User talk:Jaimaster

Archive

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaimaster/Archive1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! - Enuja (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

RfC on conduct of User:Abd, comment requested
Thank you for expressing interest at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table in my standing userspace RfC. The first questions to be addressed are at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block, which is a page for the questions and (later) a summary of consensus. Comments and discussion have been begun, by me, at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. Because the first questions address the warning issued to me by Jehochman before the block on 8/11, and should not involve extensive research, I have several times asked Jehochman to comment, but he has declined so far. I have also asked Carcharoth, as suggested by Jehochman, to look at it, but so far he hasn't found time; perhaps he will in the next few days. If you are able to look at the pages ref'd above, and comment regarding the questions, or otherwise as you see fit, it would be appreciated. I am waiting to see if these questions can be resolved and a preliminary consensus found, without going to a wider forum, such as the Village Pump, AN, or a standard user RfC. Thanks for any time you can give this. --Abd (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * People should not become involved in this user-controlled RFC - we have an RFC process, Abd has so far found nobody willing to become involved in his illegitimate version of the process. You should tell him (as everyone else has over the last month of him spamming people) that you will be happy to be involved in a real community controlled RFC, not his sham version. He wants to use the results of it to attack a number of dedicated administrators. It could be harmful to your standing as an editor to be seen to be involved in such an attack page. Send him a clear message instead - tell him to set up a real RFC. --87.115.22.127 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Who are you, and why do you appear to be stalking Abd? Why the deliberate anonymous account? Are you one of the dedicated administers and is there something that Abd might reveal here that you dont want to come to light? If it was worth net-cafe'ing to stalk him then there has got to be more to it than you say... Jaimaster (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Abd, ill take a look later if work time allows. You might want to consider an admin notice board post regarding 87.115.22.127. If what they are doing was legit they wouldnt be doing it with a paper bag over their head. Jaimaster (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jaimaster. That was banned User:Fredrick day, tossing mud as usual, it's a characteristic IP for him. There's already a report on this IP range at WP:ABUSE. He is an administrator, quite likely, but not one that would be likely to have touched me recently. The RfC is indirectly about two or three administrators, but it's not an attack on them; the active RfC simply asks if I did what Jehochman claimed in his warning. If I did, end of question, possibly the end of my Wikipedia career, it was pretty bad. Awful, actually. But I think Jehochman, shall we say, overreacted. This RfC, though, isn't about him, it's about me. I would not dare to open an RfC on another user in my user space. This is a process to advise me. It's possible that I and others might start some RfC in WP space, proceeding out of this, as advised, but not terribly likely; this is actually a process to avoid such a thing. Step-by-step. Not disruptive. --Abd (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk at Pearl Harbor
I added the talk section header to better match what seemed to be the comment content. I removed nothing of existing content from anyone. Sorry if in doing so I missed something you were intending. Please revise the section headings to better reflect what you intended. ww (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "from the moment Barbarossa started" We're in complete agreement there. (I think that's a miracle. ;D) I'd ask you to consider, tho, the influence of BoB, BoAtlantic (esp RCN escort), & Malta on EF. Did Lend-Lease tip the balance? It allowed Sov mfrs to concentrate on tanks, while using U.S. trucks (in large numbers? sev thou, IIRC, a few divisions worth), which depended on RCN (who escorted about/over half the Atlantic convoys for the duration, & I don't just say that as a Canadian; check out van der Vat's Atlantic Campaign & Milner's North Atlantic Run). The BoB because it reduced GAF numbers, in aircrew & a/c (esp bombers); Allen in Who Won the Battle of Britain? suggests (& I agree) a more aggressive posture by Dowding & BC (using Blenheims against Ger ABs in France) would've made the air component of Barbarossa (next to?) nonexistent. Malta, much the same, diverting FK X from ops in SU. And "bias"? That's too strong. It's a matter of (admitted) ignorance, plus some distrust of SU claims & sources generally; I'm disinclined to take them at their word. You're right about "rabid interest", tho. And even if we never agree on Pearl, I gotta tell you, I've enjoyed arguing it with somebody who knows his stuff. Believe it or not. ;D  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  20:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest I would say one of my biggest weaknesses is probably looking at the forest and ignoring the trees, so you are quite right... there is alot I could learn in the logistical support given to the SU, and the effects of the smaller pushes made by the western allies before Normandy... my knowlege of NAf in a nutshell starts and ends at "Rommel was there, won a few battles, then got thumped".
 * Allen makes an interesting point, but I think he has fallen into a "with hindsight" trap. The British were in a very defensive mindset and were fighting for their survival in the BoB, and offensive actions were likely low on their "to do" list. Britain also didnt know that Hitler planned to invade the USSR and going agressor against the Luftwaffe over occupied France would have only offered small tactical victories that when it came to the war at that time were of little real value. As soon as the war expanded (from GBR vs Germany to GBR + USSR vs Germany) the tactical attrition of the Luftwaffe would have been instrumental, but this was after the fact.
 * Anyway I agree with you on the last - I love debating things with people who know what they are talking about. I need to go read up on the NAf campaign ;) Jaimaster (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

