User talk:Bfpage/archive/June 2015

Comment
Hi, you recently added this sentence to hymenotomy: "Sexual intercourse remains possible a hymenotomy, labia minora reduction, surgical and radiological cancer treatments and chemotherapy of the vulvo-vaginal area." I have been trying to work out what it is intended to mean. I realize that you are currently blocked, but I assume you still have access to your talk page, so can you explain? I don't get the first part of the sentence at all, and I don't follow why "labia minora reduction" is even mentioned, or how it is related to cancer treatments. Paul B (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contacting me. The hymen, of course, is an anatomical structure.  A hymenotomy is the surgical removal or all or part of the hymen.  The hymen is very much involved in sexual intercourse and therefore surgery on the hymen for whatever reason impacts women who wish to continue sexual intercourse.  Cancer treatment may be performed in, around or for the removal of those structures and can result in, of course, serious tissue damage to those structures.  A hymenotomy is done for other reasons by gynecologists, but unfortunately I am unable at this time to include the content that explains other reasons for hymenotomies and the references for that information.  If I recall, I tried to find the information on Wikipedia since it is easier to find a link to relevant information than it is to create content and references, but couldn't find it.  Feel free to edit what I added, or even better, if you think it would be helpful I can post the proposed additional content and reference here on my talk page that could be inserted into the article to address the issues that you have brought up.  Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am of course aware that the hymen is an "anatomical structure" and that "a hymenotomy is the surgical removal or all or part of the hymen". That does not help to explain the ungrammatical phrase "Sexual intercourse remains possible a hymenotomy". Did you intend to say that it remains possible after a hymenotomy? "Cancer treatment may be performed in, around or for the removal of those structures and can result in, of course, serious tissue damage to those structures". Again, I don't follow this. Are you saying that the hymen will / may be damaged if a woman has treatment for cervical or other forms of genital-area cancers? Or perhaps that a hymenotomy may be necessary to provide such treatment? I still don't know why there is a reference to "labia minora reduction". Paul B (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I unintentionally left out the word 'after'. I left it out and it should be inserted after "possible".  I in no way mean to imply that you are not knowledgeable on the topic and if I gave you that impression, I apologize.  If you would be so kind to correct the grammatical phrase for me, that should clarify the statement.  If you wish to remove the phrase "labia minora reduction" (which may occur in cancer treatment) I don't have a problem with that.  The whole point of the phrase is to provide information that this gynecological surgery does not mean that sexual intercourse is no longer an option, hopefully this is helpful content for those looking for information on this topic.  Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edit was perfect. Thank you for making that article even better.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 21:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Block discussion
, it appears that there was quite a discussion on the ANI. Can we continue to discuss what is to happen next here?

My first and probably most important question is this: if I am blocked from participating in the ANI discussions which now both have been closed, in what venue am I supposed to 'admit' my wrongdoing? On my own talk page? Through email discussions with you? In an ARBCOM setting? Do I just make a random post on my own talk page hoping that it will be read? What exactly are my options?

Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 01:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

... During the whole last ANI discussion those involved were insulted and expressed their incredulity at my lack of response. How is someone who is blocked supposed to respond? How could I admit anything? It was impossible, don't administrators intuitively know that someone who is blocked cannot answer any concerns? It looks like you got your wish for a six month block, congratulations.
 * There are worse things than this block...
 * being called a liar
 * saying I demonstrate ugly behavior
 * being called: "one takes all the cake in the creepiness bakery"
 * Saying I practice manipulation
 * Saying I have a lack of honesty
 * Saying I have an unwillingness to admit to my behavior
 * Being accused that I plan to and deliberately stalk people (yes, it turned into the plural)
 * Saying that I don't like Flyer's feminism (thanks for that one, your comment was still taken as 'evidence')
 * That I think Flyer22 doesn't do a good job at maintaining content and references
 * That I have "this very ugly stalker-y streak, especially around gender parity"
 * Continually being referred to as male by the same folks who 'carefully' examined all the evidence (I guess everything except my gender, that is.)
 * Being compared to a previous woman stalker
 * The closing administrator holding out the 'olive branch' but not telling me how it is to be grasped

Comment

 * I honestly think that there is a failure of acknowledgement here that conversation is a two way process with rights on both sides. There is an I think hopefully productive thread of good will on your TP to which I genuinely hope you will give careful consideration.  I don't dispute that there is relevance in what you are saying but this is not a WP:Ignore all rules situation which might entitle you to act however you like.  Everyone has rights.  They cannot be ignored in fair societies.  GregKaye 08:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

translatewiki
Hi,

For some reason your request for an account at translatewiki was rejected. This doesn't seem right and I'm sorry about this.

