User talk:Zad68/Archive 2014 Jan

Barney Stinson
Can you expand protection time on this page? --George Ho (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Epilepsy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phillip Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 keeps removing NPOV tag
The tag is to remain there until the discussion at the NPOV noticeboard is over. Can you please explain this to him? ScienceApe (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually Doc is correct here, per the instructions at NPOV, particularly bullet point #4, there is not yet justification for an article-wide NPOV tag.  02:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * facepalm* There is justification hence why I brought the issues on the talk page to the NPOV noticeboard. I'm letting people know about the discussion, you're stifling the ability for other users to join in on the discussion. ScienceApe (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, see the NPOV template instructions. A listing at NPOVN for discussion is not in itself justification for an article-wide NPOV tag.  In fact, the purpose of an NPOV tag is to attract editors with other viewpoints.  If you've already identified as you have editors on both sides of the issue, and you are attracting outside comments at NPOVN, then an article-wide tag is definitely not needed.   02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't add in material in the content I posted
Any further arguments that you want to add should be made at the bottom. ScienceApe (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * well the material I added is needed to provide the context of discussion, otherwise you are copying and pasting my statements out of context and I am not comfortable with that. What Fiachra provided is critical to the discussion.  02:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It really has nothing to do with the argument I'm making anyway. I'm not contesting whether or not there's more scholarly articles written about medical circumcision, I'm arguing that it doesn't matter even if there is. ScienceApe (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, but as my argument is based on the sources and policy, it's important for my side of the NPOVN discussion that it is included. I put most of what Fiachra provided in a collapsable box, hope that works for you.   02:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI
I characterised your recent edit summary as "deceptive" in the AN thread WP:AN. You may want to defend it or put things into perspective. Hans Adler 17:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping . It looks like Mark clarified his position and I understood him correctly.    18:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Thank you Sandy and to you as well!! 18:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane WIR, please apply now
Those interested in applying should complete the online application form by 'Friday January 17th. Interviews with short-listed candidates will be held via webinar in late January or early February. The successful candidate should be available to start work in February or March 2014. Cheers and thanks! Ocaasit &#124; c 22:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do it! I like my subscription to Cochrane.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

James Heilman
At the article, I think you've got WP:HONORIFIC backwards; we don't use prefixes (like Dr.), but we do use suffixes (like MD or PhD to describe which kind of Dr in the lead).  Right now, the image caption is wrong (Dr. James Heilman), but the text never mentions MD after the name as it should. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks for telling me Sandy! Will look to fix.   13:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While you're in there, will you reduce those dreadful all caps in a source title to sentence case? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And "emergency room physician" instead of "emergency room doctor". Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah a lot of cleanup is still needed... if the article is even to be kept. I still don't think Doc meets Wikipedia notability guidelines and if nobody adds sourcing soon that shows he does I will AFD the article.   13:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Trying again
I've decided to try again to make Cucurbita as good as we can. I'll start by going back over the peer review. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your long support and superb guidance. Best wishes to you on the New Year. HalfGig  talk  13:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delighted to see you back ! Breaks are useful.  Happy New Year to you too.    01:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Cluelesswonder
Why only a 48 hour block for admitted sockpuppetry. Don't socks generally rate a permanent block? (I've only ever seen temporary blocks for socking on the master, and then only when it was a first time infraction. This user appears hell-bent on subverting the project.)  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * not to worry I fully expect an admin more familiar with how SPI works to block indef based on their investigation. The 48 hours is a stop-gap until it can be resolved properly.  I will watch the SPI, I am still learning how to behave there.  If there's any chance that account comes back to cause problems in any way let me know ASAP.   18:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dan it's indef now per normal procedure, as you said. Thanks...  19:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Why delete Love-Shyness article?
I don't see why the love-shyness article has been taken down and deleted. It wasn't doing any harm and was a good resource for people who wanted to understand love-shyness more. Gilmartin's work on love-shyness remains; "the only major study conducted to date on social anxiety disorder as it is manifested in informal, unstructured, male/female dating and courtship situations." Bobvancleef38 (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobvancleef38 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Bob, for the reason why it was deleted, please see: Articles for deletion/Love-shyness (2nd nomination).  I deleted the article after reviewing that discussion.  I don't have any opinion about love-shyness itself, I just acted on the result of that discussion.    19:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Tea-time
 FiachraByrne (talk) has asked you to join them for a nice cup of tea and sit down here. Please accept this culturally appropriate symbolic cup of tea. Just letting you know that I appreciate your use of source-based arguments and general restraint in dealing with an endless cycle of craziness. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow thank you Fiachra! (And all this time I thought the culturally appropriate thing would be a Guinness!) This is very appreciated... in fact this sort of thing is exactly what's needed to keep the strength up in the face of the endless cycle of craziness. 02:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

