User talk:Hillinpa

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy
Please note our policies on original research, fringe theories and coatracking. Some of your edits to BHRT give the impression of promoting a certain point of view that is not neutral. Also note that we are not supposed to use trademarks in articles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that in this edit, you us a citation as a footnote and put it in the references section. The references section is for lengthy works cited multiple times on different pages that can not be reasonably used by an editor or reader to verify content (i.e. if you have to read the whole book to capture all its uses in the page, put it in the references section).  In these cases, the footnote is APA sytle (author, year, page#) with the full reference in the references section.  For shorter documents like journal articles, news articles, web pages and the like, it's better to use a footnote.  If you are looking for an example, satanic ritual abuse is a page that shows the different uses of footnotes and references for books, book pages and news/scholarly articles.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Coatracking and main
Note these two edits:

Here versus here. A brief summary is OK when we have a main, and a link to a main becomes crucial. But it becomes a coatrack or summary style issue when there is a paragraph on a pre-existing article when a sentence is all that is needed. The idea isn't a bad one, but readers may have come here from other, equally lengthy pages. Reading should be smooth, pithy and focus on the main idea of the page, not spend large amounts of text describing an idea in unnecessary detail. The point of wikilinks is people can jump to the more detailed article if they are curious. So we should build the web when appropriate, rather than trying to explain everything in one article and making the page sound Essay-like. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Content, not contributors.
Hi,

As a piece of advice, you would be well-served to comment on specific content only, not contributors. If you have a problem with a specific contributor, you could bring it up at the administrator's noticeboar, or wikiquette alerts, but in general for the BHRT page I really do feel the issue is a lack of familiarity with the policies and guidelines. For the most part your additions could be integrated into the page, but not necessarily in the form you try. Much as you may dislike me at this point, I would be happy to suggest ways to do so that are in keeping with my understanding of the policies and guidelines, or you could request help from other experienced contributors (options include placing the helpme tag on your talk page with a specific question, asking an admin selected from the list, adoption or asking one of the medicine wikiproject members - there's a list here but I would suggest checking for recent contributions to make sure they are still around).

If you're interested, I wrote an essay for new contributors. It's designed to steepen the learning curve a bit. Lengthy, but you may find it useful. It is here. The policies and guidelines are useful, but they aren't a substitute for experience as the way they play out in practice can be hard to grasp. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR
Hillinpa, please read and digest WP:3RR, and refrain from introducing further changes until consensus has been reached. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines
To spare both of us much typing, please review our policies and guidelines on:


 * original research - this forbids the use of unrelated studies to make novel claims; your use of studies that don't mention bioidentical hormones and BHRT to "prove" the page is wrong, and is the main reason I don't read posts like this in detail.
 * verifiability - this is the corollary; to include a statement it must be verifiable that a reliable source has said it. A reliable source in this case is a scientific journal or statement from authoritative bodies (see the next point).
 * WP:MEDRS - a specific policy for medical articles which complements WP:OR; note the line "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim "

If a claim is not explicitly made in a source, we should not be citing it. Another must-read policy is neutral point of view; we must represent viewpoints to the degree expressed in the literature. In other words, if most scholars believe bioidentical hormones are no better than conventional hormones, and express concerns about their safety and promotion, this is the stance the article should take.

If you do not like these policies, if you disagree with them, if you think it interferes with your ability to effectively edit the page on bioidentical hormones, this strongly suggests wikipedia is not the best place for you to edit regarding this topic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Until you read the policies thoroughly (and your comments consistently suggest you have not read any of them) discussion with you about content is not going to go well. Read WP:OR, WP:SOAP, WP:V, WP:ENC, WP:MEDICAL and WP:MEDRS.  You still seem to think we should be telling women what is good, what is proper, what they should do.  This is horribly, horribly inappropriate and will never be acceptable on wikipedia, unless the policies substantially change.  You may find Citizendium more fruitful in this regard, it allows for judicious use of original research and expertise.  I would also heartily, heartily suggest you review TimVickers comments on the NPOV noticeboard - see here, here, here and here.  My opinions are mainstream and well-supported by policy on wikipedia.  Please read the policies.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

December, 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. In regards to this edit, in which there does not appear to be a mention of "bioidentical" in the sources added. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

IMS statement
Read page 3/184 of the IMS statement. "There are no medical or scientific reasons to recommend unregistered ‘bioidentical hormones’." How on earth can that be turned into a positive statement about a specific bioidentical hormone? A clear, unambiguous statement and I can't see how anyone could justify summarizing the IMS' statement as anything remotely like "The International Menopause Society, however, states that progesterone may be associated with no increased risk, or a lower risk of breast cancer than progestins". This is blatant cherry-picking that completely misrepresents a direct quote from the source against bioidentical hormones. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 
 * a) The IMS statement is not a book. It's also already used in the page, use the  to cite it a subsequent time so there are not two different citations to the same document.
 * b) Stop cherry-picking. Put information about progesterone in the progesterone page.  Picking information on individual molecules and studies is a violation of NPOV.  The reason we insist on using NPOV summaries of a whole field of research is because individual studies can be positive while within the entire context of a field the single positive study or opinion is contradicted by larger bodies of information.  When the IMS says something clearly and unambiguously about bioidentical hormones, don't pick out what you like about individual molecules.
 * c) That was not a minor edit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the citation info. The question here is WHO is being inappropriately selective. The definition of BHRT in the lead, and the frequent references to statements/reviews/studies/opinions regarding estradiol and progesterone throughout the article indicates that my use of the term is correct.Hillinpa (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Boothby
Boothby is a secondary source, there's no reason to remove it, particularly because it addresses specific claims made about BHRT and refutes them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages
Per Talk page guidelines, I have removed my name from the new section titles you added. Please do not address specific editors in talk page section titles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation at Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy
Hello, I have decided to offer my help with the mediation request for this article. If you are still interested in participating in mediation, please let me know. My goal with informal mediation is to try to clarify the exact issues that are in dispute, then to see if it is possible to come to a compromise that everyone agrees upon. Thank you. --  At am a  頭 20:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you still willing to mediate?Hillinpa (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:EPICE3N.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:EPICE3N.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You cannot archive ALL a talk page, the recent needs to stay! Leave it for now and I will add an automatic archive system to the page.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Auto archive is now set, it will happen in the next 24 hours, please do not try to fix it again  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Particularly since one comment you archived was less than a day old. If you're going to try to draft an alternative version, use a subpage of your user space.  Not mainspace, that just makes things messy.  You could start with User:Hillinpa/BHRT draft.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've created the page (first version), I would suggest moving any discussion to the talk page of that subpage. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Bioidentical Hormone Locked Up by WLU with Biased Anti Bioidentical Views
I have read your comments on the talk page and completely agree with you. The bioidentical page is extremely biased and reflects the synthetic hormone industry's anti-bioidentical bias. I also agree with you that it seems that WLU single handedly has maintained the page according to his own personal agenda which appears to be identical with the synthetic hormone industry. Being a new user, I am appalled that this state of affairs is allowed to exist on Wikipedia which I mistakenly thought was a public meeting ground for reaching a truth end point. Please contact me to discuss further. UGAcodon (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)