User talk:DaveJaffe

DaveJaffe, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi DaveJaffe! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Frederick S. Jaffe was accepted

Frederick S. Jaffe, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

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)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation on my talk page. Since your edit was in good faith, I am deleting my original message. However, your further edit still does not have an explanation so someone else may challenge it. A change in content, especially a deletion when a source is cited, should be explained in the edit summary. If necessary due to space limitations, a reference to a further explanation on the talk page may be mentioned as well. See Help:Introduction to talk pages, Help:Using talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You also may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Help:Contents provides guidance and links to pages were help can be requested. Another place to make comments or seek help is Wikipedia:Teahouse. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In view of a reasonable comment from the IP user with whom you are apparently in disagreement, I have acknowledged that he has a point. I am concerned that I may no longer be considered a neutral editor. I am not an administrator and can not resolve an ongoing issue of this type. So I will not edit the article further and will leave it for others who are knowledgeable and, more importantly, able to approach the matter fresh and with a neutral point of view. Donner60 (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page Wikipedia:Dispute resolution suggests steps to resolve conflicts. You will see that the second section is "Resolving content disputes with outside help", which in turn links to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. I think those pages answer your question. Donner60 (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

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:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

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)[reply]

Keri, I have never tried to hide the fact that Frederick S. Jaffe was my father. The article went through rigorous fact checking/documentation of primary sources by Wikipedia editors when I submitted it in 2013. I am simply asking for the same level of scrutiny be applied to additional material added to it. DaveJaffe (talk)

Hi. Yes, I note that there has been nothing deceptive about your actions, and, contrary to what was said at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard, this is a notice for information purposes, not a warning. I don't have an opinion either way regarding the current dispute as I am still reviewing the literature. Keri (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Frederick S. Jaffe

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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)[reply]

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)

I placed it because the article Frederick S. Jaffe does fall under the Abortion Topic Sanctions Broadly Construed (generally anything related to abortion falls under these sanctions) enacted by the Arbitration Committee. I double checked with a member of the Arbitration Committee before placing this notice. This is just a heads up that the article is subject to additional scrutiny by Administrators. If you have any further questions don't hesitate to ask. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 18:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Generally there has to be a violation of policy, I recommend familiarizing yourself with the Discretionary Sanctions System, and the specific restrictions placed on the Abortion topic. You can request enforcement through the Arbitration Committee. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 18:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also before an enforcement action can be taken editors generally have to have been warned with the template I placed on your page that the sanctions exist. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 18:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Continue with DRN. Keri (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Keri said Continue with DRN, just be advised that the discretionary sanctions are in place. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron11598, Keri Thank you both. Please let me know if you need additional information. Dave DaveJaffe (talk)

Managing a conflict of interest

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:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fwiw, here is the 2016 DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_137#Talk:Frederick_S._Jaffe. I haven't read it, but note that nothing there means "This page is supposed to be locked". Apart from WP:COI, note also the discretionary sanctions template at the top of Talk:Frederick S. Jaffe, which hasn't been used since 2016. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

DRN is a form of dispute resolution and is not empowered to make binding decisions, as clearly stated at WP:DRN. Policies and guidelines that were in place four years ago may no longer be in force. If you want to continue to reinsert unsourced information, you're going to need to form a WP:CONSENSUS in support of your inclusion. I would encourage you to bring this to the article's talk page, or WP:RFPP, as noted above, if you truly feel that page protection is warranted. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick S. Jaffe Dispute

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)[reply]

By the way, it was hardly an extensive discussion anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, User:DaveJaffe. The article may be restored to December 11, but not to December 10. You may not roll back the edit made by User:Doniago on December 11, who removed a section on the Jaffe memo that was marked as unsourced since 2018. You should not have been editing the article directly, and you should not be editing the article directly. If you can provide a reliable source for the statement about the so-called Jaffe memo, then you may provide the sourced version and request that it be included. Otherwise, the section stays out, because it has failed verification.

Do you want me to request a partial block against your editing of Frederick S. Jaffe?

Notice

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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]