William's "answer" (saved for own ref)
Administrator William M. Connelly twice deleted my comment on talk:James Hansen stating that even though Hansen is a clown for supporting green radicals who vandalised a British coal power plant, until the mainstream media reports on the subsequent campaign to have him fired we cannot add it to his article (in response to someone wondering if we should).

William M. Connelly has previously posted on talk:Christopher Monckton calling the subject a "rabid septic". When asked why his comment was acceptable but mine was not, he chose to simply delete my question from his talk page, per below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliam_M._Connolley&diff=239649126&oldid=239618847

Jaimaster (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning
My final warning to you is still in effect. If you continue to disrupt our articles on global warming, I'm going to block you. Raul654 (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This edit is not disruptive -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=244262247&oldid=244195678

Reverting that section back to the poor state it was in is a waste of everyone's time.

I feel am I being deliberately bullied, and I believe you are knowingly using your admim privleges in an attempt to gain advantage in a content dispute, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_tools.

I will start an ANI saying so shortly. Jaimaster (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No need - I've just started one on your article disruption and edit warring despite previous warnings from multiple admins. Cheers. Raul654 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Then we will find out if wiki is umpired based on reputations or facts in the next few days. Jaimaster (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Contribution histories do have some sway here, as do reliable sources, which are brought to articles through consensus. This will not always lead to an article reading the way you want it to read and has little to do with truth. Misleading edit summaries, however, are disruptive, which is blockable. Moreover edit warring brings only chavel to this encyclopedia and is also blockable. Please use the article talk page and please cite sources when doing so. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This may seem random, but as an objective observer I can see where Jaimaster is coming from with his claims of unfair treatment. His edits served to make the article less accusative and less bias. This whole thing is just another example of the over-moderation and corruption of Wikipedia into something it's not supposed to be. Articles should hold no personal bias, whether it be cited by a well-known source or otherwise. Administrator, moderators, and overzealous users should not be altering or removing pages and edits based on their own opinion of what is prominent or certifiable; something unimportant to you may be very important to someone else. The only way to be fair is to alter every entry into neutral language, which seems to be against the rules by the collective opinion of the administrators. I hope someone can see what I'm trying to convey here, instead of trying to turn it into an attack as with Jaimaster's comments. --71.194.229.3 (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The only big worry was the edit warring, which he seems to understand now. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand the stance that there was overreaction on his part, but oddly enough I see no indication of the administrator involved getting warned over his overreaction in response. --71.194.229.3 (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't an ordinary administrator. Yes, I admit to finding that a little scary. I'm trying to figure out what this means! User:Raul654 is a bureaucrat, a checkuser (he can see the IP you are editing from), an oversighter (he can actually delete stuff from the database), a former member of ArbComm, and more. You don't warn a user like this. They are presumed to know policy and guidelines, probably better than almost all the rest of us. You either block them, if you are an administrator, ask for them to be blocked if you aren't, and then you duck. Because stuff will be incoming. As they say, if you are going to shoot the King, don't miss. I made some defiant noises on AN/I, but I'm not going after him, for sure, unless specific dispute arises and ordinary, patient, and extremely cautious WP:DR process doesn't work and necessity takes me there. I would not presume to understand him; I have no trouble assuming good faith for him, I believe he does what he does in the belief that it is best for the project. But some of what he does is, I'd say, either a sign of burnout, a growing incivility, associated with impatience, that seems to come to some old-timers, or he was like this all along but was simply lucky or knew the right people, or ... I simply don't understand enough. If you read the AN/I report, Carcharoth indirectly acknowledges the problem with Raul654 (i.e., the behavior of others, which would be obviously him, in the edit warring that Jaimaster engaged in), and others similarly have commented.


