User talk:Zodon: Difference between revisions

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Roleplayer Good luck, and have fun. --Roleplayer (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RIndMA disk

Would you, please contact me [e-mail address deleted] on the issue Stasdm (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to e-mail me, use "e-mail this user" in toolbox, or we can discuss on talk:solid-state drive. Zodon (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to "family planning" and "reproductive rights."

Myself and others discuss some major issues in Talk:Family planning#WP:NPOV. You seem to be making unverified additions to Wikipedia, and possibly violating WP:NPOV (e.g., removal of references to birth control in article, removal of "birth control" in the "see also" list of family planning), when sources claim equivalence. Note also that the birth control article uses the terms synonymously. If some view this as incorrect, and their opinions are notable, please present sources.

Also, you've edited reproductive rights to link the phrase "education and access" to the article for family planning. This is also questionable. I don't see how the phrases are related.

Thanks and I hope to improve the articles with you! Blackworm (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, incorporating links into the text itself is preferred to using them in See also sections. [1] Thus since birth control was linked in the summary section, I removed it from the see also section. If this is not in accordance with preferred practice, please let me know (a reference to the wiki documentation would be appreciated).

I fail to find where the birth control article uses the terms synonymously, please clarify. The only current mention of family planning in the birth control article is the note which I added to the summary indicating that birth control is frequently used in family planning. The phrase also occurs as part of 'natural family planning,' but that is a name for a specific birth control method.

As to reproductive rights. Clearly family planning is closely tied to reproductive rights. Family planning provides the education and services necessary to make reproductive choices. Since the article did not obviously link to family planning, I tried to add a link. I thought it fit reasonably there, but if you find a better place for the link, great. Zodon (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SEEALSO states: Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Considering the entire article begins by attacking an apparently majority opinion, a position you have reinforced with your edits, your additional removal of birth control from the "see also" section seemed like you were continuing the dissociation of the two terms your other edit began. Apparently our editorial judgment and common sense are at odds. But perhaps we should address the root causes; the "see also" is less relevant.

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, by "family planning provides the education and services necessary to make reproductive choices." I thought "family planning" was a concept. How does a concept provide services? Do you mean to say that family planning clinics provide these things? If so, you would only have a valid reason to wiki-link "education and access" to "family planning" if no one but family planning clinics provide such information and services. Unlike you, I don't see a need to "find a better place for the link" as a condition of keeping that wikilink. That smacks of quid pro quo and I do not subscribe to that method of editing. Something is related to reproductive rights by means of reliable sources.

The birth control article uses the phrase "family planning" in a caption next to the History section. It does not explain what "family planning" is nor its relation to birth control. I assume that is because most readers see the phrases as synonymous (as it effectively states in the first sentence of family planning). The phrase is also associated with abortion, given that abortion clinics are called "family planning clinics" in the U.S. I provided a source for at least the "birth control" part of that. Do you have a response to my presentation of that source?

We don't even define family planning in this article. We say Family planning is most frequently used to mean that a couple plans when to have children, using birth control and other techniques to implement that plan. That sounds like we're talking about a concept, not a provider of services. Then, we spend the rest of the lead paragraph attacking this "most frequently used" meaning as incorrect. That is in contradiction to WP:NPOV, which states, NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Blackworm (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also - As you note, my edit was compatible with wikipedia practice. If others prefer that it also occur in the see also, I have no objection.

Likewise if others prefer putting family planning in the see also on reproductive health, rather than linking from the text - that's fine. My interest was in fixing the omission, rather than the particulars of where the link went.

BC article - Thank you, I missed the caption. Just because it uses the term without defining it does not mean it is the same thing as birth control. If an article on vaccination (e.g.) had a picture of a health clinic, that need not imply that that is the only thing that a health clinic does. It is reasonable to assume that they are related, but not necessary that they be synonymous.

Family planning can be regarded as a concept, just as financial planning can be regarded as a concept, therefore it is not unreasonable that a definition treat it as a concept. Family planning is definitely not a provider of services. A family planning clinic would be a provider of services. Just as a financial adviser might be a provider of financial planning services.

Many of the posts on the "NPOV" thread there show much more of a POV than the article. Certainly nothing I have added is "an attack on the most frequently used meaning," or is incompatible with it. As it states in the introduction, "Family planning is sometimes used as a synonym for the use of birth control, though it includes much more." The initial sentence, is also a restatement of the same idea, which is then expanded on to mention some of the other areas commonly included in family planning. Hardly an attack.

