User talk:Jack-A-Roe#White slavery
{{not around|date=August 2016}}
{{Usertalkconcise}}
__TOC__
----
Pedophilia
Hello Jack, you don't think the 10 or so sources in Pedophilia#Pedophile_activism justify the activism cat per Wikipedia:Category#Categorizing_pages? Lionel (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
:No, the Pedophilia article does not belong in :Category:Pedophile activism. It's a science article. Putting it in that category would create an incorrect impression of the article content and a false impression that that might be something other than fringe ideas in that category topic. There is only one short paragraph about pedophile advocacy groups in the article. That paragraph has many sources because it came from an article that no longer exists - its current form is the result of a consensus process that removed the influence of disruptive editing by editors who have since then been banned. In addition, the references that are cited in that section do not use the term "activism". The section heading in the article should be changed to something more in accord with the sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
::Ah. Does this have something to do with the predator infiltration that Fox News commented on? Lionel (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, sort of, though much of that story was years out of date and some of the facts were inaccurate, so take it with a grain of salt. That said, because of past editing disruptions, this topic area requires especially careful attention to reliable sources and avoidance of undue weight. -Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
::::Ironic, based on this thread I created the FAQ at NAMBLA, which you voted to delete. Lionel (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::If it seems ironic to you, that may be because you don't know the full history of the topic area. The child protection policy is important and carefully worded. It stands on its own and the FAQ is not a helpful addition. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
=[[Talk:Pedophilia#Proposals for new lead]]=
Parental Alienation Syndrome
The tagging of the Parental Alienation Syndrome article with PAW has become the subject of debate on its talk page; specifically, I identified it as vandalism and removed it and was reverted. It was subsequently determined that you are the user who added the tag in 2008 and are an active member of the PAW project (hence, at a minimum, it was not vandalism.) It would seem that, as such, you or one of your peers is the "final arbiter" of which articles belong in the project. Could you re-evaluate the article (it has changed significantly since 2008 when some comments related to pedophilia were being added to it) and determine if you still feel it belongs as part of PAW (a tag that, with all due respect seems very pejorative.) And if you feel that it does, would you be so kind as to provide some insight as to why? Many thanks--Cybermud (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
:I've removed the tag and added a comment on the article talk page. The PAW project is inactive now and the new version of the article doesn't appear to need that kind of monitoring at this time anyway. But aside from that, I don't see the tag as perjorative, I certainly never used it that way. It's a management tool. Those topics are difficult, but they exist and have to be managed like any other group of topics. The PAS article refers to child sexual abuse as a component of the early definitions of the PAS term, and in past versions of the article that part of the text was more prominent, that's probably why the tag was there. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
GL
WikiProject Sociology membership
I see that within the last year you have made at least one substantial comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, but you have not added yourself to the project's official member list. This prevents you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
(:})
Da hell?
What kind of "semi-wikibreak" lasts eleven months?
Miss ya! Herostratus (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
False Memory Syndrome Foundation
Hi there! I noticed on the FMSF talk page that you have contributed to the article. I just wanted to let you know that I nominated it for deletion and I would love to hear your opinion on the deletion page.
Thanks!! /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus What'sup, dog? 03:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
- Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): [http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM]
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Pro-pedophile activism listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pro-pedophile activism. Since you had some involvement with the Pro-pedophile activism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Wiki Medicine
Hi
I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at :m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.
Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.
Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
{{WP:TWL/Header}}
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.
- Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
- Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
- If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)