 * I'll remind everyone, though, that Raul654 is not the problem. The problem is our process, and fixating on individuals who've done this or that is not going to fix it. Wikipedia would not be improved simply by removing Raul654 or taking away his admin status, in my opinion, and it would probably be harmed. It's appropriate that when he does something outrageous like the block threat above, it be pointed out. And he should be supported in the good work he does, and, as it may be necessary, watched to avert or remediate damage when he goes overboard. We all should be watched in this way! --Abd (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Update from ANI thread
I've commented at the ANI thread here. As I said there, please check in at the ANI thread before editing any global warming related articles. I've also been reviewing your contributions in general, and while you've only been here a short while and haven't had much of a chance to develop other interests, I'd recommend that you broaden your interests into other areas of the encyclopedia. As a new user, focusing on global warming issues, you are not going to make much headway with an aggressive approach like this. You need to focus on talk page discussion of sources before any changes. That is the only way any reputable changes in this area can take place. Carcharoth (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Noticed this. Jaimaster, be careful, and pay close attention to Carcharoth, who is one of the administrators I most respect. Carcharoth, my concern about that ANI thread is that a proposed sanction is set up for Jaimaster, but abusive editing in GW articles could be asserted with regard to Raul654 as well, and probably others. Count Iblis jumped in with the 0RR proposal; he's been a supporter in the past of the GW "cabal," see some analysis of what happened with GoRight at Requests for comment/GoRight and in particular my user subpage,, which discusses the block of GoRight by R. Baley. The warning by Raul654 that he would block Jaimaster was absolutely outrageous, displaying ownership of the articles. There is, indeed, edit warring going on with that article, and Jaimaster isn't the sole cause; the edit Raul654 warned him about looks to me like a good faith edit, properly nuanced, it shouldn't have been controversial. As I saw before with GoRight, there is a level of tag-teaming going on, there are the same players: Raul654, Stephan Schulz, KimDabelsteinPetersen, and, of course, William M. Connolley. Together, whether they intend it or not, these editors can drive an interloper -- whom they easily describe as a "POV pusher," -- to distraction, incivility, and edit warring, without any one of them violating 3RR.


 * Jaimaster, fighting this head on, as an SPA, will be difficult. I won't say impossible. Take it slowly, one small change at a time. When you get stuck, follow dispute resolution. In these articles, 0RR wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea. That means no simple reverts, except for vandalism. Always try to move the article toward consensus. Get very specific. What, exactly, was wrong with your reference to "scientific consensus," so assiduously removed by Raul654? Just bouncing the text back and forth doesn't elicit and examine the causes of the conflict. By the way, I do accept anthropogenic global warming, I'm not a skeptic like you. But I really dislike departure from NPOV, which is what I've seen with these articles. It looks to me like you were framing it all in an NPOV manner, which is what we are supposed to do. --Abd (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Abd, as always you see through to the true issues with astounding clarity. To be honest (and I think my history of over-using talk pages shows it) I did not think my edit would be controversial and I was making no attempt to "hide" it under a false edit summary. As far as I was concerned the wording is a grammatical issue to be corrected, not a "whitewash" pov push.
 * I think I will propose a voluntary 0RR with the following caveats -
 * A lapse time in which the "same edit" cannot be considered a violation, as long as it is in discussion on the talk page and that discussion could be interpreteded as an acceptance of making the change
 * Raul654 is not to enforce under any circumstances, nor should he forum-shop it beyond a notification to ANI.


