Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreadstar (talk | contribs) at 19:05, 28 January 2008 (Bleep RfM). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)