The idea that family planning frequently refers to birth control is not incompatible with it covering other things as well. The broader meanings of family planning definitely include the narrower one. Infertility is a rarer condition than fertility, so infertility management is required less often than fertility management. A dermatologist may mostly deal with acne and warts - but that doesn't mean that that is all there is to dermatology. Likewise, those interested in particular areas may emphasize particular aspects. (Those dealing with maternal rights may emphasize fertility control and maternal wellness issues, those interested in environment may emphasize planning aspect and environmental impact of people (cf childfree), those interested in infertility may emphasize that aspect.)

As to the amount of text spent on the narrower vs broader definitions. There are currently 2 sentences dealing with the narrower definition (primarily birth control), and one dealing with the broader aspects. And one that reflects neither. Hardly disproportionate coverage.

At first you object to the article because you say family planning is only a euphemism for birth control, and that it should be removed pending evidence that it is more than that. Then you object because somebody does something to make it clearer what else is often included in family planning. Claiming that such clarification is an attack on the viewpoint you are propounding. If you call the the WHO working definition of Family Planning and the US Department of Health, administration for children and families (both cited in my additions) "minority opinions," than what would you consider reasonable evidence?

I am not up on the history of the term "Family planning," if you have unbiased citations on the history of the term that you feel are appropriate - great. (Calling it a euphemism seems a bit biased, some more neutral wording might be appropriate.) Recent (last 100 years or so) technological advances have provided many more reproductive options, so it is hardly surprising that terms should also evolve. Zodon (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "See also," your edit was not quite compatible with Wikipedia practice. I read policy as stating that the practice of deciding when to include wiki-linked phrases in the "see also" is a question of editorial judgment only when there is a clear, uncontested link between the text linked and the linked-to article. In the case of "education and access" in the context of reproductive rights, I don't believe linking to family planning meets that standard, especially since family planning is a concept, while education and access are services. Associating these implicitly seems to me to be in opposition to WP:NPOV. Would a center giving out information ("education") on FGC be providing family planning services?

You write, ...if others prefer putting family planning in the see also on reproductive health, rather than... Note that the article you edited is not "reproductive health" but reproductive rights. Again, per that article, family planning is but one aspect of reproductive rights. It merits a "see also," perhaps even another sentence in the article, but not a wikilink from the phrase "education and access" in my opinion.

I can agree with you that the captions in the BC article are not proof of anything. Nonetheless, I cited a reliable source in Talk:Family planning with a reasonable interpretation that the two phrases are at least sometimes used as synonyms. We cannot write the article as if that is plainly false. WP:NPOV seems clear. The part, Family planning is sometimes used as a synonym for the use of birth control, though it includes much more seems to be unattributed opinion stated as fact.

I was indeed stating that family planning was a concept. Since you seem to agree that clinics (and not "family planning") provide family planning services (e.g., "education and access"), did you mean to say that Family planning [clinics provide] the education and services necessary to make reproductive choices? If so, I don't see how, if true, it would be evidence of "family planning" being synonymous enough with "education and access" in the context of reproductive rights for the latter to link to the former -- unless they provided the only education and services "necessary." Family planning seems like one aspect, but not the only aspect of "education and access" to reproductive rights. Further, viewing it as "necessary" is POV (which I tolerate well in Talk).

The edits you added shouldn't be viewed as an attack, and for that I apologize. They do, however, unfortunately create a case of undue weight, and also have the disadvantage of forwarding an unattributed, uncited argument rather than referencing views (WP:NPOV) and citing them (WP:V).

I'm not arguing for the incompatibility of the idea that broader meanings of "family planning" exist. I'm asking you to verify, using reliable sources, that such meanings are used by a group large enough to warrant both the relative volume of text allocated to the presentation of that view, and seemingly authoritative tone in which it is presented (e.g. Family planning is sometimes used as a synonym for the use of birth control, though it includes much more).

I disagree with your assessment of relative weight of the presented views. It's a matter of how the information is presented, as well as how much.

I am not propounding the viewpoint, I am propounding the prevalence of the viewpoint. Forgive me if that was not clear.

I have a citation on the history of the term. Are you suggesting by writing if you have unbiased citations on the history of the term that you feel are appropriate - great that the source is biased and thus irrelevant? Blackworm (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the see also matter - when I made the change I had no reason to believe it would be questioned. So it was consistent with wikipedia pollicy, based on what information was available at that time. If somebody went and edited it and put it as a see also instead - I would probably have thought nothing of it.

