This user may have left Wikipedia. Jack-A-Roe has not edited Wikipedia since August 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah. Does this have something to do with the predator infiltration that Fox News commented on? Lionel (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sort of, though much of that story was years out of date and some of the facts were inaccurate, so take it with a grain of salt.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)[reply]

Ironic, based on this thread I created the FAQ at NAMBLA, which you voted to delete. Lionel (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

As one of the designers of the previous lead, your take on this matter is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I expanded some of my original points at the GL talk page, after your edit (which I didn't see). Hope you don't mind. McZeus (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi. I hope you haven't forgotten that WP needs balanced, insightful contributors like yourself. As always I'm on the point of going but maybe our paths will cross again some day. Oh and - hope you like my new name! McZeus (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of "semi-wikibreak" lasts eleven months?

Miss ya! Herostratus (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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's^{up, dog?} 03:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 [email protected]. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read the Books & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

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 :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox topic terms has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.[reply]

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 1, June/July 2014
by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery

This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.

note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

---

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:

• WHO's list of Essential Medicines[1]
• Neglected tropical diseases[2]
• Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

---

IEG grant

I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.

Wikimania 2014

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.

Integration progress

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.

• Swedish
  Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that.
  Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
• Dutch
  Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
• Polish
  Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article.
  (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
• Arabic
  The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration guides

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [3]

News in short

---

To come

• Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
• Proofreading drives

Further reading

• Translators Without Borders
• Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Medical Translation partners Translators Without Borders WikiProject Medicine (English) Wiki Project Med Foundation resources Progress (full) Progress (simplified) Babylon Integration guides Wikipedia - Translate outreach Editor Outreach Journal outreach get involved Sign up

Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse
If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!