User talk:Lyrl/archive2

Christian views on masturbation

I am contemplating a larger article on this very interesting topic. Thoughts? CyberAnth 01:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is precedent for it, in the article Islam and masturbation. Personally, I would prefer to see an article Religious views on masturbation. I think it's nice to be able to easily compare the viewpoints of different traditions, and I don't think the topic would get so long as to require separate articles for each religion (if it did, they could always be spun off later). My tendency would be to post on the Islam page and see if there was objection to moving it to a more generic title, and then add information on Christian views to that article. I would help with the set-up if you decide that's the way you want to go. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 13:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am game to that. However, I think it may be more peaceful, less conflict-ridden, to simply create Religious views on masturbation and incorporate material from Islam and masturbation into the article. One reason for this is that Islam and masturbation is already part of a larger Islamic Jurisprudence project. The second is that the most logical organization of the new article would be per the number of adherents of religions, see this page for the breakdown. Christianity is 2 times larger than Islam. I venture that the folk over at Islam and masturbation will not take kindly to seeing Christianity placed at the top of the article they started. CyberAnth 05:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a draft folk can work on User:CyberAnth/Religious_views_on_masturbation, if that would be helpful until it is ready to be posted. It is mostly still a cut and paste from Masturbation, although I drafted an intro, added tags where needed, and made a fair number of changes but as yet no real expansions. CyberAnth 06:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really amazed at what a comprehensive article has developed in your user page. Great work! I would say it's certainly deserving of being put into article space. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Move

Hey, I think it was lousy that you moved the content of Oral contraceptive over to Combined oral contraceptive pill, the move that I had suggested, after the Proposed Move notice had been up for less than two days. I thought that people would respect that other might be busy with their families during the holidays, and be courteous enough to wait for them. I think it would have been more reasonable to have given it more than 48 hours, especially since it's two days before Christmas. Joie de Vivre 21:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended. Should consensus emerge to move it back, I would certainly be willing to offer my time to reverse the move. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 21:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I proposed the move; of course I support it. I think it was lousy of you to take advantage of my courtesy and willingness to give ample time to others, in what seems like a effort to grab the credit for yourself. Whatever, have a nice holiday. Joie de Vivre 21:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete of Analysis of a problem

Hi,

I guess you right to remove the paragraphs. They are just an introduction to the new theory. The theory is much more powerful than for example “resistance to parasites” theory. I would rather think that sex helps you get more diseases than resist them :). What do you suggest? Make a new page, move it to another existing, edit? Thank you Sashag 00:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The added section had quite a few issues.

• The title was not descriptive. "Analysis of a problem" gives little to no useful information as to the contents of the section. Entitling it "Geodakyan's theory of asynchronous evolution" would be more descriptive.
• It used unusual and confusing words to describe ideas for which there is a commonly accepted and used phrase. This makes reading the section very confusing. The main examples are "sexual process (conjugation..." instead of "sexual reproduction"; also "differentiation (partitioning..." instead of "different sexes" or "differentiated sexes".
• Saying that there are three basic forms of reproduction and leaving it at that ignores the huge numbers of species that use more than one of the forms presented. Most plants can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Numerous animals can reproduce both hermaphroditically and also with a partner. This statement also ignores the species (such as slime moulds and fungi) that have huge numbers of sexes (about eight hundred for slime moulds, tens of thousands for fungi).
• It stated evolution had an "objective". Evolution is a set of rules. It has no goal. Personifying it like that is unscientific. The rest of the article is rank with this kind of thing ("purpose of sex"), but that doesn't make it right.
• It presented claims not accepted within the general scientific community as if they were true. That the existence of distinct sexes is the "opposite" of sexual reproduction, for example. Or that the existence of distinct sexes causes reduced genetic diversity. Or pretty much the entire last paragraph. If these claims are to be presented, they need to be qualified to let readers know it's just this one guy making these claims. For example, "Russian scientist V. Geodakyan has proposed that the existence of distint sexes within a species results in reduced genetic diversity for that species."; "Geodakian claims that his theory of asynchronous evolution adequately explains things long considered puzzles regarding the evolution of sex."
• Part of the new section would have been better worked into existing sections. "The two-fold cost of sex" section discusses the lower reproductive potential of sexual species vs. asexual species. Geodakyan's theory about having distinct sexes reducing the reproductive potential below that of hermaphroditic species would fit in here.
• Almost the entire article is about theorized advantages of sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction; the sentences about "since the asexual process is much more efficient and simple... The purpose of the sexual process is clear... bi-sexual methods have no visible advantages over asexual ones..." - all that is duplication of ideas that are already addressed in the article.
• This sentence: "the sex problem is commonly considered as a reproduction problem but not an evolutionary one." makes absolutely no sense.
• Links to outside websites within the text of the article are generally discouraged. Having a link to Geodakyan's website in the external links section should be sufficient. (But please, call it "Theory of Asynchronous Evolution". "The Evolutionary Theory of Sex" is just too vague a term to use it to refer to a specific theory. Especially when the author himself uses a different title.)

Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 02:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am still digesting your answer. Will respond piece by piece. Name: "Theory of Asynchronous Evolution" is more an umbrella that includes the "The Evolutionary Theory of Sex". There are other Theories based on the same principle. so looks like it's too broad. "The Evolutionary Theory of Sex" too vague I agree. More precise will be to call it "The Evolutionary Theory of Dioecy" because it applies to organisms with separate sexes (males and females). Even more precise may be will be "The Asynchronous Theory of Dioecy" or "Dichrone? theory of Dioecy (Sex)" reflecting the fact that two sexes sort of separated in time. "Geodakyan's theory ... - doesn't sound too loud? please visit http://www.geodakian.com and let me know what you think Sashag 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC}

I think if it were notable someone other than Geodakyan would have picked up on the theory in the last sixty years. The lack up such acceptance in the evolutionary biology community should be acknowledged in any Wikipedia article (is that what you meant by "doesn't sound too loud"?) Lyrl ^Talk _C 12:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is accepted (see web site). Most important that there is almost no criticism.

The three basic forms of reproduction is a classification. Classification is a separation based on some principles. The principles of proposed classification are presence or absence of process of fusion of genetic information of two persons.

The outcome is types (forms) of reproduction: asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction If I will use the same word for criterion and outcome (sexual reproduction) it will be confusing?

That huge numbers of species use more than one of the forms presented. Most plants can reproduce both sexually and asexually. – This fact does not prevent us from distinguishing (and using) two main types. Same as division to males and females (there are mixing cases, division in time, dependence from environment etc.)

Species (such as slime moulds and fungi) that have huge numbers of sexes are should be in the “different sexes” category. May be word bi-sexual reproduction is not good.

The main difference between hermaphrodite (+, -), and bi-sexual reproduction is that hermaphrodites are still unitary system (same type of elements) while bi-sexuals are binary system (two (or many) types of elements). Again some species can use both but I do not see why it should prevent us from using this abstraction (actually the whole world is already using it).

I would greatly appreciate if you edit this text with right terminology. It should probably also be moved into biological reproduction article. There is an article Evolution of sex but there is no article (or section) “Evolution of reproduction” (Evolution of sex is a part of it). Sashag 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary biology is something I have read a little about and find interesting, but am certainly not an expert on. My lack of expertise, and the fact that English is not your native language, make it very difficult for me to understand what you are saying. In other words, I believe you have some good points, but it comes across as nonsense.

As far as accepted, see Wikipedia:Notability: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. To be included in Wikipedia, this theory should be able to cite several sources that:

• discuss this theory, not just mention it in passing
• are not connected to the author
• are serious scientific sources ("not trivial")

The website provides an impressive bibliography, but does not address the notability question important for Wikipedia articles.

I believe the English language difficulty is a big problem here. You might try posting in your native language first (if that is Russian, the Russian Wikipedia is one of the larger ones at about 126,000 articles). Perhaps someone either more familiar with evolutionary biology or with Russian will be able to help you better than I can. Lyrl ^Talk _C 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting in Russian: yes, of course, but it is much less important compare to English speaking audience (much less people know about it). English language difficulty: In most cases I do not translate myself. I copy/paste/edit from (1) scientific articles published in English and (2) articles published in Russian in the magazines that are translated into English. Articles of the first type passed English editing and review, articles of the second type (I hope) are translated by native English professional translators (otherwise the whole magazine will have the same problem and “come across as nonsense”). The problem can be that in most cases the translator tries to be as close to the original as possible. For example “dispersija” (russ math, statistics) was translated as “dispersion” but looks like should be “variation” (biol).

Notability: I’ll try to address this issue. Where I can find clear examples of how it should be done?Sashag 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

More analysis of a problem

Notability just means people, other than the author, have "noticed" the author's writing. An example for a fiction book would be There Goes My Everything (book) - see how in the "References" section it shows where other people have commented on the book. Good comments and bad comments both count.

"Species where autonomous individuals fertilize each other" might be what you meant by "sexual process"? So hermaphrodites still count, but not when they fertilize themselves?

"Sexual process" is, to me, a synonym of "sexual reproduction" and not what I think you intend to mean.

"Person" normally only refers to humans, and I think you mean to refer to all organisms - "individual" or "organism" might be alternative words.

When you say "asexual reproduction", do you actually mean reproduction that only involved one individual? Whether or not meiosis and mitosis and fertilization occured? Because that would be a very different definition than what is normally used. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

QF

On January 3, 2006, at 11:35 EST, ABC News Nightline will air a special, "The More the Holier?", on the Quiverfull movement. See http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2767898&page=1 - I thought you might be interested. CyberAnth 04:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but way past my bedtime. I'll stick to reading about it ;) Lyrl ^Talk _C 12:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Mary Pride#Mary Pride and NFP. CyberAnth 06:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Citing less than 1000 G-hits as a deletion criterion

Citing less than 1000 G-hits as a deletion criterion is a fallacy. The following is a quote from Wikipedia:Search engine test: "Hence the list of unique results will always contain fewer than 1000 results regardless of how many webpages actually matched the search terms." Deletion nominators should read the guidelines. Regardless, G-hits are meant to be a test to confirm notability, not disprove it.

