User talk:UBeR/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

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

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

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

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

American and British English

Hi UBeR,

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

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

Ruakh 03:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

John Wayne

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

"Web sites"/"websites"

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

Regarding [2], no I did not blit away any other major edit - i did check first. The only other edits you made in your original edit were only minor layout issues - things were fine anyway. Please by all means revert to the original lowercase version of the article and remake the minor edits. Given you have made a major change throughout the article to capitalise every use of "web" then it is you that should be getting consensus for this change on the article's talk page - I only reverted to the version of the article which has had the normal/common lowercase usage for a long time. Thanks/wangi 20:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Love the irony!

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

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

Internal linking of dates

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

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

"Reports that disagree"

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

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

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

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

No Personal attacks

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

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

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

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

Microsoft

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

T-34

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