Can you please create an account there again - http://translatewiki.net.

Sorry about the hassle. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have an account there. I just don't have 'permissions' to post messages or to engage with any pages much less translate.  I have provided twenty examples of translating content that they gave me. I also left a message and a link to an article that I created on the ht:wikipedia.  I'm guessing that my 'application' got lost or they haven't gotten to it yet.  I've been working on the article Abscess and have it half completed.  It is on WP:MRD's list of priority articles to translate. So all this administrative 'stuff' isn't stopping me from translating health articles into kreyol, I'm just not 'connected' with the traslatewiki.net people yet. I think I was rejected because at the time I applied to translatewiki I had no translation samples for them to look at.  Perhaps they are looking for someone to proofread my translations.  Thanks for helping me on this.  I looked all over the ht:wikipedia and there is no mechanism to apply for administratorshipe or perhaps they call it sysop.  I am waiting on, a steward to make it happen.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 14:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It was rejected wrongly, but now you have to create it again at http://www.translatewiki.net
 * Can you please do it? I'm very sorry about the inconvenience. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Women's health-related journals
No, I'm afraid I don't have access to these journals, however I sometimes find that taking the title of a particular paper and copying it into Google leads to a free pdf version (e.g. Li Yang, Li; Jacobsen, Kathryn H. (2008) A systematic review of the association between breastfeeding and breast cancer.) --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is great information. If you see any journal articles that may be of interest and that have content that can be inserted into articles having to do with women's health, please let me know.  I appreciate you answering me so quickly.  Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 16:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Women's health ratings
Hi Bfpage, I was wondering how the women's health pages were being rated. FGM is mid importance, though 130 million women live with it, and that's only in the most concentrated 29 countries. Also, breastfeeding is mid importance, but mastectomy is top. Do you mind if I change some of these, or is there a system I'm not aware of? (I've never been sure how these things are judged.) Sarah (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to 'reassess' those articles with a high importance. I agree with you and also believe that breastfeeding should be top importance. All of the articles dealing with the breast will probably have a higher importance to the Women's health project than other projects. There is no system that I can think of.  Just use your own judgement.  I have found that medicine articles have a lower importance attached to articles that are of interest to Women's health.  It is not surprising when the articles are assessed related to their importance to women's health. I'm glad you have taken an interest in the project and want to help with the assessments. Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 00:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bf, I'll make a start. If you see me tag or assess anything you disagree with, feel free to revert. Sarah (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html  This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!


 * The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example ). No other code changes should be necessary.
 * Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example ), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Neat article on Empathy in chickens!
Thanks to your "advertisement" on your User page, I checked out your Empathy in chickens page. I have 3 laying hens in the back yard, and am nearly done with a degree in psychology, so it was quite relevant to me!

Although mine are completely unrelated, if you care to check out any of the articles I've created, see my user page — Preceding undated comment added 14:41, June 2015 (UTC) June/20/2015......... TIME....9:02 am Hello. have not read this article all the way. I am listening to some very nice music, i do not know the bands name. Either way i know my local test have been difficult to pass as far as " driving".. Either way, i wanted to make contact with the local residenets as all residents the same. Wishing everybody a beautiful and pleasant day.dont forget to smile.. and stay positive.

