User talk:UBeR/Goodbyes

Untitled
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. JQ 03:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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. ~ UBeR 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

Jammerocker 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, bud. Good work on your debate. Keep up on the studying. It will pay off. ;-) ~ UBeR 19:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks man I will c u l8er Jammerocker 13:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

btw i reviewed you Jammerocker 15:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the review. ~ UBeR 06:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

yep np, you deserve it.Jammerocker 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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. Jammerocker 16:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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. ~ UBeR 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 G 06:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 G 06:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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. ~ UBeR 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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 lolJammerocker 13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey UBeR I just had a thought...Mr. No-name kinda writes like Skymoore...Jammerocker 11:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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. ~ Rameses 01:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Second that. I hope that you come back, even if just for short stints, sometime in the future. Mostlyharmless 05:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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-pinions  Bias-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 G 06:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.--Zeeboid 20:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Best wishes to you, UBeR. RonCram 11:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I speak for many when I say "We will miss you UBeR."Jammerocker 11:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad
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.Haney 19:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am an alumni alumnus. And yourself? ~ UBeR 21:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 Arritt 15:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 ~ UBeR 19:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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, Arjuna 08:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a proud current student. It's great to meet other people from Central. P.Haney 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

one last barnstar
well i was gonna give you the tireless contributer barnstar but i cant figure out how to get it on here lol...Jammerocker 07:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * like this:




 * yea thats it! i gotta keep the codeing for that lol...Jammerocker 05:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * one more

Not sure if you left
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 Tie 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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. ~ UBeR 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)