Yohan Castel

Adding sources

Hello, Yohan Castel. When you add sources, as you did here and here, make sure that you mostly rely on WP:Secondary sources; you have been relying on primary sources, and, as the WP:Secondary sources link shows, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS), this is especially true in the case of biomedical information; for example, your contributions to the Sex differences in psychology and Mechanics of human sexuality articles. Primary sources are sometimes okay, especially if they are used as adjunct to secondary sources, but they are particularly generally discouraged for biomedical information. As for your latter edit above, I tweaked it here; these studies are suggesting matters, not necessarily proving anything (not without the findings being replicated in other research) and, as noted in the Clitoris and G-spot articles, Buisson is more so stating that the G-spot is nothing but the clitoris; see, for example, this LiveScience article. Flyer22 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course, systematic reviews or pluridisciplinary work are generally better. But for play behavior to my knowledge there are too few studies for systematic reviews. Only two I think about the topic of primates playing with human toys. And only one with fetal testosterone samples in human. I added these sources because I thought there were interesting. And I'm not able to write sophisticated analysis or argumentations, as english is not my native language. Yohan Castel (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining. WP:MEDRS makes exceptions for cases where few reviews are being published; see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Use up-to-date evidence, if you haven't already. And remember that you can also cite book sources, which can be secondary sources. For example, to cite Buisson's research in the Clitoris and G-spot articles, I provided book sources noting her research in addition to a primary source to her research. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For going up against the machine and attempting to improve medicine articles with good sources, even if you're reverted. We need more people like you. Tutelary (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank You Yohan Castel (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, awarding editors barnstars for using clearly poor sources on medical articles (poor sources for reasons that Zad68 and I explained) and describing that (or debating against me) as "going up against the machine," as though it's admirable, is not helping editors like Yohan Castel. Yohan Castel's sources are not good sources going by WP:MEDRS standards. They are good WP:Primary sources; well, the vast majority of them are good WP:Primary sources. And WP:Primary sources are usually not enough, are usually best left not used, for the type of topics that Yohan Castel has been expanding. He needs to know that. And it seems from the discussion above and the discussion he has been having on my talk page about the Erogenous zone article, that he understands that. Editors who do understand that are the editors we need more of, not ones that "g[o] up against the machine," as you call it. Perhaps you should stop watching my talk page if you are going to see it as an opportunity to award every editor who challenges what I state, as you have done more than once now. I much prefer editors like Zad68 and NeilN watching my talk page, since editors like Zad68 and NeilN actually offer good advice to WP:Newbies who stop by my talk page. And, no, they don't always agree with me. So it's not a "They always agree with me" aspect that I admire about them. It's a "They truly help" aspect that I admire. WP:Med takes advising WP:Newbies seriously when it comes to medical or medical-related content, and they should. They don't appreciate editors being pointed in the wrong direction when it comes to such topics. Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been made quite clear that you are claiming that I am 'watching' your talk page, I do have it watchlisted but I do watchlist a variety of different articles, relating to philosophy, sexuality, biology, and the like. I don't very much appreciate you accusing me of doing anything malicious against you. When I was referring to 'the machine', I was referring to the complexity of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as editors like you who like to overly quote and give paragraphs of response in terms of what they should do in an ambiguous, when this user is trying to get the heart of how to improve Wikipedia. They've asked you numerous times on what exactly they could do to incorporate the sources and peer reviewed journals into the article and you keep throwing them for a loop. As I can see from their own edits, they do not very much participate on Wikipedia and as an assumption, don't know all the policies and guidelines. What they've asked of you is to demonstrate a way that the sources and what not can be used on the article, and reading your talk page, you haven't explained exactly how they could do that. What I would like to see from you two is that you, Flyer22 with your expansive knowledge on WP:MEDRS and other related policies, find a suitable way to include it into the article, or if it's not possible; state such. Oh, and please don't non-chalantly' ping' editors to this page by mentioning their names. I've seen you do that a couple times already and it's obvious that you're pinging them to participate in this discussion, a possible violation of WP:CAN. Tutelary (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It was easy to deduce that you watch my talk page; common sense is common sense. I don't know why you often think that editors don't have common sense, whether it's spotting an obvious WP:Sockpuppet, a pedophile at the Pedophilia article, or something else. As for you not "very much appreciat[ing me] accusing [you] of doing anything malicious against [me]," again common sense. I have not at all been ambiguous with Yohan Castel or "throw[n him] for a loop." I told him exactly what he should do, including pointing him to a part of WP:MEDRS that makes exceptions for WP:Primary sources in some cases and that, if high-quality sources have not reviewed the content, then it's usually the case that the content should not be included. That he still wants the content included is not something I should have to keep addressing. He can make his case at WP:Med or take the matter to WP:Dispute resolution, where I will then inform WP:Med of the discussion. And as for "editors like [me] who like to overly quote and give paragraphs of response in terms of what they should do" (not that I like to overly quote anything), but I've seen you do the same, except that you often interpret the policies and guidelines wrongly, similar to what you just did by referring to WP:Canvass. I'll ping who I want to ping via WP:Echo. Go make a case for that at the WP:Canvass talk page and see if you can get it on that page as a violation of WP:Canvass, if you want to. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: Yohan Castel, as seen here and here, your image is currently used as a lead image for the Erogenous zone article; but as seen in that second diff-link, I don't truly approve of its use, and am likely to remove the image at some point, if someone else does not remove it first. Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)