling the article something like "climates of the planets"? It wouldn't be such a loaded term, and would admit a broader scope of material. Raymond Arritt 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dr. Arritt. I appreciate you contacting me on my talk page. I left a reply in the discussion on your talk page. ~ UBeR 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Minnesota

Punct inside of quotes drives me nuts, but you are right to change it :) -Ravedave 04:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ravedave. Thanks for contacting me on my talk page! I understand your annoyance. I feel just the opposite though: punctuation outside of quotation marks drives me nuts! I hope it seems reasonable to use American English punctuation in an article on Minnesota though. My regards, ~ UBeR 04:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Note

Hi, Jonathunder. Please do not mark good faith edits as vandalism. It's rude and incivil. My regards, ~ UBeR 04:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What? What edit? Jonathunder 04:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
here. ~ UBeR 04:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF? It's pretty obvious he is trying to keep the page vandalism free and your edit got in the mess somehow. -Ravedave 04:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I was rolling back a vandalism and must have hit the wrong version, my apologies. There are a lot of fast edits there right now. On the above subject, punctuation goes inside quotations only if exactly thus in the original. This is Wikipedia style for all types of articles, including those in American English. Jonathunder 04:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, then. ~ UBeR 05:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"a few"

This[2] is exactly what I feared and suspected would happen after Tjsynkral replaced that silly citation, but I never suspected you'd be the one to do it. I hoped he would understand the danger of his actions, but apparently he's looking at this from some other angle. At any rate, I give up on Wikipedia. I'm not going to spend my time bickering on the internet, trying to get reasonable things done on a supposedly collaborative project. --Triple-Deuce 00:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, Triple-Deuce, I feel the same way you do. I hate the wording just as much as any other reasonable person would. There are not many options we have with that article because of the few people who needn't be mentioned here. My reason behind the change was just as you said, the reference Tjsykral put at the end of your sentence was the same as before, but just as before, the reference was not stating what our sentence was. Neither your wording nor the previous wording is good, but given the reference, the former is preferred, in my opinion. Best of luck, ~ UBeR 04:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Global warming skeptic in my own backyard (Capitol Hill)

So it appears Senator Thomas M. Neuville of the Minnesota Senate serving Senate District 25 of Minnesota denies the idea of anthropogenic global warming. I don't think he flat out states it anywhere, but his comments are more than enough to frighten the citizens of Minnesota. Interestingly, he states this article "supports the arguments I have been making this legislative session on both the global warming and smoking ban issue." So I wonder what his track record is for the legislative sessions regarding the health effect of smoking and global warming. I'll see if I can find it, or if anyone knows a good way to find out I'd be happy to hear. He runs a blog on a variety of issues, including the ones above. ~ UBeR 22:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So he is a skeptic and has voted against global warming bills. ~ UBeR 08:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
And an interesting post coming from Dr. Robinson about the Oregon Petition he authored and J. Oerlemans' paper in Science about glaciers. ~ UBeR 18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

Hi Uber I see your reasoning. Clearly it's interesting that it was on a bumper sticker at a Dead concert in '93. I guess your saying there's not enough evidence. So we'll all pretend that it wasn't. Okay.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.74.213.62 (talk • contribs)

What in the world are you talking about? ~ UBeR 06:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh... the Morse v. Frederick case? Clearly we can't be speculating things. See what Wikipedia is not (i.e. speculation). Also see our policies on verifiability and original research. Cheers, mate. ~ UBeR 06:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial atmospheres

Hi UBeR! I saw your article at extraterrestrial atmospheres, and I think this has the potential of becoming a useful resource (a view which I suspect Raymod shares). There is one problem, however: The GFDL requires proper attribution of the contributors. In Wikipedia, this ia achieved by the history, which exactly details who contributed what. However, you seem to have restarted the article, not moved it. This loses the history. I don't mind about my contributions, but others may. The best way would be to find a friendly Admin to temporarily ressurect Solar system warming, and then to move it (including the history).

Good luck! --Stephan Schulz 08:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to do this. Please check and let me know. I am afraid it means the article reflects the last version before move and any changes by UBeR afterwards have been lost. I am happy to recover them if you cannot remember them. --BozMo talk 11:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was not aware of this. ~ UBeR 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Christy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Zeeboid 23:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Christy.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

Do You watch Glenn Beck?

He had a special on Global warming you'd probably like Exposed: The Climate of Fear.--Zeeboid 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't watch Glenn Beck, but I've heard of global warming special he aired. I've seen some of his stuff on CNN, and I've tried watching some of his stuff recently, but he tends to espouse stupid ideas and over-dramatizes every thing. But I guess that's the nature of cable news, eh? ~ UBeR 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome!

Geez, I was beginning to think that wikipedia ignores newbs. Sorry, I'm an emmigrant from uesp.net, and I'm here to help as I can.

By the by, can you help me to "pimp my talk page"? Somercy 19:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, hello there. A lot of people here take the "elitist" mentality, and usually ignore newcomers. I think they are some of our greatest assets at Wikipedia, however. I'm free to help if you any question. ~ UBeR 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't really have any questions yet, per se. How'd you find me, anyway? Somercy 19:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably after reading this from here. ~ UBeR 19:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh, sounds elitist now. I'm doing a lit paper on memes, and how the terms used online. Somercy 19:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In or out?

You said in when you took it out. [3] Aim again? (SEWilco 02:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

"Experience teaches slowly and at the cost of mistakes." ~ UBeR 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

FAR of Niagara Falls

Niagara Falls has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. V60 干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4 19:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed

I'm quite disappointed that you erroneously jumped to this [4] [5] [6] interpretation of this [7] argument. Raymond Arritt 19:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so maybe I ran with Zeeboid's comments a bit too far. I apologize for that. However, I can't say I necessarily agree that because a person is of the opposite party of a chairman that their statements are fundamentally unreliable. ~ UBeR 19:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I hope you can see where the ambiguity arises. Leaving the blanks such as you did, as ChildhoodsEnd points out, leaves a rather peculiar message. ~ UBeR 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 30 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yuri Izrael, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, ALoan. I just saw it a few minutes ago, and added the respective template to the article talk page. :-) ~ UBeR 22:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Lol so why did you remove mine and replace yours and say no need for two? ~ UBeR 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

GW

No need to discuss anything. I just saw someone removing a whole section and thought it was fishy, so I looked through the history, the featured versions, and the some of the discussion etc and found out it wasn't a long standing section. If it had been, you would have been wrong to remove it without discussing it on the talk page first, at least in my opinion. Aaron Bowen 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my point. The section was brand new and undiscussed. ~ UBeR 16:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)