User talk:UBeR/Archive 8

A suggestion
UBeR, I suggest you just leave Raul alone. Don't bait him; while I'm not sure that we [he] would stop trying to get you blocked or whatnot, you'd certainly be in a more defensible position if you don't rise up to meet him. David Fuchs ( talk ) 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * David Fuchs, I appreciate your opinion, but comments like "we [wouldn't] stop trying to get you blocked or whatnot" are not exactly persuasive (or nice or warranted or prudent). I also have to say I don't really know what you're talking about. If I have anything to say about Raul654, it is only statements of fact. ~ UBeR 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ...oh. I meant to say "he would stop trying..." Bad typo :( David Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, then I understand what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying that. While I'm sure he will never stop trying to get me banned from this project, it is the basis for his reasoning that I quarrel with. And I think to not point out these obvious flaws in logical reasoning would be a disservice for all the Wikipedians who strive for a Wikipedia in which they can safely edit without the fears of being banned by renegade administrators who cede to their personal emotions and feelings; it would be a disservice for all the Wikpedians who strive for an encyclopedia in which they know all the policies will be adhered to by all of its users in spite of appeals to authority. So for that, if I do encounter something that is so contrary to what Wikipedia is about, so devoid of logic, so inappropriate and without integrity, it will be duly noted. ~ UBeR 21:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * David, I would be sympathetic to your proposition but I can understand UBeR's stand. I must say that to me, Raul654 is an instance of failure of the WP community's capacity to honor its principles, fix things and show example (perhaps you did not see this obvious case of repetitive personnal attacks, one example among many). There's plenty of admins with divergent point of views but who know where to responsibly draw the line between their opinions and their actions. At some point, people need to rise up to this. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Inquiry
I am reluctant to take that step regarding User:Callmebc but I agree it is needed now. He has been abusing and accusing people for months and getting warned and sometimes blocked for it on a regular basis. You may also want to ask User:Alabamaboy, User:AuburnPilot and User:Chris_Chittleborough as well. Jmcnamera 14:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I might support, but simply haven't decided yet if he's worth the bother. (SEWilco 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Well he's been banned for a week, so I'll figure out what to do in the meantime. Thanks for your replies. ~ UBeR 22:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi UBeR! You might be interested in Administrators%27 noticeboard. --Stephan Schulz 13:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. ~ UBeR 21:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc
Please do not engage Callmebc on his talk page. It was unprotected for a limited purpose, which was not to continue a content dispute. Thank you. -- But | seriously | folks   02:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well. ~ UBeR 05:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:COL help
Hi UBeR, If you have time could you please check these articles: Geography of Colombia, Geology of Colombia and Environmental issues in Colombia.. thanks -- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 05:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey there. These sound like some very interesting articles. I'll make sure to check them out. I also added myself to the Wikiproject. Thanks for heads-up. ~ UBeR 07:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging WikiProject
Hi, there is a proposal to merge inactive WikiProject (WikiProject Climate change and WikiProject Energy development) into WikiProject Environment. Please voice your opinions. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Signature..
helpme Just today I noticed my signature has changed when I type " ~ ." Previously, it would simply state "UBeR [date]," but it now it writes "-- UBeR (talk) [date]." I checked my preferences to see if my signature line was somehow changed, but the box remains unchecked and the relevant field empty. Not sure what happened... ~ -- UBeR (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Per this discussion the code has changed so that talk pages are linked in the default signature, unless you've specified a custom sig. It'll save a huge number of clicks over the years, methinks. :-) I hope this helps! henrik  • talk  21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. Adding a link the talk page sounds fine, if not a bit unnecessary, but I've asked that they remove the "--", which is cantankerous. ~ -- UBeR (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC
Forgive me I'm a little confused about RfCs but know they are serious and not to be taken lightly (have only participated in one but it just started). Re: "Users certify the basis", and/or "those who endorse this statement". I believe I certify the basis, but not all of the statement. So do I sign under the "certify the basis" even though I did not try to resolve any dispute, nor was involved with the article? ~Jeeny (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I confused you in your talk page. You should sign under "endorse" if you agree with my findings of fact (I don't think it's reserved for involved editors) and I think you are allowed to change the statement. "Certifying the basis" is for people who can certify that they have tried to resolve this specific dispute with Raul654 prior to the RfC. If you have your own, uninvolved view, I think you can post in the "Outside views" section. If you have an outside view, you cannot endorse statements made by other people, I believe. ~ UBeR (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'm going to run this by an admin I trust to make sure before I sign. I don't feel like writing a view right now, but will if I am asked. ~Jeeny (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Coelacan said. My question though is what is it that you disagree with? ~ UBeR (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been in conflicts before, and I don't know the history of this one or it's editors. I do know that one gets to know the other editors on an article they've been working on, pro and con. Sometimes those from the outside don't understand the dynamics. I have reservations about the person Raul blocked. Even though I think it's very harsh, and Raul shouldn't have used his powers while involved in the conflict. I've had that happen to me, and it pissed me the hell off. So, I'm not really sure if the user did that to be a pest or what. I still don't think he deserved a punishing block though. There are many bigger pests out there who deserve indef blocks, but just get a slap on the wrist. Good luck, and take care. :) ~Jeeny (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Raul654 has a long history of harassing and abusing those with whom he disagrees at global warming, including unwarranted and inappropriate blocks, personal attacks, incivility, and inability to assume good faith. I, too, hardly know Obedium and have never spoken with him. I reviewed his edit history as well the revert that brought his block, and the week-long block as well as talk page protection is fully without justification, whichever way you look at it.. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that. But, I also read the RfC guidelines, and it says it is serious and should not be taken lightly and that all other efforts should be exhausted, or something to that affect. So, I think it should go to AN/I if anything, because I do think the block was very harsh. But, I don't think Raul should be blocked either. I wish he would shorten the block though, cause it looks bad to passersby. ~Jeeny (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%, these should not be taken lightly. I've already tried to deal with Raul654's behavior in the past, both on his talk page and relevant administrator notification boards as well as other venues, along with many other people who are displeased with this user's actions. I see no other place to go but to the peers through a RfC, especially regarding this egregious breach of policy to further his abuse on people with whom he disagrees. It's not acceptable under any circumstances. This is why I bring the RfC regarding his actions. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot the main thing. Raul did not protect a talk page, nor the article, but a user talk page. There is a big difference. Still, it's harsh, but see he has lifted it now. ~Jeeny (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I should also note I did not specifically ask that Raul654 be blocked. I asked that he be censured and appropriately punished for any violations that occurred. I certainly feel that is appropriate. However, regarding WP:PROTECT, Raul654 should not be protecting any page where he is involved as it relates to a content dispute. There are proper procedures for administrators to follow to ensure uninvolved administrators are the ones to protect pages, especially fully-protecting pages (except when the page is being vandalized). Even further, Raul654 had no right to protect the page, being involved or not. User page guidelines clearly allow users to remove warnings from their own talk pages. This has been debated before, and it has been established and accepted as such. Because Raul654 disagrees with the rest of the community does not justify a week-long protection on a user talk page. Period. ~ UBeR (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi UBeR, I've had a look at the changes/blocks made by Raul654 - and have signed the endorsement as an outside editor. Abuse of Admin privileges is a big deal, and should not be taken lightly. Let me know if/when you need any input. S facets 10:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree very much with this. As blocks are for prevention of further disruption, not to punish, as I often see happen. This abuse of power sucks. Power seems to corrupt for some of these admins. But, from my experience, nothing happens to the admin. Not even a warning. At least not where we, as little editors, can see. ~Jeeny (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing typically happens for many reasons. Disregarding the mentality and mindset of the editors and administrators of Wikipedia as it relates to the community, which are harder to quantify, there are obvious reasons like appeals to authority, which work for an unfortunate amount of people; mob/herd mentality of administrators; and lack of unity or power of the editors or both. As such, it disappoints me that you agree with Tariqabjotu who has mischaracterized the events as well "shrugged off" (his own words) Raul654's administrative actions. That is less than honorable and honest on Tariqabjotu's part, but I at least appreciate your taking interest in this particularly offensive act of Raul654's. ~ UBeR (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I also know how frustrating this is. BTW, I removed my signature from Tariqabjotu's view, not because it disappointed you, but I re-thought the situation, and should have stuck to my stance that I shouldn't be involved at all. I may though type up my own view, if I have time. My problem is, it isn't just Raul, there are a few others I have in mind, and I fear that I will be dumping it all on Raul when he is not the only one. I don't know where else to go with my concerns. It pisses me off. Like I said to another user having the same frustrations as you and I, that this kind of behavior by admins has made me pessimistic of this project because I see more of what's wrong and less of what's right. I feel betrayed in a sense. I feel there is a cabal, and I don't like it one bit. That's not what I thought Wikipedia was about.


