Care to enable your email? Cirt ( talk) 03:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you help settle the dispute between me & axfield on talk:Parents Television Council, at the RFC section? And maybe some other editors as well? -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 21:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you... and sorry. :) Wildhartlivie ( talk) 09:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, you've worn me down. I think we do need some brainstorming on what characteristics make an event likely to be notable vs. run-of-the-mill, although it might not make it into the proposal. We've already got some mention of this issue, like events setting a precedent. Perhaps "unprecedented" could be a good sign of notability? 9/11 was unprecedented, excepting the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Fences& Windows 22:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
-- Jaymax ( talk) 08:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
that I recognize that you are putting in a seriously good faith effort to come to a resolution that actually addresses the core concerns, and for that I do thank you. I believe that if it were just you and myself trying to work through this we would have been done by now, but unfortunately it should be plainly obvious that not all editors share your willingness to find the common ground necessary to achieve that end. As a result I find that I cannot be as accommodating as I might otherwise be. Hopefully you understand this. Cheers. -- GoRight ( talk) 05:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
They are to the point. Good work. {Trying my best to stay away for now.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 02:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking about WP:1RR and contentious POV tags.
1RR normally works well. Under 1RR, a majority 'tag team' (when such a thing exists) gets to define the contentious page content while it's being talked out. There's nothing wrong with that. But where it doesn't work, is for things like POV tags, where logically being in the majority should not determine the article 'holding pattern' as being the absence the tag. ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
On the splitting up of Climate change consensus? I am actually waffling back and forth. Part of me likes the obvious parallel that could exist between Public opinion on climate change and Scientific opinion on climate change, but since this division tends to align strongly with the dominant POV on climate change it just seems problematic to use that split. Thoughts? -- GoRight ( talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
A warm thank you for this. - 2/0 ( cont.) 08:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this edit [1] I think the actual number 97% is probably better than the subjective term "overwhelming majority", but I wouldn't sweat the details much because the editor who took out the word "overwhelming" turns out to be a persistent sock.
Just FYI. Cheers, - Wikidemon ( talk) 00:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Never suggested it was RS. Just useful context for the debate. For passers-by: Article "The Problem of Psychological Denial" Author SourceWatch ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Truth is nuanced: Life in general, and Wikipedia in particular, would be easier if people acknowledged this simple (yet, itself nuanced) truth. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Please be aware that the Criticism of IPCC AR4 is under the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation; avoid disruptive edits William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There are no allegations involved at "WMC's already been there ... and written it up to say ... misprint ....", I've simply pointed out that WMC already knew about the latest GW scandal (the Himalayan glaciers are not going to largely all melt by 2035 as claimed in the latest IPCC 2007 report), because he's already entered it into one of the sub-articles. The misprint refers to the wrongful entry in the WWF report repeated by the IPCC.
But WMC's fine work is being completely wasted because over and over, I'm finding that either information is missing or buried so deeply it's impossible to find. All over the world people are using Wikipedia to inform themselves and answer questions. The Global Warming article/s laughably fail to do this and in the process give off a strong impression of POV.
I believe I could help turn the articles around and I'm waiting for the go-ahead to, for instance, re-write the "Feedback" section of the GW article (which doesn't even differentiate between positive feedback and negative feedback!). That same section needs mention of desertification and/or the danger of the Amazon forest all going up in flames and leaving savannah. (I'd call these changes urgent). Elsewhere there is almost no mention of the Antarctic - these are the kind of things that people will expect and be extremely disappointed not to find. I don't wish to point at the one article in the whole suite where I was finally allowed to make major changes (to the lede, this was a week ago) but it came about after an entirely unnecessary fight. I believe I have a good record for writing in an NPOV fashion, I successfully(?) made major changes to the lede of another high-profile article, Motorcycle engine only last night.
I would appreciate it if you removed your challenge to me, there was no NPA involved and it does nothing to assist my concern to improve all the articles concerned. MalcolmMcDonald ( talk) 10:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
On 72 hr wikibreak...
