Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:16, 11 February 2008

Welcome

Hello. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I created your account for you.

See our introduction to become acquainted with Misplaced Pages, and move on to the tutorial which, I think, gives some very good information about editing that all Wikipedians should read.

There are lots of ways you can help with the encyclopedia; check out Misplaced Pages:Contributing to Misplaced Pages to find out how.

If you have any questions, you can ask on my talk page, check Misplaced Pages:Questions, or leave {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will be around to help shortly. Again, welcome, and happy editing! WODUP 06:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits and comments on Morgellons are appreciated

So please do not feel your input is being ignored. IMO your response was measured and well expressed. The revision of your edit was not due any problem with you. There has been much division between editors on this article. Extraordinary levels of debate and emotion have been a constant theme there, and it has taken a lot of effort to keep the article from edit warring. I believe I should probably have taken more time to consider how to word the external links template so it clearly indicated multiple NPOV inputs may be needed to settle the issue among the editors. I firmly believe your input will be considered when the issue is resolved. Thanks again. Ward20 17:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for correcting my error on the relaxation technique page. Much obliged! WLU (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		Impressive for someone with less than 200 edits! WLU (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What a cool surprise! Thanks a lot! --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a surprise, you're doing a great job and should expect, nay, demand! recognition. But you won't get it, so here's a barnstar instead. Also, if you like long reads, I've an essay I composed for noobs, you might find some useful stuff in it. Though maybe not given the quality of your contributions to date... WLU (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people put their preference at the top of the talk page, others do not. Generally I watch most user talk pages I post on and look for a reply when I've left a message. If I get a quick reply (i.e. we're posting in realtime) I usually bounce back and forth between reading on mine and replying on the other person's. If I'm not sure about a reply but it's important and I've replied on my own talk page, I usually leave a note on the person's talk page saying the reply is there. It usually works out, if it's important you'll tell them or make a point of reading their reply. WLU (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

merge proposal for complementary and alternative medicine articles

Due to your comments in talk, how about removing the merge proposal for complementary and alternative medicine articles banner from the article itself? -- John Gohde (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's done. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How about the alternative medicine and complementary medicine banners? -- John Gohde (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Jack-A-Roe. I was just skimming the latest thread on the Bleep Talk page. I really appreciate your moderating influence. Thanks so much. TimidGuy (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Melon heads

Jack, thanks for contributing to the Melon Heads deletion talk. it's a long discussion to follow, but you'll note that the sources that you mention are the main point of contention RE: keeping vs. deleting part of the article: their reliability as valid sources is in question. Refer to the debate for more information.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I reviewed the discussion further and found another newspaper article. I've added a follow-up comment at the AfD. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops!

Hi!

Sorry for accidentally reverting some changes you had made -- I had only looked at the top rev and didn't see that you had been working on it ... Sorry :)

Moogle10000 08:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for catching that and restoring my edits. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP Search engine

Many thanks for this unexpected link, Jack, much appreciated; it looks good, I will use it and collate responses. thanks again! Peter morrell 09:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Header in Lolicon Article

I noticed that you recently added an NPOV header to the article on Lolicon. Could you possibly explain how the neutrality of the text therein is biased or questioned? To me, it looks like a fair and balanced article. Thank you in advance, ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. As this is a question about the content of the article, I will reply on the article talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of a further reply, I removed the tag. The issues I had been concerned about were resolved by recent edits. If a problem surfaces again, I'll mention it on the talk page. Hope that's helpful. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally while discussion about it is underway, as you did to Adult-child sex. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Please seek Requested Moves for further assistance, for this potentially controversial move. Furthermore, a comment has been made at ANI here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware of the discussions and the ANI posting. There was a discussion with consensus of approximately 8 editors agreeing about the redirect. I was one of several editors who restored the redirect after it had been undone without consensus. The discussion is continuing on the talk page of the article and at ANI. I'm sure they'll sort it out OK. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

All I am seeing is the indifference, could you direct me to the general consensus regarding the page move? All else holding though, going to RM might provide a better solution, to save edit warring and the whole page move mess (since the discussions are not being merged over). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In the section at Talk:Adult-child sex#Proposal to delete this article, at the time when the move was first made, there were 7 editors agreeing it should be done, and only 2 dissenting. Now that the multiple reversions have been happening, there appear to be 3 editors arguing to keep it, plus there was one who reverted the change a few days ago but who has not added any new comments.