 * I'm not saying there are no "good" admins, because I know there are. It's those who've let the power go to their heads and have become bad cops with big sticks, and no care nor remorse. I see it more and more each day I'm here. It sucks. I think there are far too many punitive blocks and it ruins the "atmosphere" and "integrity" of Wikipedia just as bad, if not worse, than the blatant trolls and vandals. It inflames more than it helps. When I was blocked for a week I had time to think alright. Since I couldn't edit, I dug in the bowels of Wikipedia and was sickened. Being punished as if you were a child and told to go stand in the corner does not calm the situation...maybe for them. Trigger happy admins set a poor example, and make the community that much more cynical, and pushes good editors away. Now blocking a child may work, but it does not work for adults. No way. Ah, I'm sorry I couldn't help more. Good night, er morning? :) Sorry for rambling. :/ ~Jeeny (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry--I couldn't agree more. On your point about Raul654 though, as it relates to the rest of power-hungry abusers, I think that if you see just one person doing something contrary to what Wikipedia would have them do, you should report it accordingly. Here we have Raul654 trampling over policy and stepping over the bounds of what is supposed to protect editors from renegade admins. I am here trying to resolve this dispute and I encourage you every bit to write your own view on this situation. And if you encounter this elsewhere, I strongly suggest you take appropriate action to ensure that such behavior isn't tolerated here. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you noticed now, Jeeny, but Tariqabjotu protected global warming after he finally acknowledge what I've been telling him from the get-go: It's an edit war and content dispute. However, William M. Connolley, a long-time contributor to the article, also an involved member of the dispute, unblocked the page without discussion and blocked User:DHeyward for making two reverts to the sentence that was protected by 1RR. And what we've ended up with is a user being blocked for a week by an involved administrator for disagreeing with that administrator in a content dispute, an administrator not being blocked for breaking a community 1RR, and a regular user being blocked by an involved administrator for breaking that same 1RR that others refused to enforce on Raul654. This autonomous, domineering, totalitarian group of individuals who wield the power to exert undue force have indeed had their day. And while people actually interested in making an encyclopedia notice it time and again, they are shoved away, "shrugged off," and ignored through fallacies and hypocrisy that would make any normal man wince in disgust. And so I believe Fuller was every bit correct when he proclaimed, "It is madness for sheep to talk peace with a wolf." I might find myself only seeing this RfC through and let that be the end of the madness. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This response is late, but better late than never: let me correct your statement that "Tariqabjotu protected global warming after he finally acknowledge what I've been telling him from the get-go: it's an edit war and content dispute". It seriously gets under my skin when people skew other people's actions to support their perspective. As I said on WP:AN3, "unless I see the situation seriously ramp up again (beyond just one issue out of the blue), I see no reason to protect the article". The situation, in my opinion, ramped up again and so I protected the article. That has nothing to do with acknowledging anything of yours (let alone, as your imply, Raul's block of Obedium). Your characterization of my action is entirely false and mere wishful thinking. I haven't seen your actions since the above comment, but I sincerely hope you have not used that story to further any position of yours and have also toned down your approach toward editors with whom you work. --  tariq abjotu  03:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't skew your actions. You protected the article because there was edit warring going on. I said to you that there was an edit war, which you ignored at first. If perhaps you took time at first to listen to what I was telling you and cared to observe the article history past a few hours of editing, it would have been just as evident to you then as it was to me. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming
Why would you unprotect a page being fully-protected due to a content dispute, when only only a handful (<5) actually agreed to any change? ~ UBeR (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The full protect was set to expire tomorrow anyway. Better to unprotect it while there was a semblance of agreement I figured. Perhaps I was not aware of exactly how many people were involved in the debate. If so, I apologize. My reading of the discussion implied the current debate had been largely resolved. But perhaps that was not the case. Regardless, it doesn't look like the edit war has resumed. If it does, just let me know and I will reprotect. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, the article is currently linked from the Main Page, so it would be nice to not have it fully protected. Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Email Me
I see that you have sort of come back. I'd be interested to talk with you a bit. My email is on my user page--Blue Tie (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would like to talk with me in private, I do believe I have my preferences set so as to allow e-mail from other Wikipedians who wish to use the "E-mail this user" option on the left side. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of sources
Regarding your recent undo of an edit made to the St._Cloud_State_University article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Cloud_State_University&diff=174525030&oldid=174509950