Sorry that I used the wrong article title in prev. post. It was late. Sorry if it confused.

If you really want to go into why the link made sense to me. Family planning clinics provide education and access to services that help people make reproductive choices. I did not say that it was synonymous, just related. Necessary was your interpretation, not mine.

Side note: The item in reproductive rights is a bit funny in that it says "education and access" - but fails to say access to what. I assumed that it was access to birth control or family planning technology/services, since I have seen the phrase used to mean that in similar contexts.

As I said, I have no problem with it being changed to meet other's preferences. So I don't see much point in further discussion of the see also (i.e. please somebody just improve it).

RE reliable sources - the WHO and US Health Dept are large and influential groups in this area. On the other hand, evidence for the narrower definition so far constitutes one historical reference and hear-say. One could check NFPRHA, Guttmacher institute, other national health services, etc. But without knowing what is considered to be wanting in the provided references it is hard to know what will be worthwhile.

I revised the area a bit to better link citations to individual items. Also to clarify an abbreviation and to clarify the language. Per the concern about sources, we don't seem to have citations for the assertion that the "most frequent" use of "family planning" is as a synonym for birth control. (In view of the active discussion, I kept the edits to just what seemed likely to help with the issues at question.)

How would you propose the introduction to the family planning be reworked so that you would feel more comfortable with it in terms of balance?

Source on history - I didn't suggest that it was irrelevant - as I said, the phrasing suggested bias, so seemed worth treating the source with caution and use of a neutral presentation when including the information. Zodon (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Good job splitting up the low-power article. Thank you. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performance per watt

Sincerely, thanks/well_done on your recent edits. --Rebroad (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy discussion on DOIs

Hi-

In case you somehow miss it, there's a policy discussion on the use of DOIs here: WP:AN#DOI bot blocked for policy reconsideration. Your voice would be appreciated, I'm sure. ASHill (talk | contribs) 00:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Banner

I note that you flagged my suggested edits with a potential conflict-of-interest banner because I have consulted for Qiagen, a role not unlike many highly respected HPV experts. The peer reviewed data I provided in my original response supports the statements I've made, and I would presume that you too are well aware of this data and are an expert in this area. Is this correct? I can only assume that as a frequently relied on resource, Wikipedia tries to reflect the most up to date and accepted medical research and opinions as possible. Thank you. Drsavard (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your edits was that they consistently presented one POV and removed more neutral material. Since the POV that was presented was that favoring the product of the company you consult for, that seemed like a potential COI. Some of the interpretations you presented were not representative of what was in the original reference (specifically relating to some of the screening guidelines). Wikipedia tries to give a neutral presentation of information. Have to present the downsides as well as the upsides of things and ballance the new and less well understood as well as the tried and true. Zodon (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birth control methods section order

Hi, I was browsing your "To do" list and came across the musings on Template:Birth control methods. The sections are currently ordered by degree of invasiveness/complexity/reversibility: see David's comment here and edit summary control methods&diff=125685335&oldid=125672311 here, and a discussion on (mostly) ordering at Template talk:Birth control methods/Archive1#Behavioral vs. Physical. I hope that helps explain how the order got to this point. Lyrl^Talk _C 18:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had come up with the question, and hadn't found much obvious in the talk. The pointers really helped. Zodon (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSD power consumption

Hello,

You removed my edit on Solid-state_drives where I removed the line

Higher power consumption – at idle or under low workloads laptop battery runtimes decrease when using an SSD over a 7200 RPM 2.5" laptop hard drive, flash drives also take more power per gigabyte.

stating that the source article was consisent with the wiki.

There are several reasons why it is inconsistent:

In the idle benchmarks, the two best performing drives were both SSDs.^[1]

In the low workload benchmarks, those same SSDs out-performed the HDDs.^[2]

It makes the leap from some SSDs requiring more power under certain conditions to making the general claim of "higher power consumption".

The claim that flash drives take more power per gigabyte is true when compared with hard drives with a larger capacity, but that is not true for hard drives with equal capacity. This is a disadvantage of capacity, though. Neither hard drives nor flash drives consume any power to simply retain data, and it is the reading, writing, and idle operation where power consumption has any role, and where flash drives out-perform hard disks.

