Hi DaveJaffe! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm
Donner60. I noticed that you recently removed some content from
Frederick S. Jaffe with
this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Donner60 (
talk)
03:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, DaveJaffe. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Frederick S. Jaffe, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Keri ( talk) 16:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.-- Cameron11598 (Converse) 07:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Cameron11598 I'm not sure why you placed that here. I didn't edit the Abortion topic. The memo under question here does not take a stand on whether abortion should be legal. Is there an action I am required to take or did you just place that here for my information? DaveJaffe ( talk)
Cameron11598 I would welcome additional scrutiny. The edits to Frederick S. Jaffe are from an anti-abortion group that claim that just because proposals such as "Compulsory abortions for out-of-wedlock pregnancies" were listed in a table in a 1969 memo that Jaffe and Planned Parenthood support such measures. How do I engage these administrators? Thanks, Dave DaveJaffe ( talk)
Cameron11598 Thanks for the guidance and I appreciate your patience as I come up to speed on this. I'm still confused as to whether I am required to go throught the Arbitration Committee now that you have placed this notice on my page or whether I can continue with the DRN method, where an editor has indicated she is reviewing the claims. Thanks, Dave DaveJaffe ( talk)
Cameron11598, Keri Thank you both. Please let me know if you need additional information. Dave DaveJaffe ( talk)
Hello, DaveJaffe. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Frederick S. Jaffe, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DonIago ( talk) 19:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
If you believe your assertion that the page should be "locked"...well, it isn't. That would be a matter for WP:RFPP. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 19:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Doniago I have sent it up for resolution but this was decided in 2016 in our favor. From the Talk page: The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. The dispute was elevated to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Frederick S. Jaffe. (non-admin closure) Keri (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC) DaveJaffe ( talk) 21:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, read it! After a very extensive discussion several dispute resolution folks on Wikipedia ruled that I should keep my wording. Why go through it again, the result will be the same! DaveJaffe ( talk) 22:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was never supposed to be locked.
There are two possible explanations for the statement by User:DaveJaffe that the article is supposed to be locked. They both have to do with the notation at the top of the archive box of the DRN case. It states: "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it." The good-faith interpretation is that DaveJaffe is seriously confused about what is closed and should not be modified. The other explanation is that DaveJaffe knows what the notation means, but is trying to confuse the Wikipedia community. What was not to be modified was the DRN discussion itself. It says that subsequent comments may be made in a new section. The closure never meant that the article should not be modified, only that the DRN discussion should not be modified. In Wikipedia, assume good faith is a policy. So we can assume that User:DaveJaffe is simply seriously confused about what was locked, which was only a discussion, and not the article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
By the way, it was hardly an extensive discussion anyway. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon As I stated on the Frederick S. Jaffe Talk page, I apologize for misinterpreting the statement that the discussion was closed. I just thought that, after all the discussion in 2016 that resulted in wording about the Jaffe memo that was acceptable to myself and several folks who worked on the dispute at that time, that the topic was closed or at least would require the intervention of Wikipedia dispute folks to change the wording. I apologize for reverting those changes and won't do that again. I am requesting that the wording be reverted to Dec 10, 2020, until we complete this new dispute, if others really insist on re-litigating this. DaveJaffe ( talk) 02:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you want me to request a partial block against your editing of Frederick S. Jaffe?
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi DaveJaffe! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm
Donner60. I noticed that you recently removed some content from
Frederick S. Jaffe with
this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Donner60 (
talk)
03:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, DaveJaffe. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Frederick S. Jaffe, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Keri ( talk) 16:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.-- Cameron11598 (Converse) 07:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Cameron11598 I'm not sure why you placed that here. I didn't edit the Abortion topic. The memo under question here does not take a stand on whether abortion should be legal. Is there an action I am required to take or did you just place that here for my information? DaveJaffe ( talk)
Cameron11598 I would welcome additional scrutiny. The edits to Frederick S. Jaffe are from an anti-abortion group that claim that just because proposals such as "Compulsory abortions for out-of-wedlock pregnancies" were listed in a table in a 1969 memo that Jaffe and Planned Parenthood support such measures. How do I engage these administrators? Thanks, Dave DaveJaffe ( talk)
Cameron11598 Thanks for the guidance and I appreciate your patience as I come up to speed on this. I'm still confused as to whether I am required to go throught the Arbitration Committee now that you have placed this notice on my page or whether I can continue with the DRN method, where an editor has indicated she is reviewing the claims. Thanks, Dave DaveJaffe ( talk)
Cameron11598, Keri Thank you both. Please let me know if you need additional information. Dave DaveJaffe ( talk)
Hello, DaveJaffe. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Frederick S. Jaffe, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DonIago ( talk) 19:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
If you believe your assertion that the page should be "locked"...well, it isn't. That would be a matter for WP:RFPP. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 19:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Doniago I have sent it up for resolution but this was decided in 2016 in our favor. From the Talk page: The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. The dispute was elevated to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Frederick S. Jaffe. (non-admin closure) Keri (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC) DaveJaffe ( talk) 21:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, read it! After a very extensive discussion several dispute resolution folks on Wikipedia ruled that I should keep my wording. Why go through it again, the result will be the same! DaveJaffe ( talk) 22:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was never supposed to be locked.
There are two possible explanations for the statement by User:DaveJaffe that the article is supposed to be locked. They both have to do with the notation at the top of the archive box of the DRN case. It states: "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it." The good-faith interpretation is that DaveJaffe is seriously confused about what is closed and should not be modified. The other explanation is that DaveJaffe knows what the notation means, but is trying to confuse the Wikipedia community. What was not to be modified was the DRN discussion itself. It says that subsequent comments may be made in a new section. The closure never meant that the article should not be modified, only that the DRN discussion should not be modified. In Wikipedia, assume good faith is a policy. So we can assume that User:DaveJaffe is simply seriously confused about what was locked, which was only a discussion, and not the article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
By the way, it was hardly an extensive discussion anyway. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon As I stated on the Frederick S. Jaffe Talk page, I apologize for misinterpreting the statement that the discussion was closed. I just thought that, after all the discussion in 2016 that resulted in wording about the Jaffe memo that was acceptable to myself and several folks who worked on the dispute at that time, that the topic was closed or at least would require the intervention of Wikipedia dispute folks to change the wording. I apologize for reverting those changes and won't do that again. I am requesting that the wording be reverted to Dec 10, 2020, until we complete this new dispute, if others really insist on re-litigating this. DaveJaffe ( talk) 02:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you want me to request a partial block against your editing of Frederick S. Jaffe?
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.