-- Kevin Murray 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Sokol. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

But...

But Margret Sanger (the person who started PP) distributed pro-birth control literature. Chooserr 04:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

She promoted spermicides and diaphragms and condoms and was involved in developing the pill. I have never read about her promoting abortion. This does not mean that such information does not exist, but it does mean a citation is needed for the sentence in question. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, honestly it isn't the most important thing to me. It's just that I had the impression that PP had always at least been pro-birth control. Chooserr 04:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

PP's primary mission is to provide contraceptive services. That's always been what they do. I just am not convinced that abortion has always been included in their birth control offerings. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, abortion did come later. CyberAnth 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Friendly info: Margret Sanger was a strong proponent of Eugenics, a 19th C social and scientific movement to define humans by race, and to subsequently limit "inferior" races and maintain race lines by solving the "mixed race" problem. Sanger's PP movement specifically target immigrants, mostly Irish, whose Catholic beliefs tended to create huge families. Discussing her work should definitely include Eugenics. teacher 01:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Various methods of fertility awareness

Hey, Lyrl, I know that before you said you were hesitant to describe the different forms of FA, but I was really impressed by how much you knew about the different methods. Would you reconsider adding just a brief descriptor of the differences between BOM, CM, TCOYF, etc? I think it would be possible to write it in such a way that no one would try to use it (which you said was a concern). I that putting this info in, in some form, would be really helpful. Joie de Vivre 22:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Obolisk image

In two edits on the condom page (diff), the bot first replaced all <!-- --> tags with <!-- -->, and then replaced the characters with copies of an image from the beginning of the article. (It also dated the citation needed and expandsect tags.) Any idea why it would insert random characters and images like that? Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled, at the moment I'm putting it down to a bug in history. Rich Farmbrough, 11:13 17 January 2007 (GMT).

menstruation edit

Hi. You just took out the word "most" in the menstruation entry (which I had added earlier today). I don't have any special advanced knowledge of these issues, but there is a little inconsistency in the entry, and it sounds like you have advanced knowledge about mammalian reproductive cycles, so I suggest you edit this sentence in the next section, which says: "Most mammals reabsorb the uterine lining during their oestral cycle." That should be "all other mammals" to be consistent, or both should be "most", whichever is correct. I don't have knowledge of all mammalian estral cycles, though I had thought dogs sloughed off some of their lining when they're in heat and don't get pregnant, which is why I put in "most" in the first sentence (the second sentence already had "most").QuizzicalBee 01:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dogs always slough off some of their lining when they are in heat, regardless of whether or not they get pregnant. It's analogous to mid-cycle spotting that some women experience (i.e. near ovulation), not to menstruation (which is at the opposite point in the cycle).

The introduction specifies humans and great apes as experiencing menstrual cycles, then says "all other mammals" to mean all mammals other than humans and great apes. The "as part of the menstrual cycle" does not say anything about humans or great apes. So "all other" would be semantically incorrect - other than what? It could certainly be edited along the lines of "mammals other than humans and great apes reabsorb...", though. Feel free to do so if you feel it would make the section more clear. Lyrl ^Talk _C 03:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Category change on COCP article

I'm not sure why you recently added combined oral contraceptive pill to Category:Human reproduction. I've proposed removing it (along with a number of other articles) at Category talk:Human reproduction. I would appreciate any comments you may have. Lyrl ^Talk _C 15:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I feel that those items pertain to human reproduction in the sense that things that impede or prevent human reproduction are as much about human reproduction as are things that promote it.QuizzicalBee 15:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to thank you greatly for your respectful words on my Talk page. It is true that we disagree on many issues, but I truly, truly appreciate that you noticed my efforts to remain neutral and civil when stating my views. It honestly is meaningful to me, so I thank you very much.

If I may explain, the concern I had was with your statement that my edits were based on a seeming "disagreement with their (Catholics') religion". I would like to clarify: your view is close, but not exact. I object to including any religious content, without making it explicitly clear that that is what it is. I am currently forming a response to your concerns at Talk:Birth control.

Although we frequently disagree, I do enjoy editing alongside you. You are very precise and thoughtful in your editing. I have noticed that you are knowledgeable not only about the content of the articles you edit, but on how to correctly incorporate content into Wikipedia. I appreciate the care you put into your edits and I honestly hope that we can build some sort of rapport and work together.