 * Carcharoth, I appreciate the SPA concerns and have attempted to branch out since I started editing WP (i make it no secret that my attention was drawn here by the GW articles; the primary WP expert on the subject (William M. Connolley) is a greens party member, while the most active admin (Raul654) links to greenpeace websites to "proove" his point, and IMO the resulting bias is systemic and wide reaching). This is the first edit I have made to the GW page (apart from adjusting a WMC edit to correct "powerful" from "pwerful") in quite some time. I honestly did not believe it to be a controversial edit, and when Raul rolled it back under his own misleading edit summary (I am quite happy to display how my edit was accurate and not an "inaccurate watering down"), given my past history with Raul's own "offensive POV pushing" as he would term it, I must admit I got a little riled. I dont intend to let that happen again. Jaimaster (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's what I think happened. You did think of what you were doing as fixing what was later called a "grammar/style trainwreck." (Actually the latest edit at this point, he just began.) However, since you were doing this, you had to rephrase things. Naturally, you phrased them in the way you thought would be most neutral. You use of "attributed to" was absolutely correct, and is actually neutral language, in itself. But it has a spin, or can be used in spin, i.e., to imply some level of doubt. Raul654 assumed that the purpose of the edit was to create that spin. The existing "caused by" is beyond mere spin, it presents a POV, a conclusion on a topic that remains controversial; however, since that POV is current scientific consensus, perhaps this is allowed for simplicity, WP:UNDUE and all that. It's a can of worms, actually. My claim would be that given that global warming skepticism is a significant POV, language in the article should not offend skeptics needlessly, i.e., simply deny that POV by denying it any room for possibility. But this is going to have to be hammered out through editorial consensus. If the articles don't find true consensus, they (we) will continually be battling for maintenance, blaming the "POV pushers."


