User talk:Jack-A-Roe

This user has an alternative account named Jack-O-Roe.

---

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.

--Jack-A-Roe

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)

~

Scope of Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The use of citation templates usually isn't seen in new users unless they're really on the ball or not new, though an observant scholar used to citing things or programmer might see the utility quite quickly. Irrespective, my reading of WP:SOCK is it's only a problem if the multiple accounts are abused; in my experience JAR is far from problematic so even if there is a history it does not appear to have transferred. Barring some arbitration hearing that is being skirted, a polite user who knows his policies and remains civil despite adversity is someone worth giving the tools to. WLU (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

WLU, thank you again for your encouragement regarding adminship and your kind comments. I'm not sure if it's the best use of my Wikipedia time, but it may be. I'll continue to ponder on this.

ForesticPig, thank you also. I was surprised to read that you might support me for admin, considering the differences we've had so far on content. I appreciate your note.

WLU's guess was close. My background is academic/scientific with many years of grad school in several fields, including medicine and computer science among others, but not an MD. I did a short run of IP editing before signing up but found it unsatisfying without a user name because collaboration is key. With my computer experience, wikitext was quick and fun to learn, ie citation templates, and other tricks like page formatting, redirection, etc., and navigation of the "WP:" pages on policies and procedures. I do have one other account I've never used for editing. The user name I wanted required administrative assistance, so I had to start with a different account name first to make the request, as can be seen at Jack-O-Roe (talk · contribs). That's all though - I can offer no interesting disclosures of prior lives, because there aren't any to disclose. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest the handy templates available at Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Alternative_account_notification? You've already admitted, you might as well, it's protection against future accusations and you never know when that other account might have a legitimate use. Or not, it's your choice.

I'm still interested in the possiblity of a past life as a high priest of Egypt. I've some questions to ask you about how the pyramids were built. It was poured concrete, wasn't it? I KNEW it. WLU (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates have been added, thanks for the advice. Yup, the pyramids are concrete, how did you figure it out? Stonehenge was the real mess - we had to drag those giant stones for 25 miles! --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that is 250 miles not 25, the stones were taken from Wales which is a lot further than 25 miles from Wiltshire. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Both wrong, stonehenge were floated by druids from the New World. Tsk. WLU (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that Jack-A-Roe would make an excellent admin. ResearchEditor (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Responsible editing

I would class this as responsible editing [2] as it seems to be representative of the broad literature on the subject. If any of it is reasonably disputed, I will be quite fine with discussing any of it that is moved for discussion to the discussion page. I do doubt that any of it could be reasonably disputed, however, I understand that hard work is often required on related articles. Cheers. Phdarts (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and for your work on that article as well. I figured that most of the work I did on it yesterday would be pretty quickly reverted by the editor who WP:OWNs that walled garden of topics. The references and text I added are in the page history and can be retrieved later as needed. It'll take some time, but in the long run, that walled garden needs to be cleared of the romanticized original research that has taken over where there should be verifiable information. I'm not happy about the idea of deconstructing someone's hard work, even a person as radically uncivil as the editor in question. But the information is extensively incorrect and misleading, so it can't stay as it's been. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, its a situation that will take some patience. Phdarts (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

LOTR

Hi, JAR -- I've noticed that you've done a lot of good work on the Lord of the Rings article. I feel silly debating the point, but I really don't like the statement "The story centres on the Ring of Power made by the Dark Lord Sauron in an earlier age and the other Rings of Power that are ruled by the One Ring." I think it's the word "centres." I really don't think the other rings are so important as to suggest that the story is centered around them. They have their place. I tried coming up with a better way to write that statement, since (as you said) the title is "The Lord of the Rings", plural. But I can't come up with anything that doesn't sound ridiculous.
What do you think? Thanks, Macduffman (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Let's give this "debate" a chuckle, but no need to feel silly about it... this is not just any routine fantasy novel, to say the least!

I agree with you that sentence needs some work. The One Ring seems more central to the story than the other Rings, then again, the One Ring wouldn't have such power if there were no other Rings for it to rule, through the powers they give to the various peoples in the story - Elves, Dwarves and Men - especially the 3 and the 9 are constantly affecting the story. But maybe the use of the word "centered" is the issue, since the story doesn't have a clear center in a way. Some might say it centers on Frodo's journey, the transformation of the protagonist, or might interpret it in other ways.

Another idea would be to say that the story centers on Sauron himself, since he's the character that the book is named for, then the Rings could be described in that context, as creations of Sauron. Of course then there's also the extra complication that he didn't make the three, and that's too much detail for the intro. Hmmm... apparently it's not easy to summarize a thousand pages in one sentence! This will need more contemplation...--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Saw your revision - looks good, nice work and thanks for your consideration! The one-line "summary of a thousand pages" is certainly one of the most important lines in the article. :) Macduffman (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like it. I've done another copyedit I hope is a further improvement. If you don't agree, we can go back to the prior one, but I like this one better since the word "conquer" is more evocative and it describes the One Ring as the ultimate weapon. Thanks for bringing this up so we could improve the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely stronger, more appropriate language. Thanks again and good luck! Macduffman (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ephebophilia

Will you relay your thoughts on the talk page of this article clarifying what pedophilia is and how it is different than ephebophilia? And why a note distinguishing the two is appropriate? Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've entered a comment there. I agree the difference needs to be made clear in the article, but the hatnote does not seem to be the best place to do that. I recommend strengthening the lead of the article to address any possible confusion between the terms. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection.

Okay, thanks for spotting that. I've dropped it down to semi-protection. · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Real Life Ministries

Hi there, and thanks for the reminder. Unprotected. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message

		Thank you for the support!
		Jack-A-Roe, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Weblink

Remember our discussion about the APA stance on recovered memory? Here's a weblink that discusses, while reviewing Brown, Shefflin and Hammond as well as McNally. Thought you'd be interested. WLU (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

...unfortunately I can't tell if it's actually the book review or just an opinion piece. Don't suppose you've access to the NY review of books? WLU (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)