Thank you again for your words. Joie de Vivre 22:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Religion and condoms

Hi, I removed the section because I couldn't work out what these guys' morality issues had to do with condoms. Putting it back is okay. No problem. --Tony Sidaway 01:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ovulation

I recently edited this article and provided a list of key facts related specifically to ovulation, and I cited the source. Your comment stated that you were deleting this section and noting that it was information on "fertility awareness." Although FA and ovulation are certainly related and information related to each overlap, this was specifically related to Facts about Ovulation. Would you please consider reinstating the information - or tell me to do so and I will gladly do so. I am also curious as to why an External Link to an Ovulation Calendar and Calculator are not appropriate on an article about ovulation? The external link is from the American Pregnancy Association which is a national nonprofit organization supporting pregnancy. Let me know your thoughts - thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by T2myJane (talk • contribs) 12:08, 27 March 2007

A Google search for the phrase "ovulation calendar" gives 350,000 hits. I am certain a large proportion of these calculators are from reputable organizations. However, Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and considering the enormous number of fertility calculators out there, including links to them would make this article such a "repository". Without criteria that would exclude the vast majority of ovulation calendars, I will not support adding any links to such sites.

The "facts about ovulation" were only facts related to fertility. They were from the American Pregnancy Association's page on "tracking ovulation" (a.k.a. fertility awareness charting). Some of them are only tangentially related to ovulation (women born with all their eggs? Addressed more appropriately in menstrual cycle. Menstruation's relationship to ovulation? Also addressed in menstrual cycle, as well as luteal phase. "This body temperature increase is the cornerstone of fertility charting or fertility awareness techniques" - how is this more related to ovulation that fertility awareness?) Others are already covered in the ovulation article. (Mittelschmerz? Already addressed in "clinical presentation"! - Basal body temps are now linked in "postovulatory phase".)

Also, the random list of facts is unencyclopedic. Integrating relevant information into sections and paragraphs makes for a higher quality article. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I will resubmit in a paragraph form. The article did have a paragraph on tracking ovulation, but it covered more than that too. I will make sure that any facts included are speaking to ovulation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by T2myJane (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 April 2007

Abortion

Hi. I know you edit a lot of the women's health, contraception, etc. pages, and I wanted to ask your advice. I'm sure the topic "abortion" is very controversial, and there must be some way people control conflict on that page. Well, there's a category:Abortion page, and we're having a conflict right now--someone wants to add it to the category:death and the category:human rights abuse and category:causes of death. I personally don't think they belong there. Any advice on ways people have dealt with such conflicts on other abortion-related pages?QuizzicalBee 13:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Commandaria

Hi, thanks for your time and recommendations on the article. I have made some changes and replied to your entry. Would you be kind enough to have another look when you have a chance? Cheers! StephP 12:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reworded article per point 2.StephP 09:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam and Talk:Fertility awareness

Could you please come in and weigh at Talk:Fertility awareness regarding edits which I feel strongly are linkspam.-Andrew c 15:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Other software sites are commercial. While FertilityFriend has a free version, they also have a subscription version with more features. Ovusoft has a 15-day free trial, but their product is by purchase only. Because the commercial sites are single-item "stores" - selling only the software, and nothing else, I don't feel it violates the spirit of Wikipedia's "not usually to be linked" rule against commercial sites.

Other software uses the term NFP to describe itself - PalmNFP, Perimon, and the Aware! software anon prefers. None of the software programs, as far as I can tell, have any moral content. Because the software appears to be using the term NFP interchangeably with FA, not using it to imply any moral messages, I have no problem including any of these links in the FA article.

I recently had a dispute with Joie de Vivre over a similar issue in the FA section of the birth control article, and the article ended up getting protected. I don't feel as strongly about external links as I do about article content, and I'm reluctant to get in a dispute with you and JdV over the external links on the FA page. Lyrl ^Talk _C 16:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Chemical Pregancy

You didn't even go through the usual process, you just moved it without consensus. (Bjorn Tipling 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

Oppositional edits

Lyrl, I want to ask you to explain yourself. It seems that you have systematically sought out my edits and have opposed or undermined them. You removed the disambiguation I instated at Mirena, turning it into a redirect only, and thus removing the explanation I included of the term IUS and how it is not used in the States. You classified the photo of the SILCS diaphragm as a candidate for speedy deletion without notifying the uploader - me. At Talk:Birth control and Talk:Billings ovulation method, you created talk headers describing edits I made with question marks at the end: "See also - Toni Weschler?" "SILCS diaphragm getting its own section?". The latter one isn't even accurate; the device didn't get its own section. When I wouldn't back down, you did what you did a while ago over at Fertility awareness's external links section -- you flooded the section with other items.

I really do not understand the reasoning behind your behavior. You yourself once said something to the effect that unlike many other editors, I have not made personal attacks on you, that I stick to the subject of discussion. I feel that I make a concerted effort to explain what I do on Wikipedia, but I have observed you just swooping in and reverting my edits without any explanation. It's possible that this is just your style; apparently Bjorn, above, has had the same problem with one of your edits. Perhaps I am taking it personally; but I feel that you are unfairly targeting my edits in opposition. I would like it if you would stop, or at least explain the sudden rise in your opposition to my edits. I do not have a personal problem with you, and I would like to maintain that feeling. Please explain. Joie de Vivre 13:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to use a reference I remembered putting in the IntraUterine System article, didn't want to type out that long title, remembered that IUS is a disambiguation page, and figured "Mirena" would get me to the article I wanted without extra typing or clicking. I then found a page with the assertion that "IUS" was not used in the United States (it is used in the United States - here, the IUS is a type of IUD), and not only had that extra click I'd been trying to avoid by not going to the IUS disambiguation page, but had to read through unfamiliar text to find the link I wanted. My reaction of turning the page into what I wanted it to be was hasty - I apologize, I should have put my reasoning on the Talk page and waited for discussion rather than making the change immediately. But I stand by my belief that IUS is a perfectly U.S.-friendly term, and refers to the same device, it is just classified slightly differently (as a type of IUD rather than its own class of contraceptive). Due to this, I believe the Mirena page is more useful as a redirect than a disambiguation page.