 * But then you edit warred. 1RR, okay. 2RR, alarms should have been going off. I rarely hit 2RR even dealing with vandals, it better be clear. You went to 3RR. What I'd suggest for a voluntary restriction isn't 0RR, it would be 1RR, with care. I.e., you really think there has been some misunderstanding. That wasn't the case here. I.e., Raul654 overreacted, sure. But he clearly was objecting to some substance in your edit, and simply reverting him was (as I defined it in my work on WP:Requests for comment/GoRight) the beginning of edit warring. But you should have some room to make mistakes. 1RR, particularly if you avoid pure reverts, but always incorporate something of what the other editor appears to want, i.e., always seeking consensus, would allow that. 0RR, there is the significant risk that you try to make a compromise edit that some admin interprets as "mostly" a revert and you are blocked. If there is going to be a restriction, there should be a closing admin who makes that decision and whom you can ask about questionable situations. I've argued that you should not be restricted, unless others maintaining the article are restricted. That is, I don't see your behavior there as worse than that of Raul654, especially, but, over time, there are other editors who support the same kind of pressure on the articles. --Abd (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The first line of the section was, like I said, something a middle school teacher might have slapped someone for, in another age. "Refers to increase in instrumental temperature record" is missing not only basic grammar (such as the) but contains a loose operator (increase) which needed definition. Rewriting that left the rest of that line in an unworkable format, so I kept rolling.
 * The reverting of reverts was a mistake, although I was deliberately mindful of 3RR and left it there.
 * I had no idea this would be "disruptive POV pushing", but if anything I will learn from this and be extremely defensive in edits on these pages.
 * I see your point on 0RR and it is a little worrying. For example, you would have seen the edit I made just recently correcting the first line per above (fixing the basic grammar and specifying the increase). Could this technically be a violation of 0RR as it is "reverting" in changes I had made that Raul reverted? If so that is worrying. Unfortunately I have already posted that I am happy to accept a 0RR so long as Raul is not involved in enforcing it, and as the issue is not yet closed I forsee being able to use a "this is not yet in force" argument if it for some reason was acted on...
 * Thanks alot for your ongoing advice in this matter. It is most appreciated. Jaimaster (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need to limit you to 0rr. However, you might want to try sticking with 1rr as the upper limit, as much as you can, be very clear with your edit summaries along with carefully citing sources and talking about these and wordings on the talk page. Also, if you widen the topics you edit, you'll likely gain more understanding about how to deal with editing disagreements. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's right. Good advice. I think hard before I make one simple revert, outside of vandalism or obvious error, an edit that is totally off and useless. Otherwise I'll try to work with the edit if I don't think it's the best it could be. Today's activity on Global warming has been interesting. I made one revert today. It was reverted by User:Orangemarlin with the comment, in Talk, that he probably shouldn't have done it. Interesting. So I asked him to undo it. And I'll give him a day or so. This is the problem with a revert: there is nothing to work with. It doesn't reveal what language would be acceptable, it makes, ordinarily, no progress toward consensus. Now, I think the position I was taking in the article was essentially impeccable, and the responses by OM and WMC and others were weirdly off the point. The Terminology section has a definition sourced to the US EPA. However, half the definition has been omitted, shifting the meaning of the word. I've run into this before where a group of editors "owned" an article. They quoted what they want and leave out the rest that might weaken it. I'd complete the quote and they would repeatedly take it out as "too much detail," "not appropriate in the lead," and would attack me for trying to bias the article. But it was their source. They wanted to pick and choose what was appropriate and reliable, and leave the rest.


 * So OM took out my additional material with the comment that the EPA wasn't a reliable source. He actually made political comments in Talk, a tad unseemly, I thought. (Apparently, "Republican" is a synonym for "unreliable.") WMC likewise impeached the EPA as a source. Now, I have no problem with suspecting bias on the part of a governmental agency. However, to, at the same time, continue to use them as the source for the definition? There are standard solutions to this problem, it's covered in guidelines, and I suspect that only attachment to article spin (a spin perceived as being "NPOV") is resulting in this situation. One step at a time. With a solid foundation, in theory, for article text, I'll proceed patiently, seeking consensus in fact, not just in appearance. I would not recommend to editors to try to stand in the way of this; but, hey, I'm just one user. And I suspect that we will, indeed, find consensus. Including the "cabal" and the "skeptics." Raul654 actually has some very good material on this in his collection of wiki wisdom.