Do you think Antisocial personality disorder, i.e. "Sociopath", would be a related link in the psychology of Climate change denial? 99.155.155.225 ( talk) 20:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jaymax,
You wrote
So this is my first AfD - hope I got the process right.
Looks fine to me in the technical aspects, but I'm no expert on these. What I really want to say is that your AfD nomination was truly great work! Great catch, really thought-provoking. Well done indeed.
--
Shirt58 (
talk) 12:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to look at Manila hostage crisis. Cheers! Lambanog ( talk) 11:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Why merge? There's nothing to merge; the comics are so non-notable that I don't even know where they're from and they're not mentioned in the main article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 06:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I put together a short summary of the principles from the list RFC where there appears to be consensus. I wanted to invite a small number of people to look at it before figuring out a next step (whether that's to invite more people, to work on another RFC, or to scrap what I've written altogether). Take a look at User:Shooterwalker/Lists. Note the point of the summary I wrote isn't to re-open the discussion, but to ask "does this describe the RFC"? Shooterwalker ( talk) 15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jaymax. Would you mind if I incorporated your "Option D" into the main body of the RfC to keep things organized on Talk:Park51? I like to ask permission before rearranging the comments of other editors. NickCT ( talk) 13:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
This message is for you because you passed comment at Talk:Park51 in response to an RfC raised by User:NickCT. Please note that you gave an answer to this user on alternative wording to the introduction before the issue of Wikipedia's neutrality which was raised at WP:NPONV has been resolved. If you have not done so already, please read the issues as presented at WP:NPOV and and give an answer to the neutrality question. It is my opinion that the neutrality issue needs to be resolved first. Kind regards User:Hauskalainen
To the contrary, I'd say that "mainstream opinion on global warming" means "mainstream scientific opinion" (and the page was about scientific opinion, too). Feel free to nominate the redirect at redirects for deletion/discussion. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 08:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Jaymax. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Care to enable your email? Cirt ( talk) 03:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you help settle the dispute between me & axfield on talk:Parents Television Council, at the RFC section? And maybe some other editors as well? -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 21:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you... and sorry. :) Wildhartlivie ( talk) 09:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, you've worn me down. I think we do need some brainstorming on what characteristics make an event likely to be notable vs. run-of-the-mill, although it might not make it into the proposal. We've already got some mention of this issue, like events setting a precedent. Perhaps "unprecedented" could be a good sign of notability? 9/11 was unprecedented, excepting the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Fences& Windows 22:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
-- Jaymax ( talk) 08:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
that I recognize that you are putting in a seriously good faith effort to come to a resolution that actually addresses the core concerns, and for that I do thank you. I believe that if it were just you and myself trying to work through this we would have been done by now, but unfortunately it should be plainly obvious that not all editors share your willingness to find the common ground necessary to achieve that end. As a result I find that I cannot be as accommodating as I might otherwise be. Hopefully you understand this. Cheers. -- GoRight ( talk) 05:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
They are to the point. Good work. {Trying my best to stay away for now.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 02:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking about WP:1RR and contentious POV tags.
1RR normally works well. Under 1RR, a majority 'tag team' (when such a thing exists) gets to define the contentious page content while it's being talked out. There's nothing wrong with that. But where it doesn't work, is for things like POV tags, where logically being in the majority should not determine the article 'holding pattern' as being the absence the tag. ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
On the splitting up of Climate change consensus? I am actually waffling back and forth. Part of me likes the obvious parallel that could exist between Public opinion on climate change and Scientific opinion on climate change, but since this division tends to align strongly with the dominant POV on climate change it just seems problematic to use that split. Thoughts? -- GoRight ( talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
A warm thank you for this. - 2/0 ( cont.) 08:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this edit [1] I think the actual number 97% is probably better than the subjective term "overwhelming majority", but I wouldn't sweat the details much because the editor who took out the word "overwhelming" turns out to be a persistent sock.