We are interested in editing the same group of articles. Your recent edits on articles I have been heavily involved with in the past turned up on my watchlist, not through any form of Wikistalking. I knew you were involved in both pages the SILCS picture is used on, and put notices on those articles. I also saw that you had already been notified of the copyright problem with the image (User talk:Joie de Vivre#License tagging for Image:SILCS intravaginal barrier contraceptive (small image).PNG), and did not feel there was any danger of you going unaware of my tag addition.

I disagree with the changes I started talk page discussion on and expressed that with the question mark. I had not realized that usage was offensive, and will refrain from using question marks in such a way in the future. I expressed my opposition to the section in the birth control article that contained only SILCS poorly, and I apologize for that. I hope my recent posts to that discussion have clarified my position.

I have to go to a meeting now, I'll try to explain further later. Lyrl ^Talk _C 14:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Creighton Model

Hi, Lyrl. I am just writing to let you know that I put a great deal of work into improving the History section of the Creighton Model FertilityCare System article, and I would personally appreciate it if you would join me in discussion on the Talk page before making major changes to the content that I added. Thanks. Joie de Vivre 18:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

New category

Wait! Maybe we should name it something other than "fertility awareness". Rhythm will be excluded if we call it that. Joie de Vivre 01:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging Stitch 'n Bitch for speedy deletion

Hello Lyrl (talk · contribs) ... I encountered this newly created article while performing New Page Patrol or Counter Vandalism Unit activities.

In my opinion it lacks sufficient Attribution to satisfy the Notability criteria for Organizations and Companies.

The point is that I plan to tag Stitch 'n Bitch with either a speedy delete tag of {{db-inc}} (CSD A7) or a {{prod}} that explains my concern about why this article fails WP:CORP ... I have created this initial entry on your Talk page because you are either the original author of the article, or one of the most recent editors of it.

I will leave more detailed information regarding my specific concerns about this article on its Discussion page ... please respond either here or there, instead of on my talk page, to avoid fragmenting the conversations.

Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 03:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Periodic abstinence

I want to start of by saying that I totally respect you as an editor and established wikipedian, but I strongly disagree with you recreation of Category:Periodic abstinence. There is a deletion review process we use to examine deletion discussions that users have outstanding issues with, or to start the process for proposing undeletion. Simply recreating previously deleted content is a valid speedy criteria. Therefore, I have tagged the recreated category for speedy deletion. Please consider going through the approved channels to get content undeleted. Thanks.-Andrew c 13:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked into deletion review: at the top of the very first section it says "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." I did this and the admin told me "it would be appropriate for you to re-create it". I researched and followed the correct Wikipedia guidelines to the best of my understanding. Lyrl ^Talk _C 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Birth control categories

So I realized that creating Category:Fertility awareness and Category:Natural family planning could solve a lot of problems. I was able to pull in John Billings, Humanae Vitae, and Winnipeg Statement into the latter, and Toni Weschler and Barrier contraception into the former. I cross-referenced between the methods and placed links at the top of both categories for easy referencing. I think these are really good categories. We can build upon each concept without muddling the two or causing confusion. Even Lactational Amenorrhea Method and Rhythm method have a place; (in Category:Behavioral methods of birth control as well as Category:Natural family planning.) I don't think there's a need for Category:Periodic abstinence anymore. Let me know what you think. Joie de Vivre 16:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated in discussions with you in the past, I do not believe that Catholics who worked on fertility awareness methods, or the methods they created, are somehow not fertility awareness. I find the creation of two separate categories for the same type of article to be needlessly confusing, the opposite of what categories are supposed to do. I agree it is nice to categorize natural family planning with Humanae Vitae - but that's already done at Category:Theology of the Body, making the NFP category not only confusing but redundant. Lyrl ^Talk _C 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about how to proceed. As Andrew c stated at Talk:Fertility awareness, we need to have a centralized discussion. I thought I had created that at Category talk:Periodic abstinence, pointing people there from all the relevant pages with an edit summary (so anyone who watched those pages would have an opportunity to comment), but now we have discussion at Talk:Birth control and also broken discussion on the Talk pages of editors who have been involved so far (like this). Because of the recent de-centralizing, I'm not sure where to continue discussion. Is Category talk:Periodic abstinence still a viable location? Or would it be best to do a CfD for rename? Or something else? Lyrl ^Talk _C 17:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE: The old discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence is now located at Category talk:Fertility tracking/Periodic abstinence. Joie de Vivre 11:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to the McClintock effect

It is great to see someone that edits a topic with joy. That said... there a few things you ought to think about, which I think will improve your editing.