List of ongoing armed conflicts
Can you extend protection time? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't remember ever protecting it in the first place, and in fact according to the page logs it does not look it has ever been protected.  Are you sure you got the right page and admin??   20:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This should help: (currently a redirect). --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks George that did help. I also now know that pending changes doesn't show up in the protection log, even though it seems to be treated as a protection option, so that sucks.  Protected one month further, but I'm not seeing too much in the way of rejected edits from non-autoconfirmed accounts.  Is there still really a problem?  If you'd like me to extend again I'll need to see some diffs of rejected edits, or of course you can take it to WP:RFPP.    02:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One more George, on Barney Stinson--you requested an extension some days ago and I forgot about it. I don't see issues currently requiring protection, I think we can leave it as-is, but if trouble starts again let me know or take it to WP:RFPP again.    02:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hi, I've noticed that you continue to revert to a version of Herpes genitalis that has an unsourced, unattributed quote without any citation in the first paragraph of the article. Could you please explain why you are doing that? It clearly does not conform with WP:Quotes which says "Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source". Please do not revert to this version before addressing this concern. Thanks. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See the WP:3RRNB report.  15:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Circ Page and questions
I read the dispute section on Circumcision, and am relatively new. I am (for personal reasons) pro, but not strongly, and can see that the page could be more cultural and more sensitive to Europeans. I hope I am not baiting (on either side), and would love your thoughts on what could be productively done.

I also noted that you wanted Lyme->GA. I am on the minority view on that topic, and am probably even to the extent that Hans is on Circumcision (but hopefully a lot calmer), and do sympathize with his frustration on MedRS folks dominating the terms of multifaceted discussion. I am not interested in heated wars and outbursts, life is too short, but do seriously wonder on these two topics if there is a right way to not have to piss a large group off. In a small irony, my Penis Cancer was diagnosed as caused by Borellia. So god placed me in two controversies :)

If you are interested in this discussion, you can do it on my talk page. Otherwise we can not bother to waste either of our times. I can do sources discussion on the talk pages, I just wanted the general sense from a MedRS focused person. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the goodwin (talk • contribs)