You state that the reference does not verify the statement. How does one go about citing a television program on wikipedia. The show in question, while not widely popular, does have a following and did cover the issue stated at this university. Being an attending student at the school, I find this piece of information interesting and while it may not be positive, it does make the campus here seem a bit more relevant. In any case, having seen the program, I can attest to the fact that St. Cloud State was a focus for at least a third of it's running time. The only real reference to verify this that I can find (outside of showing clips of the show) is the show's own website (as referenced) that gives mention of several St. Cloud State professors that appear as experts on the show.

Would it help to reword the statement itself to express that it is their view in addition to changing the source?

Apologies if I'm missing something and thanks in advance for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikenomn (talk • contribs) 04:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, Mikenomn. Thanks for talking with me on my talk page. I just watched the episode, and can verify the same. I think they're quite off mark on many things, but that's for some other time. Since the previously provided source could not support the sentence that was included, it would be appropriate to cite the actual episode. I will try to do that in a little bit. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hah, yes. That episode (and the show in general for that matter) should be taken with a grain of salt. Thank you for editing in the reference for me. I'll refer to your reference for any future similar edits. mikenomn (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Interest in St. Cloud State University
Your entries are enticing. What is your interest in St. Cloud State University? You are listed as one who edits copy in its entry on Wikipedia. Please respond to ljboone@stcloudstate.edu Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljboone (talk • contribs) 22:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Link to here from Talk:Global warming
Hello there. I noticed that the last warning box on top of Talk:Global warming links "as per this consensus" to your talk page, but I can't find any discussions that are relevant. (I scanned through your talk archives, looking for the topic title "What do you think of this?" and I couldn't find it.) Do you remember what discussion the box on the talk page is referring to? We should probably fix the link. Enuja (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference to my talk page was apparently added on October 1, 2007 by R. Baley for some reason. It is apparently a reference to this discussion. I'll remove the warning from the global warming talk page though. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

RC
Thanks :-) William M. Connolley 21:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cordilleras in Colombia
Hi UBeR, could you please help me clarify this article Cordillera Occidental, Andes. The user who created the article argues that all cordilleras orientales in the andes should be merged into one, including the three Colombian cordilleras Cordillera Occidental (Colombia), Cordillera Central (Colombia) and Cordillera Oriental (Colombia). The article just doesn't make any sense. -- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 14:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