Copyright

It appears that you copied and pasted text from straightdope, which is copyrighted. As such, it appears that you've violated their copyright. Please see the copyright policy of Wikipedia --WP:COPYVIO.

The two sections below are copied word-for-word:

"Though a woman with a 27-day cycle might initially have her onset on the same day as a woman with a 29-day cycle, the next month she'd be two days earlier, the month after that four days, and so on."

"Assuming an average cycle of 28 days, the maximum time between two women's onsets is 14 days. Since the minimum is zero, the average difference"

If it hasn't been done already... please fix the article ASAP.

Sources

I'd like to steer you toward PubMed references (web page: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed). PubMed is where it is at-- it is the primary literature. If you're serious about reproduction/birth control go to the sources that the experts use. I don't think straightdope is reliable (see WP:SOURCE). Also, I think you'll find reading the straight goods (PubMed) --from the experts is rewarding... and gives you more credibility if you cite 'em 'cause they are peer-reviewed. Other good sources are eMedicine and the Merck Manual (see: http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_merckmanual_frameset.jsp).

If you're going to be editing medicine related articles I recommend you read WP:MEDMOS. You're welcome to drop by the doctor's mess. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Nephron  T|C 04:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

When adding to articles, I will sometimes paste text from one or more sources into the edit window and then rearrange and paraphrase before saving. I apologize for missing those two sentences that you expressed concern over. Thank you for catching them. I also really liked your copyedits to the intro.

My reason for relying on the Straight Dope article rather than the primary sources he cites is well explained at WP:MEDRS: In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should use published reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources may be used only with great care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

I am well acquainted with searching PubMed - see for example the article I wrote early pregnancy factor. Also notice I added the citation for PMID 1287678 to the McClintock effect article. It's not unfamiliarity with these tools that guided my addition to the article, it's a high regard for the knowledge and research done by the Straight Dope staff and a desire to use reliable secondary sources whenever they are available. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have some reservations about the piece by Straight Dope and think a primary source would have been better. Further, I disagree with WP:MEDRS. Any case, we'll see where this goes-- I posted a message to the doctor's mess. I think the referencing/sourcing of medical articles can use further discussion. Nephron  T|C 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article certainly has room for expansion, and primary sources are perfectly acceptable references for aspects of the topic not covered by any secondary source. For example, in the article diaphragm (contraceptive) I relied as much as I could on an American Family Physician article (which is indexed by PubMed) because it is a secondary source. But for items not covered by the Am Fam article, I used quite a few primary sources. I don't think this is a case of any secondary source or sources vs. primary sources - the article should probably have both.

If you disagree with the parts of the article that are sourced from the Straight Dope article, please bring it up on at Talk:McClintock effect. Or just edit the article - what I've seen of your writing style I like and don't think we'd have any problems agreeing on content if we were actually working on the article rather than discussing these abstract concepts. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Contraception is my hobby"

Regarding the comments on your userpage--seriously, why would anyone in the real world give two hoots whether an anonymous metallurgist "approved" an article on contraception? Wouldn't the point be to enable a hobbyist to write articles on their hobby, and have, say, a professor of medicine approve what they wrote as accurate for the benefit of the public? And regarding real identities, the site's robots.txt prevents search engines from spidering all talk and userpages. C.m.jones 07:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not spiders that I don't want to see my real name, its readers and editors of the project. I don't "approve" any articles on Wikipedia, and I don't have any desire to. I just want my contributions to be treated like anyone else's, not as "below" that of "experts" that I've seen perpetuate (well-intentioned) numerous inaccuracies, including a number on the current Citizendium medical contraception page. Color me unimpressed with the effectiveness of Citizendium's system in benefiting the public. I'm glad you're so enthusiastic about the project - it sounds like it will benefit from your participation. In the meantime, let me sit on the sidelines skeptical for a few years and then readdress the situation. Lyrl^Talk _C 12:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to charge something as inaccurate without specifics. C.m.jones 23:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hormonal contraception category

Hi Lyrl, I went ahead and reverted my edit to the category after reading more literature on the issue, specifically "FDA's Teratogenic Risk of Hormonal Products for Contraception: A Review of the Literature". Thanks for catching that. --Uthbrian (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Birth control" as a sub-category of "Medical ethics"

I was surprised to see Category:Birth control added as a sub-category of Category:Medical ethics. I was not aware any significant portion of the medical community considered things like condoms and spermicides ethically troubling. I'm curious to hear what your reasoning was with this categorization. LyrlTalk C 20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look in the subcategories, it seems clear that there are ethical issues here. Category:Critics of contraception and Category:Religious views on birth control are the two biggies, I guess. Also, the more extreme forms of birth control are controversial, including One-child policy, Population control, Compulsory sterilization. On the other side, many consider birth control to be ethical and even virtuous, due to upsides such as (again) population control and family planning reasons. --Eliyak T·C 23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I disagree with the categorization on two points: whether birth control is mainly an issue for the medical profession, and the notability of ethical controversies involving birth control.