 * It is much easier to maintain true consensus than mere majority or supermajority positions. If we don't find consensus, there is going to be continual edit warring, waves of "POV pushers," troops of blocked users convinced that Wikipedia is controlled by some cabal, and further burnout of experienced editors. --Abd (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like very good advice there Gwen and Abd, and I will follow it. Reverting really does seem to cause more problems than it solves when applied to content rather than fixing vandalism or mistakes.
 * I have been thinking on the situation and have had another thought. An additional point to consider making to users who get into situations like I did might be WP:DEADLINE. On the scale of things, it really doesnt matter what WP says right now, or tomorow, or even into next week, thus a proper response to being reverted would have been to initiate a talk page discussion (and perhaps also fix that ruddy missing "the" and qualify the "increase" as a stand alone edit). Jaimaster (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Gwen, if you still have this page on watch - the ANIs have been bot-removed. What is the status? Jaimaster (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not under any editing restrictions, but as an admin, I would like to ask that you please try to steadfastly limit yourself to 1rr on any article having to do with Global warming (I try to hold to 1rr on all articles myself, so I don't see this as a big deal). Given the history of this article, please use reliable sources as often as can be (maybe always), be very careful with your edit summaries and please don't be shy about using the talk page, but do so with cited sources and be brief! I think you've tried to be neutral on this topic, only your tactics were a bit lacking, likely owing to your short and narrow experience with Wikipedia. If you can edit some other articles outside this topic, it will only help you learn how to helpfully deal with content and sourcing disagreements on core articles. Lastly, keep in mind that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability of sources, so articles tend to carry the outlooks of mainstream sources. Meanwhile, high profile articles tend to attract inexperienced and careless editors who edit war and don't use sources in a helpful way. When this is mixed in with systemic bias, good faith editors trying to nudge a high profile article towards true NPoV can get caught up in the broad sweep of defensive tactics used by experienced, good faith but sometimes weary editors who are already and understandably over-sensitized to edit wars and soapboxing and whose notions about an article's take on NPoV aren't the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The ANI thread may not have resulted in any formal community sanctions (despite the unanimous support for them), but he now twice been warned about disrupting our global warming articles. This constitutes sufficient prior warning and further disruptive editing from him will result in a block. Raul654 (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that, by consensus, only peer reviewed scientific articles are acceptable for statements about the science. This is actually the norm for almost all articles on scientific topics on wikipedia, although it is not official policy. So, e.g. an editorial in the Wall Street Journal would be totally unacceptable, even though the Wall Street Journal is usually regarded as a reliable source for most other (non scientific) wiki articles. Count Iblis (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, disruption is blockable and consensus as to acceptable sources must be followed. A consensus to decline non-scientific publications for support in a main article is within Wikipedia's sourcing policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks CI, I am aware of that. I dont remember trying to add anything that could be considered not an acceptable source to the article. Raul, there was also a fwidespread sentiment that you were out of line and aught to leave well enough alone. I am sure Gwen, Carcharoth and the other few hundred admins on WP can keep me under control. Jaimaster (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sit back and enjoy the show.
See, edit warring involves a lot of intense activity. An editor will visit the article several times a day, trying to make sure that it stays in the "right" state, their preferred version. It is far more powerful to trust the community to maintain the article, to simply make, at an appropriate pace, whatever changes one thinks best at the time, adapting as circumstances change, growing and incorporating what has come along, which is impossible to anticipate, at least in detail. The slower changes take place to the article, the more wide participation there will be. Editing intensely brings out the defenders of an article, the "cabal." (There is no cabal, strictly, but it is sometimes as if there is one.) As soon as an editor thinks that it is crucial that he make this change, now, that he can't let those jerks get away with their blatant whatever-it-is, he's dead meat. Look how much activity there was in Global warming with a very simple edit to a very simple section. Several editors essentially committed themselves to preposterous positions. Boris's edit was the cleanest response, but ultimately not correct. Sourced material, removed for what reason? To avoid controversy? No, not good. As I've mentioned, I've used removal as a tactic, where a cabal insisted on putting in half of what was in the source, omitting anything they didn't like from it, I'd try to put in the rest, and when faced with edit warring to keep it out, I'd then remove it all. They, because the good stuff was really good, they thought, would then put it back in, I'd "complete" what they did, etc. This was in the lead of an article, and the half-quotation really was good for their desired spin. But the completion of the quotation really did, if anything, spin the other way, because the source was critical of their position. At one point I'd moved the material deeper in the article, to address the question of the amount of text necessary to completely address what was in the source. They, then, reinserted the part they liked into the lead, knowing that their target audience would preferentially read the lead. (This was a true cabal, with a paid spinmaster leading it.) They asserted over and over how important this reference was, how notable, how very significant. What happened eventually? The community noticed, other editors came in to keep the full quotation in the lead, where it was damaging to their POV. They tried to remove it from the lead, because of the more extended discussion in the middle of the article. "Redundant," they now said. Of course, they'd been arguing for long how important it was, and the removal didn't fly, and I didn't have to lift a finger. It's still there, in the lead, with more detail deeper in. They kept trying to reword or interpret away the problem parts, but by staying very, very close to the original text, exact quotation for the most part, what I'd set up stuck, it's been stable for, I don't know, nine months now?