RealClimate
Why are you removing William M. Connolley as a contributor at RealClimate? Also, have you no opinion on the current criticism debate there? --GoRight 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed his name because he no longer is a contributor to the site. ~ UBeR 20:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't generally visit that site.  I note that he is still in the "people" section there though, I assume that this will be addressed.  Since a number of prominent references to RealClimate have been added to Wikipedia while Mr. Connolley was a contributor there perhaps rather than simply deleting this association it would be more appropriate to leave him listed as "former contributor" or in an Alumnae section or some such.  Thoughts? --GoRight 20:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. ~ UBeR 20:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One more question for you given your responses here, which seem terse. I would appreciate a direct and to the point response and I won't ask you further.  Are you being terse (a) because you prefer to be terse, (b) because you disagree with my general approach to editing, (c) you fear I have become radioactive, or (d) some other reason and please explain?  I am just curious since you seem a reasonably fair person in your other commentary. --GoRight 20:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. I'm just rather busy right now. I only have time for a few words of input, at the moment. So for the sake brevity, I'll choose a. ~ UBeR 20:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * :) OK. Thanks.  --GoRight 20:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"It would be appropriate to do so"
It's not at all inappropriate to point out that they were awarded the Nobel. I don't intend to revert at the moment; it's late where I am. Presumably someone else will revert. I'll check again in the morning. Marskell (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Oh geez, your initial post was a typo; didn't mean to poke in posting, as I do it all the time.
 * I've addressed that on the article talk page. I think focusing on mitigation rather than the IPCC is would be appropriate for the mitigation section. I hope you agree. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Signature
I need help making a cool signature. Meanwhile, I have disabled it. Are you from Minnesota? Swarm Internationale (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, cool. Professor? Or Anoymous?
 * Is my current signature okay? (Signature meets the letter of the guideline, assuming enough contrast for the color blind).   S ωarm   I nternationale  03:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm remaining anonymous for now. :) Your signature is fine. It's just important to avoid a lot of sub and superscripts and many colors. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

edit wars
Would just like to make one point, if i may: I feel that an "edit war" is when one user makes a variety of positive, constructive edits, and then another user comes along and simply deletes them or reverts them all without any discussion. In this case, however, i accepted almost all of your edits, and simply re-added a sentence to indicate my thoughts on a slight adjustement which i felt was worth making; however, you simply deleted my sentence repeatedly. I'm not saying what you did was anything so severe; however, that is why i simply added it again, with a request in the edit summary to discuss this at the talk page. in a general sense, I could conceivably use the term "edit war" for your action; however, I actually don't feel that term would apply or needs to be used, but I wanted to mention that as a general point of procedure. I am glad this could be brought to the talk page, and could reach some resolution. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Steve, if we take your definition that it is bad when someone "comes along and simply deletes ... or reverts ... without any discussion" an edit or edits that are "positive are constructive," then I would like to draw some similarities between that definition and what you did. I feel that you reverted, or in a sense deleted my edit, a good faith edit without discussing it on the talk page. It was I who had to make the discussion thread on the talk page. In this sense, I called you out on edit warring, because you reverted it multiple times. I find it wholly unproductive and disruptive to engage in wholesale reverts in content disputes without even first discussing it. In any case, I am glad you have chosen to partake in the discussion. In the future, I highly suggest that, before choosing to revert something that is not vandalism or not made in good faith, you first discuss it on the talk page, so as to avoid similar conflicts. It is in the interest of everyone to simply has it out on the talk page rather the mainspace. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. thanks for your reply. however, sorry, I truly do not understand how I could have "deleted your edit" if I all i did was add a sentence I thought should be there. I was not altering or removing a single word of your edits; putting in part of some previous text constitutes a valid proposal. not sure how this constitues a reversion of your edit. Also, in this case, you were the one who deleted text repeatedly, so i feel this is what constiutes multiple reverts, although I didn't feel this was necessarily a severe act, merely one in need of some further input and discussion. My response to your edit was to do an edit of my own with a summary, and also request a further discussion. adding one's own text is not equivalent to deleting another person's text, imho. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, "in a sense." I don't mean for you to take it literally. If you can't see how your edits constituted a revert, then I would highly suggest going over WP:3RR as well as Help:Reverting. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks for your reply. not sure, but I think I may still disagree somewhat. however, I appreciate your reply, and i understand your constructive tone in not trying to paint this necessarily in black and white terms. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't tell whether that's sarcastic or not, but either way, have a nice night. The issue's already been resolved, so I see no reason to continue this. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I do want to say, my message was not meant to be sarcastic at all in any way, but was meant to be sincere. (I linked to "black and white" only so some casual latecomer visitor might not think it had some ethnic or other meaning). sorry if it seemed ironic at all. thanks very much for your reply. have a good night. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