While Category:Hormonal contraception requires a prescription from doctors, numerous forms of birth control are over-the-counter or even require no drugs or devices at all (e.g. fertility awareness, coitus interruptus). Since medical professionals have little or no involvement in the use of these methods, I don't believe the entire Category:Birth control can be considered to be mainly an issue for the medical profession. Even more so for the "extreme forms of birth control" you referred to (mandatory limits on family size) - to me, those are political issues, not medical issues at all.

Second, there are groups that find all sorts of medical decisions unethical. Jehovah's Witnesses believe blood transfusions to be unethical. Scientologists believe psychiatric treatment is unethical. And yet neither Category:Psychiatry nor Category:Transfusion medicine are listed in Category:Medical ethics, and I do not believe they should be. These controversies, like those surrounding contraception methods, are not (in my opinion) notable enough to be listed alongside abortion and eugenics as major ethical controversies in the medical profession.

If a category were created for the population-control related articles (I think there are enough of them now to justify this), I would support making it a sub-category of Category:Social ethics. Similarly, I believe Category:Religious views on birth control and Category:Critics of contraception would fit nicely into Category:Religious ethics. What would you think of reorganizing along those lines? Lyrl^Talk _C 02:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Sokol

Good morning (BST time); first off, good luck in your RfA (I've supported, and no intention of changing). However, I'm concerned about this AfD which you nominated: do you have any comments, now you've got hindsight at your disposal? Do you still believe that you were correct, or do you think your judgement was incorrect at that time. If the latter, is this going to be a regular occurrence?

Again, best of luck, and I look forward to your reply!

Kind regards,
Anthøny 00:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image advice

You could help by adding fair use rationales, this shows you under stand WP:NFCC, probably one of the most misunderstood policies and most serious if not followed. You could also be involve in WP:IFD or tag some images with correct tags to show you are familiar with licensing. Happy editing. :) T Rex | talk 21:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Budgies

What birdies do u have? Ryan4314 02:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw I have two Budgies, I love them so much, a boy and a girl. Do your Budgie and Cockatiel share a cage? and if so, do they get on LOL Ryan4314 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw well that sounds nice, yea you can't leave em on their own, they get terribly lonely poor little things. I'm impressed your budgie bullies the cockatiel, but boy birds tend to get on better than what girl birds do. My boy budgie recently hit puberty so he's been quite rampant, but my girl doesn't seem impressed. I g2g now, thanks for telling me about your birds. Let me know if your RFA is sucessful :) Ryan4314 03:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done you, hope your birdies are ok :) Ryan4314 02:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA was successful

Congratulations, your RfA was successful and you are now a sysop! Please add yourself to WP:LA. If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Good luck! --Deskana (banana) 00:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! You've got the mop! --Hirohisat ^Talk 00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad to hear it passed, congratulations :) Have a nice day, - Zeibura ^(Talk) 00:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wield me! Wield me!

Congrats on your successful RfA. Although I (weakly) opposed, I think that you'll have plenty of time to prove me wrong. :-) Here's your mop and bucket, use them wisely! Good luck! Best regards, Húsönd 01:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done - as a Wikipedia:Administrators ensure you have a strong password. See Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators. Useful links are to Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide :-) Yours David Ruben ^Talk 01:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Good luck! :) Acalamari 01:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations - as I said at the RfA, I think you'll do a great job. As to using the tools "enough", as long as you generate one aggreived comment on your talk page every 2 or 3 days as a result of your administrative actions, you're doing plenty. That's the metric I use, anyway. :) I've found the learning curve with the tools to be a little steep, so don't hesitate to ask for help. If there's anything I can assist you with, just let me know. Congratulations again. MastCell ^Talk 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of my initial qualms, congratulations on your successful RfA. However, I do stand by me second statement, which unfortunately I was unable to get back fast enough to reply to. Elenseel 02:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Best wishes. Do good. Bearian 15:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pile on congratulations - and thanx for the thanx. LessHeard vanU 19:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your Adminship! Ariel♥Gold

Re: Thanks for your comment

You're quite welcome. Well done for passing. Sorry about my what now seems a rather harsh oppose - I just can't stand those comments which don't seem like proper thought has gone in - like a vote without a comment. Anyway, well done for passing, and I hope you enjoy being an admin. ;-) Lradrama 11:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Original barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Sorry I'm late, but congrats on your RFA. Politics rule 18:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can only second the above; I wish I had spotted your nomination in time so I could have voiced my support too. Congratulations and keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker 06:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, congrats! I just don't know what to think when someone like yourself who has spent two years working in some of the most difficult areas of the wiki gets opposed for a lack of experience! Are we here to build a bureaucracy or an encyclopedia? Anyways... I think you'll do great! --JayHenry 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Marlith ^T/C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Pass it on to three others! Let's see how many editors will get the message! Marlith ^T/C 00:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Book

Sorry, my mistake. The work I'm referring to is Anne Applebaum's "Gulag: A History". Thanks for pointing that out! There is a reference in Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" but it's not in the index and I'm flicking through to see what page it's on. Apologies for the confusion! Rusty2005 17:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I'm glad to see you passed...even though I opposed. Hopefully, you'll be an excellent admin and prove me wrong :) Giggy ^Talk 01:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lyrl is a tea-drinker, ergo, of course she will!