That doesn't include your position, which I don't know. It seemed like your comment was mostly about procedure and not about the article itself, so I didn't count you on either side of the question in this summary.

So now it's less clear than it was when the first change was done, though there is still a rough consensus to redirect. I'm not going to edit war about it. However, the article title is misleading and there are no WP:V sources supporting the term "adult-child sex" in any context other than child abuse. Eventually, as Misplaced Pages winds its way through process, the article will not last, unless there is a big surprise and someone finds reliable sources that have been hiding previously even though there's been ongoing searches, and that's not likely in the long run, because it's a fringe theory and has no scientific support. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. I was an uninvolved editor who noted the incident at ANI, and came in to at least diffuse the situation on both sides. I have no stance on the issue currently. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on that. I notice the page is protected now. That's a good thing to allow time for things to calm down and for more editors to comment on the main issue. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

RMT

Nice clean up there - this area seems so difficult to keep clarity in - I find myself extrapolating from sources too easily. SmithBlue (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD issues

Hello - I don't want to edit war with anyone on where their comments should be, possibly the best solution would be moving the rest of that particular thread back if you think its necessary. Folks have moved stuff back and forth enough that I imagine its a bit hard to follow, but even disjointed everything is there for the closing admin to see. I think its a pretty clear no-consensus close, however, so I don't know that any additional work at the AfD is warranted. 03:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. 04:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

DRV

Yep, you are correct thank you. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RfM filed

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the continuing dispute over the lead section of this article. You have been listed as an involved party, please respond on the mediation page at your earliest convenience. Dreadstar † 19:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Hi JAR,

Just a note, you seem to be tackling some controversial areas of[REDACTED] (both in real-world terms and in wiki-terms, a la CAM). You also seem to be doing an unusual job in that your comments seem to be very neutral and civil. Good stuff, you get e-props.

Oh, and I've popped into the recovered memory therapy page. It's awful. Blech. If you're still editing, see you there. I'm also back on the satanic ritual abuse page. I don't think you are. But if you're still editing, I'll see you there as well : ) WLU (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, thanks for your note. Those are a couple challenging pages, that's for sure! I'll check in over there when I have a chance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

On those pages I keep vacillating between 'hideous wastes of time full of unreasonable POV-pushing SPA accounts' and 'the best and most rewarding work I've ever done on wikipedia'. In any case, civility has been a huge help, and seeing a newcomer like yourself maintaining your cool is inspiring. Kudos, and thanks for the excellent example! WLU (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Psychogenic amnesia

Hi JAR, I've commented out a sentence you put in and put a comment on the talk page itself - please have a look, as well as compare psychogenic amnesia with repressed memory and repressed memory therapy. One is a medical diagnosis and the others are essentially political issues (in my mind). I've talked to some doctors about it (one of which on-wiki), hopefully I'll be able to source the differences between the two if I can find the sources. Hate to trample your prose!

Also, what journal publishes the article is usually not important enough to put it in the text, but I understand the impulse to do so. I've attempted a re-wording, hope you approve. WLU (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur about the political nature of the term recovered memory therapy, that gets in the way of the science. Since someone else has already edited that part of the page in the meatime, I'll reply further about the particulars on the talk page.

Regarding the mention of the journal's name, I agree with you and generally try to avoid that. In this situation, I included it because there was only one reference to a particular study, and I was concerned that a more general statement might move the text in the direction of WP:OR. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, I've edited to remove it but revert if you think it's warranted. This page may require more time and energy than I've got at the moment so my participation may drop soon to keep my wikistress down. Oh, and satanic ritual abuse has been locked again. That was quick! WLU (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For good and cogent editing on contentious material Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the acknowledgment. You've made a big difference to those topics as well, so thank you for that too. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/What the Bleep Do We Know!?. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Repressed memory

I notice you're going hammer and tongs at repressed memory therapy, I've done the same over at repressed memory. Would you mind reviewing my changes? Also, from my last glance, RMT does not have repressed memory mentioned, or wikilinked in the title - that seems like an egregious omission. Just a thought. WLU (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. I'm signing off for a while now but will check it later. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Like a barnstar, but different

WLU (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

New tags on SH in education article

Could you add a section at the bottom of talk page that explains where you see the problems. The neutrality issues is already clear, (and people have been invited repeatedly to add other POVs, but they won't.

The rest of your tags read like generalizations, and you aren't pointing to any specific problems. I.e. Where is the problem with valid or misrepresented referencing? What is your basis for this. Koala06 (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)