hoping you can help with my situation
Hi, I appear to have hooked a carp, a large one from canada. The fight is over two paragraphs I recently added to the article Institutional racism, the Canada section. Someone whom had not previously edited it got caught on my hook and immediately swallowed the pole, but spit up drek in its place. I felt I was holding with the topic but discovered this carp has an agenda. She has begun an edit war and its over my 3k in a wideranging 120k article. She keeps putting in her pov about the residential schools when I used the schools to illustrate the churchs influence and the govts role in instutionalization of the racist practices for over 100 years. She whitewashed the paragraphs that were copied from another article. How do I proceed? I kept and corrected her replacement but she refuses to let it go. Could you look at the talk and help me address her demands I fix it on her schedule? Thanks   Robco311 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming to my talk page. I took a quick look at the edits and will take the time to take a longer, closer look at some of the issues. Until I come up with something specific to suggest, don't hesitate to read and re-read Wikipedia's Manual of Style.  I have to do it all the time.  I will also do another re-read to orient myself to editing according to these guidelines. If something was copied from another source then that is a different problem altogether.  I'll be getting back to you.  Keep up the good work-in case you haven't noticed sometimes new editors seem to be bullied and I'll bet this isn't the first time and it won't be the last. Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 22:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm looking into the dispute that you are having with this other editor (and maybe another). Before I make any comments on the content that you are adding, I need to tell you, friend to friend, that it will be your 'behavior' that will get you in 'trouble'.  Listen, I was blocked for my behavior recently and I didn't even use the same words as you have been using.  You are not going to get any support for your edits and content because others will be so distracted by your characterization of the other editor that no one will care how wrong or how right you are! I don't want you to get blocked or banned.  I do want to see your edits remain in the article because you bring a great POV to the table. Let me make a couple of suggestions, look into my history of being blocked-it was a few weeks ago.  You will see that another editor had problems with my behavior-it didn't matter how great my edits were, it was the other editor's perception of my behavior and the perception of administrator that got me blocked.  It lasted for a couple of days, but it was very discouraging.  You don't have to take my advice on anything, but it will help with this conflict if: you apologize for making accusations about the motivation and character of the other editor.  It will help if you agree to find better references and I can help with that.  You are doing such a great job as a newer editor I don't want to see this conflict get in the way of you doing what you do best-adding great content. Be nice to NeilN, he will block you. Email me if tou want.The very best of regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 01:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC) aka Barbara Page

Thanks, if you still have time after all this, I have a new article that could use a patrol.... Lacey Schwartz completes my rachael dolezal entry.... Robco311 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, the advice is good, I actually moved on to the Australia section and the feedback from the Australian editors has been quite positive. The Canada section that got removed was 2 paragraphs and so moved the other editor to start an edit war is a gerfibble (aka kerfluffle) compared to the 10x larger australian section. The australian editor fixed the structure, added the link to a far greater wiki on Australian racism and has said he'd try to cull the entry so as to pinpoint the major flaws. Thats a barnstar deserving editor. I added a sentence to the false canada entry and ref/cited it, she removed it calling one a bad reference and the other point a blog post. Can't refute when the blind can see, the same wiki she called a bad ref proved her wrong and the blog post was a report commissioned by the T/R commission of canada. That all said, thanks for the encouragement, I am trying to keep within the parameters of the wiki style while not falling on my sword for © transgressions. Much of what I'm writing is already covered elsewhere so thats the bug in the soup.... Robco311 (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are one smart cookie! You are 'getting it' and finding out that wikipedia is not just about creating content and references; it is also political.  Once you find out that someone is an administrator, seriously BACK off. Some of them block and ban people on a whim.  I don't think you are following the actions of administrators yet, but wow, some are quite enamored with their blocking power and lord it over other editors. I have been threatened multiple times.  Each time I called their bluff until finally it really did happen. I think that is why no one is applying for the position of 'administrator' because they don't like the way that title/privilege is often misused.  Learn from my mistakes, play nice with everyone.  Do lots of thanking. Award barnstars and make sincere encouraging comments on the talk page of other editors. Your content creation is amazing.  Use that template that I put on the talk page and you will find more sources than you know what to do with.  Be quick to apologize, even you are right and the other editor is wrong.  Nothing, absolutely nothing gets deleted from wikipedia.  Every sneeze you make, any name you call someone, can and will be used against you.  I miraculously was able to make a page I created disappear once and no one, no administrator, was able to bring it back.  That was the first and last time I have ever heard of that happening.  If someone doesn't like you for any reason, they will go back years into your editing history to prove that your behavior is 'unacceptable' and get you banned.  Make sure that this is the last time that you call someone names, question their motives, accuse them of not having a NPOV because if you have an interaction with another editor like the one you had with two editors already (remember, one was an administrator who I stay far away from) they will say that your behavior is a pattern and that you are bringing disruption that inhibits editing and building of the encyclopedia.  Your friend,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 16:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Few comments
This is just a protocal not a published systematic review. Thus it is not that good of a source.

