User talk:Jack-A-Roe

Jack-A-Roe is taking a semi-wikibreak and will fully return to Wikipedia later.

Welcome to Jack-A-Roe's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply.

Banned editor continuing to come back to Wikipedia partly to harass

User:Raven in Orbit was banned from Wikipedia due to his consistent defamatory accusations about fellow Wikipedians -- calling editors pedophiles and pedo-pushers, all because he does not grasp the difference between it and ephebophilia (for whatever mind-boggling reason). He additionally has a specific "hate on" for me, as though I am some pedophile, despite my contributions to the Pedophilia article and comments on its talk page clearly showing that I am in no way a pedophile and am very much against pedophiles. You already know that my edits to that article and talk page have consistently combated actual pedophile-pushers. This does not matter to Raven in Orbit, though, seeing as he treats me as a pedophile villain.

Though Raven in Orbit was banned from Wikipedia, he has come back to harass me twice now. Once seen in this link, which was reverted by Legitimus (also seen in that link), and now more recently in a discussion on my talk page (which administrator LessHeard vanU happened to be involved in). I see that he has even edited his user page to state defamatory remarks about why he left Wikipedia.

What should I do about this person in regards to Wikipedia? Luckily, I have not experienced any email harassment from him. If I have, I missed it. But I could stop the email harassment if that was going on. There does not seem to be anything that I can do to stop this harassment regarding Wikipedia. But as I stated to Legitimus, "I am beyond tired of this troll, even though I have not heard from him in months. I do not take well whatsoever to being called a pedophile or a pedophile-pusher."

Any help you can offer on this matter would be much appreciated by me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; it seemed to be the best place to take it out of the other options given by Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer - yes, I remember that user. It's very annoying to see those comments. He doesn't get it all, your work is exactly the opposite of what he wrote! It looks like from the ANI report that this has been handled OK. If you need any further help, please let me know. Hope you're having a good holiday season. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you may have seen, he is currently bad-mouthing me on his talk page, but I can handle it. The administrator is not taking his bad-mouth comments seriously either, other than in regards to why he should remain blocked. As I recently stated on my talk page to Legitimus, it stings being called a pedophile. I can get through this, though, just like I did last time. I'm thinking that this user should be restricted from commenting on his talk page, as it is clear that he is going to continue trashing me and others.

I hope that your holiday season is going well also. We all know how stressful Wikipedia can be. If anyone deserves a good break from all this chaos, that anyone is you. And thank you for caring. Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have already wished you a good holiday season... If you celebrate Christmas, Jack, I want to specifically wish you well on this day also. And happy editing. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mediation notification

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Orgasmic_meditation has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Orgasmic_meditation and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Voila-pourquoi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, but I had to decline the mediation. That's not the correct forum for your concern, as I noted on the mediation talk page. If you do want a formal venue for your question, AfD would be the place. The term is used by no-one outside of the organization, other than a mention in a couple pop-culture newspaper articles describing the organization's activities. It's just not a notable term. You've had months to look for sources and not found any. So why push to keep the article separate? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just to be clear, my research had revealed 3 new sources -- Grazia magazine, New York Post, and the book "Thanks for coming" -- making a total of 8 sources for this article. Several of those sources are being questioned or deleted on the article now by an editor who supports the merge. I would really appreciate if you could tell me how to bring this question to the venue of AfD -- short of nominating the article for deletion myself. There is currently no discussion on AfD concerning this proposed merger. Thank you. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I don't have time to reply right now, but I will post some info for you when I can get the time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Orgasmic meditation.

For the Mediation Committee, Seddon ^talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Michael H 34 RFC/U

Hi,

A RFC/U has been created regarding the conduct of an editor you have had contact with, User:Michael H 34. It can be found here. Please comment if you feel it appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archives of some moves pages

Copied from Wikipedia:Requested moves

Talk:Pro-pedophile activism/Archive 1 → Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 1 (move) — Talk page archives got disconnected from the talk page during a page move last year. I was able to fix all of them manually, but one of the pages could not be corrected because it already had a redirect. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On further review - I apologize if this caused any extra work, but think I might have created a problem with those subpages when I tried to clean up the links after the initial page move. The first time, the page was moved (rather than merged), so I moved the talk page with it. But then after that, it was merged (with a redirect) to a page that already had content so the talk page did not get moved. Later, a bot updated the double-redirect, so now the page title that has the talk page (and archives) is not linked from anywhere. I don't have experience with this kind of situation and don't know how to fix it. Thanks for your help. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is an idea that might keep this simple and still effective: if the first archive page is moved (per the initial request above), it will then be together with all the others. A link could be posted at the top of the talk page of the old article location, at Talk:Pro-pedophile activism, noting that the talk page and complete archives have been moved to Talk:Pedophile movement. That would create a complete link-trail for anyone wanting to follow the discussions. There might be a better technical solution, but if not, I think that would work OK and would avoid the work of moving multiple talk page archives back to the original location. Just a thought, I hope it's helpful. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued

Page Pedophile movement is redirected to Age of consent reform. I have put in Talk:Age of consent reform an info section pointing to these archive pages. All talk archives of page Pro-pedophile activism seem to be redirects. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony - thanks for your help with the move-over-redirect and the link to the list of archives. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"ethnoreligious group"

Jews in American politics: essays does, in fact, use the term, in three places. On page 158 (as cited), and on pages 162 and 166. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming that. Sorry about the misunderstanding, I realize now that lots of work has already been done on this, that's why I withdrew what I had written right after I posted it. I'll re-post my question in a different way. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Whisperer and activist source

Would you mind following up on the conversation at the Reliable Source discussion re: the Institute for Critical Animal Studies]? Thanks. I've clarified the COI of the "Institute." 842U (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Material article

Verbal has started attacking the Seth Material article again. First he started reverting my revisions, though I was trying to make the terminology more neutral. Then he tried to delete portions of it, and I restored them (today he again deleted portions). He also placed a tag on it about the neutrality being disputed -- and he did that AFTER I made extensive changes to satisfy him. He's clearly spoiling for a fight. We've been through all this before, and if a few editors who are supportive of the article would show up, it would be helpful. Thanks!--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack-A-Roe, the Seth Material article has now been taken over by atheists and skeptics, and they are in the process of removing much of the information that was there and inserting critical information. I allowed myself to get too passionate about the article, and then -- instead of apologizing -- I made a spirited defense of myself and refused to lick their asses. Verbal got one of his friends in an administrative position to kick me off.

The group of editors who had come to the defense of the article before, including you, are now too exhausted by edit-warring to come to its defense. So it appears that the nature of the article is going to change drastically.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]