Just FYI. Cheers, - Wikidemon ( talk) 00:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Never suggested it was RS. Just useful context for the debate. For passers-by: Article "The Problem of Psychological Denial" Author SourceWatch ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Truth is nuanced: Life in general, and Wikipedia in particular, would be easier if people acknowledged this simple (yet, itself nuanced) truth. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Please be aware that the Criticism of IPCC AR4 is under the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation; avoid disruptive edits William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There are no allegations involved at "WMC's already been there ... and written it up to say ... misprint ....", I've simply pointed out that WMC already knew about the latest GW scandal (the Himalayan glaciers are not going to largely all melt by 2035 as claimed in the latest IPCC 2007 report), because he's already entered it into one of the sub-articles. The misprint refers to the wrongful entry in the WWF report repeated by the IPCC.
But WMC's fine work is being completely wasted because over and over, I'm finding that either information is missing or buried so deeply it's impossible to find. All over the world people are using Wikipedia to inform themselves and answer questions. The Global Warming article/s laughably fail to do this and in the process give off a strong impression of POV.
I believe I could help turn the articles around and I'm waiting for the go-ahead to, for instance, re-write the "Feedback" section of the GW article (which doesn't even differentiate between positive feedback and negative feedback!). That same section needs mention of desertification and/or the danger of the Amazon forest all going up in flames and leaving savannah. (I'd call these changes urgent). Elsewhere there is almost no mention of the Antarctic - these are the kind of things that people will expect and be extremely disappointed not to find. I don't wish to point at the one article in the whole suite where I was finally allowed to make major changes (to the lede, this was a week ago) but it came about after an entirely unnecessary fight. I believe I have a good record for writing in an NPOV fashion, I successfully(?) made major changes to the lede of another high-profile article, Motorcycle engine only last night.
I would appreciate it if you removed your challenge to me, there was no NPA involved and it does nothing to assist my concern to improve all the articles concerned. MalcolmMcDonald ( talk) 10:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
On 72 hr wikibreak...
Do you think Antisocial personality disorder, i.e. "Sociopath", would be a related link in the psychology of Climate change denial? 99.155.155.225 ( talk) 20:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jaymax,
You wrote
So this is my first AfD - hope I got the process right.
Looks fine to me in the technical aspects, but I'm no expert on these. What I really want to say is that your AfD nomination was truly great work! Great catch, really thought-provoking. Well done indeed.
--
Shirt58 (
talk) 12:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to look at Manila hostage crisis. Cheers! Lambanog ( talk) 11:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Why merge? There's nothing to merge; the comics are so non-notable that I don't even know where they're from and they're not mentioned in the main article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 06:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I put together a short summary of the principles from the list RFC where there appears to be consensus. I wanted to invite a small number of people to look at it before figuring out a next step (whether that's to invite more people, to work on another RFC, or to scrap what I've written altogether). Take a look at User:Shooterwalker/Lists. Note the point of the summary I wrote isn't to re-open the discussion, but to ask "does this describe the RFC"? Shooterwalker ( talk) 15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jaymax. Would you mind if I incorporated your "Option D" into the main body of the RfC to keep things organized on Talk:Park51? I like to ask permission before rearranging the comments of other editors. NickCT ( talk) 13:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
This message is for you because you passed comment at Talk:Park51 in response to an RfC raised by User:NickCT. Please note that you gave an answer to this user on alternative wording to the introduction before the issue of Wikipedia's neutrality which was raised at WP:NPONV has been resolved. If you have not done so already, please read the issues as presented at WP:NPOV and and give an answer to the neutrality question. It is my opinion that the neutrality issue needs to be resolved first. Kind regards User:Hauskalainen
To the contrary, I'd say that "mainstream opinion on global warming" means "mainstream scientific opinion" (and the page was about scientific opinion, too). Feel free to nominate the redirect at redirects for deletion/discussion. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 08:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Jaymax. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)