User talk:UBeR/Archive 2

Kanye West Revert
For catching that vandal before I could:

Have a nice day :D E. Sn0 = 31337 = Talk to me :D 04:11, 9 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)

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[s] creationism and preach[es] against evolution from the pulpits and sponsor[s] lectures and debates on the subject" is not necessarily "common knowledge." Like the link you posted, Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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)

Three-Revert Rule
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. --  tariq abjotu  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)

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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!

 * 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 Wikipedia (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 would work better. -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello; thank you for contacting me. I added the template because the article lacks sources. Two of Wikipedia's most fundamental polices are no original research and verfiability. I could go around an labeling every statement without a reference with a  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 (Adopt a State) 19:03, 7 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 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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   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 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 Wikipedia, and is often source of many a criticisms from the pundits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it must maintain its credibility and integrity through is verifiability. So keep in mind, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia must also be what is being stated by the source that is being referenced. ~ UBeR 19:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Award

 * 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)