Jaimaster, my goal is for the Global warming article to be truly NPOV. My belief, by the way, is that, in the long run, this is more politically effective. It's just like the problem with the definition of global warming. I want my work to be politically effective. What does that mean? It means that it helps society. Helps society in what way? I don't know. I just trust that if people have clear access to good information, verifiable, reliable, they will make better decisions than if the information is predigested to attempt to induce them to come to the "correct" conclusions. The right wing has no monopoly on a distrust of the ability of common people to make good decisions, it's quite common on the left as well. I was initially shocked to discover that organizations which exist to reform democratic institutions don't use democratic process, they almost always use oligarchical governing structures. Why? So that the founders can control them. But wait, don't they trust democracy?

And the simple answer is that, no, they don't. They want "democracy," but only so long as it makes the decisions that they consider correct. And so with Wikipedia articles: editors may want NPOV, as long as it's "scientifically correct." By their standards. --Abd (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you run your eye over this dif? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_controversy&curid=13109&diff=245170043&oldid=245162199


 * I was reading through the article for other reasons and found an ambigous "one skeptic has claimed that one study violates data sharing", which seemed to me to be vague and pointless, so I reviewed the given source with intention to expand or delete. Expanded as it did contain specifics, including a wiki-noted author (the "one skeptic") and a rather notable study (Mann et al 1998). I tried to keep it a NPOV representation of the source; did I succeed? Jaimaster (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

GWC deleted categories
Re-deleted, thanks for pointing this out. --Skyemoor (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers. And credit where credit is due to Abd for his example to follow :) Jaimaster (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Global warming
Re : I'm not hysteric, but I may slowly become a cynic. To be honest, 9/11 was barely a blip on the US death statistics, and not that significant even among murders - less than a 20% rise for  the year. We only notice these events because they happen in close temporal and spatial proximity. The same number of death spread over a larger area is considered "normal" - in November 2001, probably more people died in traffic accidents than in the WTC.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hysteric was out of line, and I apologise. 9/11 was a shock because 2,700 people were deliberately murdered all at once... im not sure traffic deaths compare, as they arnt wrongful, but accidents... interesting thoughts though. Definantly something to think about. I still object to stating AGW has killed anyone, however. Even linking AGW to droughts to famines and attributing deaths to AGW through that method is a poor man's grab - we had the same droughts and famines when the world was 0.6*c cooler. Some even dare say that a 1-2*C average increase would save lives (higher crop yields through longer growing seasons, less people freezing to death). Its the old DDT type argument back again, after a fashion - "DDT killed xyz thousand people!" without remembering how many it also probably saved. Jaimaster (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. (or, if you prefer, apology accepted). I appreciate that you removed the comment immediately, but wanted to give some perspective. But your argument is a fallacy, of course. "My client never killed anybody. Sure, he shot at people, but people died from bullets before he started". As for "longer growing seasons": Most countries who would profit from longer growing seasons do not have a significant food problem. People die of hunger mostly in Africa, where an increase of temperature would further decrease yields. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Africa would very nearly feed itself regardless if it were not such a dogs breakfast of dictatorships, but I understand where you come from, even if I disagree with it. Jaimaster (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, either way, verifiable sources are not truth. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Global warming FAQ edits
Your edits to the global warming FAQ have been detrimental. Please cease and desist. Raul654 (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have got to be joking. Jaimaster (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your first edit was to change the header to invite edit warring, and your next edit was to substantially damage one of the answers - an inflammatory one that was sure to be reverted. Your edits are not helpful, and I have asked you to stop. Raul654 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, my first edit was to invite people to update the FAQ when the facts change according to peer-reviewed literature, a perfectly reasonable thing to have written there. My second edit merely clarifies that senate minority reports are not WP:RS because they arnt peer reviewed scientific literature, NOT because Raul654 hates a particular right wing senator.
 * In fact, nothing is added to the faq by naming Infoe there except enhancing the vision that Wiki walks with a 45* slant to the left. If the senate were to change in an election tomorrow, senate minority reports would still not be WP:RS - is that correct or not? Jaimaster (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If and when there's some big revelation that 'oops, we got it wrong' and one of the answers needs to be changed, the people knowledgeable and trustworthy enough to be updating the FAQ won't need to be told that they can change it; they know that already. So your first edit serves no purpose other than to invite people who shouldn't be changing the FAQ to try to edit war on it.
 * As to your second edit, the reliability of a source is primarily determined by the reliability of the author. Citations to non-peer-reviewed documents are allowed provided the author is reliable, although in general for science articles peer-reviewed sources are preferred. However, in the case of Inhofe's reports, they are not peer-reviewed, nor - more importantly - are they written by someone credible. In short, the take-away message from that paragraph is "Don't cite these because the author is a nutjob", not "don't trust these because they are not peer reviewed". Both are true, but the former statement is MUCH more relevant to their reliability. Raul654 (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I sincerely disagree that "please update question-answer pairs... as sourced in peer-reviewed literature" constitutes an invitation to edit war. Your comment shows once again that you consider yourself and certain others to WP:OWN certain article space. The reliability of a source is, according to my understanding of policy, more reliant on the publication than the author. If a political clown such as Inhofe (or a more likely example, Monckton) had a piece published in Nature, subject to the journal's normal checks and reviews, it would have to be fairly considered as reliable as any other item in that publication by default. Senate reports should be considered unreliable because of the lack of any verification, not the idiocy of the author. This quite effectively avoids both bias and perception of the same. Jaimaster (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (A) The FAQ is not article space. (In fact, it says this explicitly at the top of the FAQ, along with "Do not use this as a debating place.") It is a distillation of questions commonly asked on the talk page, and the correct response. The original response was correct; the version you created was not.
 * (B) If a political clown such as Inhofe (or a more likely example, Monckton) had a piece published in Nature, subject to the journal's normal checks and reviews, it would have to be fairly considered as reliable as any other item in that publication by default. - it most certainly would not. Perhaps before quoting policy, you should actually read it: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.  - Reliable sources Neither Monkton nor Inhofe are considered reliable in relation to global warming - in fact, they are about the farthest thing from it. Also notice that it says nothing about peer-review there. It says "a reliable publication process", which also includes books (we cite plenty of those as reliable sources) and other non-peer-reviewed documents.
 * (C) Senate reports should be considered unreliable because of the lack of any verification, not the idiocy of the author. - Incorrect. There are reliable senate reports, especially for non-controversial subjects like budget expenditures and the like. These senate reports, however, are unreliable because the author is a crank, not because they are senate reports. Raul654 (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your last on talk:Global warming has got to the one of the most unbelievable grand standing "last word" grabs I have ever seen. You are still wrong, btw. Hansen is saying it *will* be catastrophic. Mainstream science disagrees. Inhofe is saying nothing at all is happening. Mainstream science disagrees. Just like a far left Greenpeace activist is closer to a far right neo nazi than either are to mainstream, so it is with hysterics and deniers. Jaimaster (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Standing Offer/Request
Given our past interactions on various topics I thought I would make the following offer.

If you ever have something you want me to offer an opinion on or that you feel I might personally be interested in anywhere on wikipedia, its talk pages, or within any of the official forums such as noticeboards, RfCs, RfAs, and the like, please contact me directly on my talk page and feel free to reference this standing request. I trust your judgment in deciding which topics might be of interest to me, and please keep me informed of any topics in general as well as items specifically involving you personally. --GoRight (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism
An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 22:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 16:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE drive news
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 20:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)