Hehe, congrat's Lyrl. Real happy for you. Scarian^Talk 11:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Double Effect

Hi, I am very interested to see a metallurgical engineer ask something really specific about this! That was my undergrad training (mechanical eng, with specialty in thin metal films but familiar with fracture mechanics and analysis of failure modes and the like). Here's something you might find interesting:

I do not subsume the case of using condoms for prevention of infection under “therapeutic means” (because there is no “therapy”). Rather, I consider it, in a moral sense, as non-contraceptive for the same reason that therapeutic means are, morally speaking, non-contraceptive: the contraceptive effect is beside the intention. For the same reason I do not consider this use of condoms as a case of the application of the principle of double effect. Notice that not all cases in which something is done praeter intentionem are cases in which the principle of double effect applies. What, however, does apply to all cases of causing something praeter intentionem is one essential feature contained also in cases of double effect: that something is knowingly caused which, however, remains without any influence on the moral quality of the corresponding action. --Martin Rhonheimer, writing in the Spring 2005 National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly.

You'll be interested to see the forthcoming issue of the Josephinum Journal of Theology too (I estimate it'll be available in three months). There is a lot of interesting work being done on this topic right now. I can send you the whole NCBQ article in pdf if you'd like. In general, I see double effect as poorly understood (not least by me!) and overused. The.helping.people.tick 00:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Regarding your message, see Wikipedia:DRV#Template:Linkimage. I wish I had been able to rehash my arguments the third time around, but, more importantly, this seems like an abuse of process, be it through oversight or bad faith. (Since I'm supposed to assume good faith, I'll say oversight for the sake of argument.) Your contribution to the discussion on process would be most appreciated. It is my first DRV; I hope it goes as well as my past XfDs — the ones I contributed to, that is. Calbaer 21:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, linkimage used to be using on a lot more pages than it is now. Although it might not help my case, it would probably be useful to the discussion to post friendly notices on all article talk pages on which friendly notices of the previous TfD were posted. This list can be found here. I was going to wait to do it until late tonight (due to the NSFW nature of some of the pages), but if you beat me to the punch, that would be great. I was thinking of using text as follows:

[section Template:Linkimage] Template:Linkimage, the second AfD of which was announced on this talk page, was recently re-nominated for deletion, and the consensus was judged to be delete. This result is currently under deletion review. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the deletion review page. Thank you. [signature]

Let me know. Calbaer 21:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it would be useful if friendly notices were placed on the talk pages of all users who took part in the AfDs, whether or not they were for "keep" or "delete." However, I have neither to time nor patience to do so manually, and if I picked and chose which to write to, I would be accused of votestacking. If you have a way to do so automatically, that would also be great. Calbaer 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think if editors who work on an article have decided not to use the linkimage, they've taken their dog out of the fight. Posting mass notices is, in my opinion, more likely to stir up old disputes than to be helpful. Similarly for people who commented in prior TfDs - I'm not sure how I would respond to someone notifying me, personally, that an article I had commented on was up for a subsequent XfD. If I were interested in the topic, I would be watching it and aware already. If I'm not interested, it would be awkward and not necessarily appreciated. I also don't believe inviting more opinionated people into a heated discussion is going to have any positive effect on this TfD. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So noted, though I must say I disagree with the assumption that I'd be aware already. I wasn't aware of the TfD until it was over; I doubt most users have templates on their watchlists. I believe the debate would benefit from some of the voices previously heard, but I guess I won't asks anyone else if you think it will do more harm than good. So what's the third article aside from Talk:Pre-ejaculate and Talk:Amniotic sac? With the template deleted, it's a heck of a lot more difficult for me to find out where it was used....

By the way, is it just me, or is there something rather Orwellian about asserting that text must be removed because it could be used for censorship and something rather Kafkaesque about asserting that the consensus is defined as the majority of those who agree with the administrator? And have you also noticed that, while other users, pro and con, give detailed and thoughtful comments (like Jreferee's, which I disagree with, but which are certainly detailed and thoughtful), Radiant! restricts his or her comments to the types of short, unformed ideas typical of WP:ATA. That's not against policy, but it's rather annoying that someone who won't even bother explaining his or her own view unilaterally decides to impose it on everyone else. Calbaer 00:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• In view of your comments to my post, I added additional comments at Template:Linkimage DRV. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Linkimage

• (Discussion unified at User talk:Calbaer#Template:Linkimage.) - jc37 19:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

New NuvaRing Image

Starting a new cycle! Here's the Quarter comparison image as promised: http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c365/SuperSailorAstera/nuvaring_quarter.gif Do with it as you please. :D --Sakura 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Public domain is fine; I'm happy to contribute it for the greater good. :D --Sakura 14:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nuvaring with quarter.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Nuvaring with quarter.gif. 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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)