 * Hey Bob, on Wikipedia the only "pro" anything we need to be is pro-reliable sourcing, with appropriate application of content policy. The article could be bent this way or that way to be more sensitive to Europeans, but also Muslims or Africans or intactivists or any other group, but that is not the right direction.  There are millions of potential editors in the world who all could show up at the Talk page of an article, but the reality is that usually the only ones who come to edit an article are the ones who want something out of it.  What that will lead to is an article organized and driven by the views a small number of motivated editors--this is true for any article, but the more contentious the article is, the more acute the problem is.  Instead, a Wikipedia article needs to represent the sourcing.  You have to watch for any time someone suggests a change without making reference to reliable sourcing and content policy like WP:DUEWEIGHT. Regarding Lyme, if you're a passionate an advocate for a view you know to be fringe, I strongly suggest you don't edit the article!  I lost momentum to work on Lyme, I'm actually getting started on Cerebral palsy now, I hope that to be my next GA.  But I do have Lyme watchlisted and will challenge edits that appear to not make the best use of reliable sourcing.  But Bob as you understand the importance of evidence-based medicine and reliable sourcing please consider joining WP:MEDICINE, the project could definitely use more editors that do!!   15:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, and appreciate the feedback. I was misunderstood in both cases, but you are right about my misuse of words.  I was asking first if I can be any "assistance" in being more "sensistive" to Europeans.  The answer may be no.  I have no skin in the game, as of my last surgery.  I did not think that that German dude who got so mad on Circumcision made the mistake of being fringe medicine (even though I strongly disagree with him), I think he made the mistake of crossing lines.  I also do not think that the story on the Lyme wars or the Lyme organizations has much to do with fringe medicine.  I am reaching out to you because I do not want to wade into shark infested waters, and won't, but wanted to get the perspective of a more experienced editor who I am guessing would strongly disagree with me even when I think I am being far more careful than the German Dude.  I won't make any fight, but I think it is fair to ask perspective from someone I will not be fighting.  I think you have made assumptions about my minority opinion because of the battleground status, which is reasonable.  I am not going to do any battle.  But I also feel as strongly as the german dude did that the articles are misleading on a reliable source point of view.  I DO NOT WANT TO LITIGATE THAT LAST POINT.  I am stating it as a good faith opinion and trying to sort things out.  Look at my sand box, I have abandoned it, but I put a lot of effort into research and finding neutral views.  Even as a pure history article, I think you would object to it as fringe coathang, and I actually respect the process and do not have a problem.  I was just looking for perspective.  I will do more work on other parts of MEDRS, and will be neutral and RS based.  But I do not want to be writing propaganda for drug companies, either.  Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "I have no skin in the game, as of my last surgery"--> HA! That was a good one!  OK yes I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about making the article more sensitive ...  Well, I'd rather not paint all Europeans with the same brush.  And I actually think it's the other way around, those who are looking for changes in the article need to be more sensitive to how to disagree in a respectful and constructive manner.  That's really what's missing from the article Talk pages--I think we're in agreement there.  And you're right, I've encountered so many agenda-driven editors at article Talk pages (and not just that one, remind me to tell you some time about Medical uses of silver...) that I sometimes jump into a defensive posture automatically, sorry about that Bob.  I don't want to do battle either, I assiduously avoid it as it's a pointless waste of time.  I actually peeked at your Sandbox and there's some interesting stuff in there.  I'm not focused on Lyme right now but it was interesting to read.  You seem very self-aware and focused on the right things, I hope to keep working with you.   02:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was actually hoping to understand a strong MEDRS person. Which I think you are.  If Chronic Lyme is 'fringe' tell me how you think about boundaries.  I don't want to litigate, I want to understand.  I disagree about chronic Lyme with some good editors at Wikipedia and respect them and the process.  I don't want to waste my life on battles.  But all things equal, I prefer truth.  So anything you can provide me that gives me an insight into how an honest dissenter avoids getting up the hackles of a strong MEDRS person would be very helpful.  I also like to debate with people I disagree with, but that is a far secondary agenda.  Thx. Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure Bob, thanks! It should be easy--provide reliable sourcing that shows the minority theory is treated seriously by influential authorities.  Bring reliable sources and ask, "How should we incorporate this?".  You want to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with your fellow editors and review the sources with them.  Avoid getting across the table from them and pointing at each other.  Don't make the conversation about your personal experiences, only talk about the sources.  If you get into a pickle, raise the question at an appropriate noticeboard like WT:MED.  Try to keep the tone light.  Accept that sometimes changes you were hoping to see in the article won't happen.  Does this sound like it will help??   04:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So I will cite the example of Lyme. There is a research center at Columbia University run by a professor at the med school devoted soley to Chronic Lyme.  Yet chronic lyme is fringe.  The good faith editors did not consider influential authorities enough to allow it to be elevated from fringe to minority view.  I would say this happens broadly in MEDRS, and I am not litigating.  I think the editors debated in good faith and could not get past the point that the mainstream was strongly opposed, regardless of the adherents.  There are others.  Please, I am not litigating, I am trying to understand.  I think you would have taken the same position, so I am trying to understand.  Is there a case were there is a mainstream position that is strongly held that has an article in WP that represents the opposing view as non-fringe?  I don't think it is WP job to sort this out.  I think your advise works if it is mainstream, but not sure it helps getting neutrality on harder subjects (SSRI's?  health effects of fracking?  vaccines?)  I am pretty mainstream on all these topics, so am just asking how it is that I was so off base on my first try, and what happens when I discover a pocket of evidence of serious researchers collaborating to against the mainstream on some important issue.  Should I be open minded to strong research, or should I always keep focused on the mainstream.  I hope I am not litigating, and trying to understand the mindset of Wikipedia to these difficult issues.Bob the goodwin (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Bob so you're talking about this and Brian Fallon? That's a step closer to having legs.  I read through the comments at Talk:Lyme disease and I can tell you what the problems with your approach are.  It's largely format and tone.  You posted a very large argument based on a combination of personal experience, your suspicions about what's going on in the industry, pointed to some decent sources, and the general conspiracy theory tone.  Sentences like "How is it possible that the Wikipedia article allows this to be suppressed based on the control of a few doctors?" will get you ignored as a crackpot or crank.  As soon as you raise the consipiracy theory flag and start using words like "suppressed" or "censorship", the door is closed.  Article change proposals need to be short, to the point, and source-based.  Also you didn't actually propose anything. Here is what a proposal for a successful, productive discussion looks like:"Hi, in reviewing this article I noticed in section Epidemiology it states 'This or that.' I ran across this new source which says 'This other thing,' which appears to to be different from what the article states.  How about if we use this new source to update the article to state, 'New thing.'  Thoughts?"  Try to keep it around 1,000 characters--not kidding.  It took me a long time to learn that people really don't read long rambling stuff.  A 1,000-character note is just about the right length.   16:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Circ copyedit
I realized the circ article was mostly complaining about the main section, and I took a shot at removing some of the crap, and getting a crisper, useful and more sensitive intro. I am not sure this helps to move the debate forward. This is not print worthy, just an attempt to 'rethink' the intro. I will probably not go anywhere with this, unless you want to encourage it.


 * This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female circumcision.


 * Male circumcision (from Latin circumcidere, meaning "to cut around")[1] is the surgical removal of the foreskin (prepuce) from the human penis.[2][3][4] In a typical procedure, the foreskin is opened and then separated from the glans after inspection. The circumcision device (if used) is placed, and then the foreskin is removed. Topical or locally injected anesthesia may be used to reduce pain and physiologic stress.[5]


 * This procedure is nearly universally applied to Jewish and Muslim infant males. 56% of American infant males are given this procedure based on the choice of the parents, and the choice tends to follow family tradition.  The rate was 80% in the 1960’s, and has fallen due to immigration and changes in cultural values. | NYTIMES article This procedure is rarely used in Asia and Europe except in Muslim populations.


 * The procedure is rarely used in adult males to treat a variety of diseases [link to section]. It is also sometimes applied as a right-of-passage on teenage boys in Africa.


 * No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure.[7] The health risks of the procedure are negligible.


 * Circumcision reduces the incidence of HIV by 38-66% in a study of African heterosexuals. [BXO] is a painful, chronic and lifelong disease which affects one in 300 to 1000 men.  98% of cases of BXO in the U.S. involved uncircumcised men.  4-8% of men with BXO develop Penis cancer.


 * Hygene is the most often cited benefit of circumcision by new parents [Oh et al., 2002]), and poor penis hygene is found to be 4-6 times more common in uncircumsized adult men [O'Farrell et al., 2005].


 * Circumcision is controversial Circumcision controversies. Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent and autonomy have been raised over non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision.[8][9]

Bob the goodwin (talk)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic again
Hey Zad, sorry to trouble you with a topic that you probably don't care to get involved with, but you were previously involved with helping to achieve consensus at chiropractic, with regard to the use of the term 'profession' in the lede Recent_controversial_edits_-_profession_vs._approach. This discussion has been broached again and the consensus has been suggested to be changing (although I disagree). Care to give your 2 cents? The new discussion is here. Thanks Puhlaa (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Your script
Cannabidiol is a mess of primary sources; would you mind running your script when you have a free moment? Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do today Sandy.  15:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done now User:SandyGeorgia and at the article Talk page... it's got quite a bit of work ahead of it, doesn't it... And I now remember why I hadn't pursued making the script a public utility too hard before, there are a lot of bugs in the underlying parser library that I had to work around.  I'll have another look, I did make a bunch of requests to The Earwig for fixes, maybe they've been done?    17:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your reversions to herpes genitalis
Would you please respond to the questions I raised in the talk section at herpes genitalis rather than making hasty reversions? Thank you.

WP:Medmos does not proscribe the use of popular press in all circumstances. Indeed, some of the best articles (starred) on Wikipedia make use of mainstream reporting. For example, see the BBC and Pittsburgh Post Gazette references in Poliomyelitis Ohnohedinnit (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Help on HappyBird page
While reviewing HappyBird page, it was that page creator has provided false information. It is clear that manufacturer of company is ANGEL (http://www.angeldigital.com.au/) where page creator has listed Digital Angel (http://www.digitalangel.com/) of United States which can be copyright infringement as they are two different companies. Ireneshih (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)