¿Que?
Care to explain this in more detail? I'm trying to nudge this guy back from the brink, and telling him that he's not doing anything wrong by engaging in aggressive tendentious editing to promote far-fringe views doesn't help. I think he's smart and is capable of being a constructive editor, but if he carries on without changing his approach the story will have an unhappy ending. I value your opinion and thus would like to know the reasoning behind your statement. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was coming here to make this very same post. So, count this as a concur with RA. Mr Which ??? 16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, guys. Thanks for inquiring on my talk page. Let me try to explain.


 * One of Wikipedia's principles is that we, as editors and peers, focus on the content and contributions of other editors rather than the editors themselves. When someone is claiming that a user is being disruptive, aggressive, tendentious, or is not contributing constructively on an article, I expect to see evidence of that user being disruptive. What I see from the RfC is a user who has been discussing his views, opinions, or ideas about a subject that is close to many people. If his views are misguided, then so be it. We're not in the business of people-shaping. If a person with fringe views does not translate his bias into the article, then really the extent to which intervention is needed is friendly discussion--not RfCs.


 * This is even more true for particularly new users. If this type of conduct was the norm for experienced users, then surely there would be very few new contributors to Wikipedia. If someone makes a bad edit, you revert them and explain the process. If someone is rambling on a talk page, you ignore them or explain what the talk page is for. I can't stress to you how important that this is for new users. There are ways to deal with and engage new users; this is not one them. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with your sentiment that an RfC was not the best choice. However, this user is being disruptive, in adding frivolous fact tags to already well-sourced statements of simple fact, demanding references, then disparaging legitimate sources, and misrepresenting what the sources say when sources are provided. He's even dropped a vandalism tag on MONGO's talkpage for reverting his frivolous tagging. I think it's both unlikely that he's an actual new user, and that he has any real interest in changing his ways, based upon how he has responded to multiple editors attempting to point him in a new direction. Was an RfC a great idea? No. But it's their now, so it's best not to propose summaries that make him think "Hey, I wasn't even doing anything wrong!" When he clearly was. Mr Which ??? 23:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the evidence failed to show disruptive behavior. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you call adding frivolous fact tags to multiple 9/11-related articles? Productive? No, that's disruption. Especially after he drops a vandalism warning on the page of an editor who reverted those frivolous fact tags. Why are you defending his behavior? Mr Which ??? 01:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't know how to make it any more clearer than I already have: the evidence is not there. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you had taken the time to visit the history of the underlying articles found here and here, where he uses his edit summaries to accuse editors in advance of vandalism if they dare revert his frivolous fact tags. Perhaps you could visit the history of MONGO's talkpage, where he dropped an inappropriate vandalism warning when MONGO reverted his fact tagging. He is disruptive. Have you seriously not looked at this guy's contribs? Mr Which ??? 04:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc
I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as an involved editor, might want some input in. --Haemo (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thanks for letting me know. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lyndon
Re this edit: Remember, we can't use LaRouche publications for anything except statements about the LaRouche organization itself. I expect that this would go double for material related to WP:BLP Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. Thanks for the reminder. I've reverted myself. ~ UBeR (talk) P.S. Do you know where I can read that decision again?

Questioning minor 1st paragraph edits?
Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
 * A1. Benjamin Cardozo
 * A2. Learned Hand
 * B1. John Marshall Harlan
 * B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)