Jaymax

 

Care to enable your email? Cirt (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Hi. I saw you said you were backing out of this discussion, so thought I should take a look myself. I find myself in full agreement with you and was hoping that you could propose a rewrite to address some of your concerns and/or back my proposal for a rewrite that I think addresses your other concerns. See Talk:Parents_Television_Council#WWE_and_Janet_Jackson If you want to back out fully after doing that, I understand, but I'd really appreciate this last bit of assistance to show that there are multiple people supporting the proposed text of the article. GDallimore (Talk) 09:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi - no prob to have a peek at your re-write. Will pop over in a couple of days.--Jaymax (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you... and sorry. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Voice of reason much appreciated.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Unfortunately, about ^^ then - I couldn't stay involved. I've yet to go through the guideline, but I note the big tick at the top. Well Done! I'm sorry it felt like 'worn down' to make the point - and I'm amused by your "unprecedented" ... "except for" - as I hope you were when you wrote it. Let me know you got the reply. --Jaymax (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Update - read it - O for awesome! --Jaymax (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reposting this here because I like what I wrote, and I'm vain, and I might want to refer to it again without searching for it.

--Jaymax (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Thanks, and ditto right back at you on your first two sentences. I hope you can support Proposal #6, or if not, whatever 7,8, or 9 turn out to be. On being accomodating, pulling people into the middle can be very tiring, but conscious WP:AGF does actually work sometimes. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I believe that your analysis is correct. I also believe that this is why WMC is promoting 1RR on SOoCC. It's just basic gamesmanship on his part. --GoRight (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I definitely do not want it. I believe it's right that SOoCC should be a scientific article, and that there needs to be a good article on the not-scientific debate about scientific consensus. I'd rather see the whole article merged into the 'consensus' section at Global warming controversy than splitting it, but it should stay. I think. ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

For some reason this reply is confusing me so let me repeat what I understood and you tell me if this is correct. You favor deleting Climate change consensus but you prefer merging that into Global warming controversy rather than splitting it between POoCC and SOoCC, correct? And you would consider the consensus section of GWC to be the place to hold public POV related to the scientific consensus, correct? I have sort of come down on the side of having POoCC be the counterpart to SOoCC and homing the public parts there with cross linking to ensure a NPOV for each. With that as the general framework, Climate change consensus can remain, or not, as seems prudent. --GoRight (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, I definitely do not want the article to be removed via a merge or split. I want the article to stay. Strongly. Did I write something somewhere other than just above that made it sound like I support a merge or split, 'cos if so, I need to go edit it. ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

A warm thank you for this. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

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.

See Jon Drinkwater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just FYI. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Got a reason why we should think sandman is WP:RS? It's looking very much like a blog to me... • Ling.Nut 08:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Funny. ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Context is everything I guess. I've struck the comment, because in retrospect, as you say, you were not alleging anything. I have major concerns with the POV in WMCs contributions on this. And I'm philosophically on the same side of the fence as him. I appreciate your efforts - GW is always going to be tricky to balance between what's socially relevant and what's scientifically relevant. FWIW I concur that, at the least, the lead needs reworking. ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well spotted on the peer-review business. The 4 page documention on procedures for "The Preparation of IPCC Reports"[2] specify reliance on peer-reviewed material, with basically one exemption (private sector information). Such material must be "critically assessed" - strange that WP articles on GW get so much stricter over-site than the IPCC report gets!

The authors will work on the basis of peer reviewed and internationally available literature, including manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review and selected non-peer reviewed literature. Source, quality and validity of non-peer reviewed literature, such as private sector information need to be critically assessed by the authors and copies will have to be made available to reviewers who request them. Disparate views for which there is significant scientific or technical support should be clearly identified in IPCC reports, together with relevant arguments. Expert meetings and workshops may be used to support the preparation of a report.

There is no way that this glacier prediction (said to have panicked 2 billion people?) should have got in, let alone lain uninvestigated for 3 years. The Chinese blocked agreement at Copenhagen, I wonder if they realised there was such bad science in the case. It would be interesting to ask WMC when he knew of this discovery, and whether it was deliberately kept secret until after Copenhagen, where it would have been a real bombshell. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You know where my talk page is if you want to ask me questions William M. Connolley (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

On 72 hr wikibreak...

I've removed your PA. I think your decision to take a break and calm down is a sensible one. Please ponder this, though: you have got the substance of all this wrong, and don't seem able to cope with being corrected. Had you not reverted on the crit page, we could have discussed this all politely on the article talk page and this need never have happened William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

When I was concerned about something Jay had said about me I posted to this page (it's the very next section above) and asked him very politely to scrub it himself.

Jay was entirely happy to comply and he did it in a way that made it clear how much he took it all back.[3]

Changing Jay' s words for him look likes an extremely high-handed action to take and can hardly be commensurate with a cooperative editing environment. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

TTFY,FF William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

TTFY (take that you fiend)? FF (form feed)? ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Thank you for taking the time to look at Manila hostage crisis. Cheers! Lambanog (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Which is why merge - article content is not required to be notable - the content presumably comes from somewhere, why ditch it? If the HTF article crowd don't want it - let them delete it. The benefit of merge over delete seems obvious (content retained for evaluation by interested parties) - I can't see what possible benefit delete offers over merge where there is content that MIGHT be valuable. (Also, after stumbling across a couple of things off-WP, I'm starting to form a strong opinion that if an article is to be deleted for non-notability, that is a very STRONG driver for MERGE, over DELETE in almost all cases.) ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Thanks for this. ‒ Jaymax✍ 21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

So you know, I've started the process of closing the list RFC at this section. Thanks for your participation! Shooterwalker (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

It can't be exactly added to the original straw poll, because voting on that is basically complete - folk might not come back to recast their votes, giving a misleading outcome. So since I'm not clear on exactly what you're suggesting, I'm going to say no for now. If you've a suggestion to work around that issue, then let me know. ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

With hindsight, maybe I should have agreed to the move you suggested. It's tricky. As a general note, I always find RfCs with alternatives better if each alternative is listed separately, with supports and other opinion going directly beneath the option, because it allows for additional options to be added without disrupting the flow, or requiring close examination of vote dates to untangle support levels. ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply