User talk:Jack-A-Roe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome.

I'll reply here for conversations, so please watch.

If it's urgent for you to be notified of my reply, I'll post on your talk page.

I archive often, so if your message is blanked, please know that I read it and I will reply if needed.

--Jack-A-Roe

---

Contents 1 Re: unprotection... 2 Scope of Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard 3 Nudity and children 4 Barnstar! 5 Curious 6 Outstanding edits 7 Jovin IP 8 Satanic ritual abuse 9 Adminship

[edit] Re: unprotection...

I haven't received any sort of feedback in almost three days, and wanted to proceed cautiously. I'll give it another day or two and see what replies I get, this issue isn't really that urgent. east.718 at 17:35, May 11, 2008

If its the PPA article I strongly support unprotection, or well semi-protection, there are simply too many changes thata rticle need to be contemplated by {{edit-protect}}. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the article I had asked about. The discussion on the PPA talk page is here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

~

[edit] Scope of Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard

Could you please comment here? Thanks in advance. Andries (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nudity and children

Petra wasn't redirecting, she was just deleting content she disagrees with. Corvus cornix_talk 02:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Those edits were fine. In this diff, the deleted content was unsourced, except for one reference that was misquoted and actually stated the direct opposite of the wikitext. Other than that, she moved the content to the talk page of the merge target article, so the editors at that article could discuss what parts of the content to include in the other article. That was it. I don't see a problem there. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Blanking of an article without providing a redirect and without moving anything to the target article is not merging. Corvus cornix_talk 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The merge is already complete -- I don't understand why you want to continue this discussion. But since you posted the diff, I'll point out that she moved the entire article to the talk page of the merge-target at Nudity, and put the question up for discussion of what material would best be merged into the target article. That was a good faith editing transaction. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Petra has a long history of wanting to remove anything she considers pornography. I find it difficult to assume good faith. I would not have "continued" the discussion if you had not felt it necessary to intrude onto her Talk page in a conversation between the two of us. Corvus cornix_talk 03:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. You have a very different perception of her work than I do. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and Corvus' self-professed bad faith makes a lot of sense--because I'm really shy about expressing my opinion. Not. So if I had thought that article had any child porn in it, that's precisely what I would have said, in no uncertain terms. What I said instead was, it's hopeless disorganized OR (which it was). And Jack is welcome to post on my talkpage anytime he feels like it; I'll decide who the "intruders" are, thanks. -PetraSchelm (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If my original redirect had been left in place none of this would have happened, so if anyone is to blame it is the person who originally reverted me, not Petra. And fort eh record my original merge was removed from the nudity article by another user. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

		The Porn Star
		In recognition of your hard work improving the CP article- PetraSchelm (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Thank you! --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Curious

I'm curious to see how you would vote here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VanTucky/Chicken_poll -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding edits

A quick note to commend you on your outstanding edits, particularly to the pedophilia article. The amount of misused sources, misinformation, and marginal information that's presented as mainstream knowledge is astounding, and you're doing a great job of making the article more objective, and representative of the professional, legal, and community consensus on what pedophilia really is. Keep up the great work! Best regards, Googie man (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jovin IP

He has actually edited while logged out and then covered over his IP before, on Feb 16th: [1]. But it's a different ISP then the ones he used in May (which explains why the checkuser didn't catch his use of the IP--it was a different ISP/IP than the one he was using before...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Satanic ritual abuse

Hi JAR, you are probably the editor I trust most on the 'non-skeptical' side of satanic ritual abuse (apologies, it's not a good label but I figure it's better than 'pro satanic ritual abuse') and you've always managed to come up with good sources on other pages that helped greatly in clarifying. Could you do your usual excellent job here? I've been focussing on the 'anti' side because, well, my natural tendency is there, but also because the page seemed heavily weighted towards credulity and I thought it needed balance. Now I see a need for the other side as well and I've great trust in your ability to deliver. I want to remove all the non-scholarly sources if possible and I now think, based on my library work, that it is possible. WLU (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Hi JAR,

Have you ever considered adminship? I think you'd be a good 'un and would be quite pleased to add a support vote. WLU (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi WLU, thank you so much. Considering your extensive Wikipedia experience, that you would offer your support means a lot to me. I've thought about adminship in passing; I do think I could be of value in that role, but I have a concern that it might take away too much from my content editing and research. Based on your suggestion though, I will consider this further, and again, I thank you for your confidence in my work. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This would be one of the rare cases where I would feel comfortable making an overall comment about a candidates contributions. You civilly try to resolve disputes, use sources to resolve disputes when it's an option, and keep cool even in controversial situations. Best of all, you edit for both sides, even when you either do (or I would guess) disagree with the 'opposing' side. I've great faith in your abilities to be a good admin (though there's always the gauntlet of everyone who has ever had a grudge or dispute in the past that is the actual RFA process). I'm guessing you'll run into opposition, based on the areas you edit in (few people make friends editing sexual abuse-related articles).

Unfortunately I've never nominated or looked into nomination; you may be able to self-nominate. If you're really interested, ask User:TimVickers, he's pretty big in that area I think.

One of the reasons I'm avoiding adminship is the very one you cite - less time for actual editing. Though given my recent slowdown, that may not be much of a factor. Anyway, it's not a guaranteed problem - no one can make you do admin stuff. I've only really been interested for the ability to block vandals and move pages. I'm not even sure what other tasks would come up; I'd suggest you ask an admin. WLU (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Although often in disagreement with this user, I would probably back him for adminship, on one condition; a suitable explanation of why he started editing with such experience. This could include right to vanish or any number of other explanations, but I would certainly need an answer. forestPIG 02:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Given his high level of contributions initially (I gave 'im a promising newcomer barnstar for it) and choice of subjects (initial contribs were to medical articles), I'd suspect previous anon editing, combined with experience in referencing from some sort of education, possibly medical/doctor. Given familiarity with wiki-specifics like citation templates and referencing, I'd suspect an earlier account. Given his current civility and compliance with policies on extremely touchy subjects, I'd suspect a clean start that cuts both ways - may be trying to avoid previous scrutiny out of shame, but behavior that I've seen has always been impeccable so I'm quite willing to forget about any previous possible indiscretions. In case you did have a previous account JAR, and in case you have not already, I would suggest alternative account notification. I don't know either way and given how I've seen you handle things I don't care but just in case it's good to know about it.

If you're looking to do it, the instructions are here and I ask (note to any observers, this would not be considered canvassing as I'm asking to be told and I don't have the RFA page on my watchlist) that you inform me via e-mail or talk page. Alternatively, let me know if you'd like to try and I'll nom you myself but it'll take longer (I hate reading new pages).

I've always been intrigued to know what my RFA page would say, but I'm unwilling to abuse the page and process in question - RFA is not a glorified RFC/U. WLU (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am actually finding it hard to get my head around Forestic's comments as Jack very much seemed like a new user to me when he started. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)