This book is a patient book and not of very good quality. Best to stick with medical textbooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you added details about prostate cancer to the article on vaginitis?  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The content and med review article reference was about the connection between vaginitis and urethritis in men, i.e., Men can have an non-symptomatic infection with the pathogen that causes vaginitis. It is the review article that made the connection between the infection and prostate cancer, not me. Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 18:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for evaluating these references for me. Not to whine about it or anything, but shall I flag the hundreds of other substandard references that I find while reading med articles? Is there such a tag?  I do know how to make such a tag if you would like. You may be holding me to a higher standard than you do other editors who add references that do not meet the reliable med source guidelines, which is frankly, quite flattering! As for the first reference, is it ok to reword the content to identify the content as a suggested protocol or recommendation-the content is quite interesting and may of value to readers. And isn't the second reference considered a tertiary source written by a physician who cites his sources? About the content added to vaginitis...  One main cause of vaginitis is the protozoan Trichomatis vaginalis.  My impression is that vaginitis is almost always synonymous Trichomatis vaginalis. This microbe is the one that is being associated with prostate cancer. Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 11:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I frequently go around and replace substandard references with better ones. Yes more people doing this would be useful. Vaginitis is usually cause by candida and BV. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Prostatitis
, about my recent edit to this article and your reversion-The source I added says: "A common cause of vaginitis in women, T. vaginalis can also infect men, where it may cause asymptomatic urethritis and prostatitis. In particular, its frequent asymptomatic presentation may make it possible to persist untreated and ascend to the prostate, where it can establish foci of chronic inflammation that may eventually lead to prostate cancer"

I paraphrased this quote from the paper to:" T. vaginalis infection in males has been found to cause asymptomatic urethritis and prostatitis. Because it is unsymptomatic it is possible to remain untreated. It is then able to spread to the prostate, where it creates chronic inflammation that may eventually lead to prostate cancer." Your edit summary is: "read paper and corrected conclusions". I made no conclusions, the authors did. I would like to revert the reversion you made. Best regards and with all respect,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 11:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There were two refs The second ref is a primary source. The first ref does state "chronic inflammation that may eventually lead to prostate cancer". This is a tricky word as "may" means nothing in medicine as it often just as equality means "may not" This is than follow with "Although the evidence is currently insufficient to draw conclusions, available data are suggestive and claim for further investigations." which is the key point. The relationship between T. vaginalis and prostate CA is not supported by the current evidence but there is enough theoretical concern to deserve further research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get it. Whenever I see the word 'may' I should use that handy phrase that you wrote above. (I'll put it in my 'toolbox' to use in the future.) I don't understand the use of primary sources because I see them all the time in other med articles. I understand that they aren't the best sources, but what if they are the only source for information? Are med editors supposed to replace primary sources when they see them with review article sources? I got jumped all over when I suggested that the sources in a med featured article - ketogenic diet, were outdated. I mean, people said some pretty unkind things to me over that. I didn't even mention the fact that the sources were primary sources. Are the rules different for me OR is it somewhat impossible to ask all the other med content creators and editors to go replace all the primary sources in the 33,000 med articles with better sources? OR are you just trying to raise the bar for editors like me, who enjoy creating articles because it is easier to only rely on review articles as sources when creating content? My number one rule, for me anyway, is to never insert ANY content unless it is sourced. I see from the edits of other editors that this is not true for them, they 'tweak', copyedit, write essay-like content without sources. Do they get corrected or reverted? I certainly don't see that when I review changes on the med page-changes feed. I also don't see a lot of new articles being written. Best regards and respectfully,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 16:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE copy-edit request declined
Hi Bfpage, just a note to tell you I've declined your copy-edit request at the Guild of Copy Editors Request page because you were seeking technical help rather than a copy-edit; also please note that we don't normally accept requests to copy-edit articles that are actively being developed, such as those in the Draft workspace or those in sandboxes. Another editor has suggested some more appropriate venues here; I'm sorry we couldn't help you, but good luck with the article and happy editing. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)