The original article is still sourced, even though Tom's Hardware admits to "a procedural mistake" and that the workloads were inconsistent.^[3]

Could you please reinstate my changes? Or at least remove the invalid reference and modify the claim to be correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion I removed the older Tom's Hardware reference. The item is consistent with the conclusions in the cited Tom's hardware article, will look at the details you mention to see if the article itself is consistent.

If you are comparing devices you have to have some commonality for comparison. As noted elsewhere in the article, the power consumption per gigabyte for SSD is lower for some small devices, but higher for larger devices. This is not a disadvantage of capacity, you can get large SSDs, but on a power/gigabyte basis they generally take more.

Note that the article is about SSD, not just flash drives. So also includes RAM based devices, which take power to retain data, and appear to take more power/gigabyte than either flash or hard disks.

At this point, I think that refining the item would make more sense than deleting it. Zodon (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up to Drsavard COI Banner

Hi Zodon. Since it seems we are having some trouble resolving our conflict of interest dispute, I have asked some other editors to step in and take a look at the content with us. Please reference WP:COIN for more information. Thank you for working with us to make sure the information on the disputed pages is relevant and informative. Drsavard (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware we were having any difficulty dealing with it. Sorry I haven't had a lot of time to devote to wikipedia lately. Zodon (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I know you were concerned about my posting medical information being a conflict of interest on several articles. I am hoping if you have time and are still interested, you can take a look at some of the articles I've suggested edits to and comment on the medical information provided. I really still am interested in making the edits I proposed to keep the article factual, but do not want to violate any community rules. Your feedback as a fellow contributor would be welcome. If you don't have time, I would like to move forward with the edits, as there were no further comments past the conflict of interest. (See cervical cancer, pap test and HPV Vaccine as an example). Thanks again! Drsavard (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I think you can declare a separate "importance" for the reproductive medicine task force. Also -- while I have no objections to your choice of high importance for Condom -- it's not just page views that count. It's our estimate of page views among users who are looking for medicine-related articles. A person who is looking at an article for any other reason doesn't 'count' in this scheme. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any documentation someplace that makes more sense of the importance ranking for medical articles? I understand about things potentially having different importances to different projects, but it is a bit hard to make sense of some of the rankings. For instance, Condom was ranked mid importance, although it appears to receives a lot more views than some of the top importance medical items. Since Condom is one of the primary tools in preventing STIs, and reproductive ill-health is a significant fraction of the world's burden of ill-health, it seemed like Condom should be at least high importance.

Since the rankings in general don't make sense to me, I have generally avoided ranking things at all. (e.g. Cervical cancer is top importance and Human Papillomavirus, with about 2x as many views, is high importance, although cervical cancer is more serious, very few people get cervical cancer, but almost everybody gets HPV - go figure.)

In the case of Condom, the ranking seemed so far out of wack that I ventured to change it. But if others feel it was correct at Mid priority, I won't object if it gets changed back. However if there is more explanation of the rankings someplace (besides the ranking scale on project medicine) I would be interested to understand them further. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to your importance assessment for condom -- and since I have done something like 80% of the project's assessment work to date, my opinion is the one that matters. ;-)

I also think that Condom might be a candidate for top-importance to the task force. (Of course, that's something that should be discussed at the task force's talk page.)

The Top vs. High rankings seem muddled to me. Your example is a perfect illustration of the concerns. Probably one or the other should be top, instead of both (just because we don't want to overload the top-importance rankings with STIs and cancer) -- but which one? Thoughtful editors could easily choose either.

Our current assessment guidelines (full disclosure: which I wrote) are IMO much more useful than the generic boilerplate that they replaced. But it's still a bit of a judgment call in some cases. In fact, even after assessing thousands of articles, there are still some that I leave alone, or come back weeks later and change.

One way of thinking about this is by comparison. Top-importance articles are the top 1%. High-importance articles are the top 10%. Low is the bottom half. So if you selected 100 medicine-related articles at random (Complete list available here), and lined them up according to importance to the hypothetical general reader, where would it fall? If it's clearly first in the list, then it's top. If it's clearly in the top 10%, then it's high.

Another way of thinking about this is through the lens of WP:1.0 ratings. Top-importance articles will always be included, even if they're just a dozen sentences long and have one pathetic reference. High-importance articles will almost be included, unless they're in poor condition. Mid-importance articles are included if the individual article is any good, but skipped if it is below-average quality. Low-importance articles are generally skipped. So think about a schoolteacher with Wikipedia on a stack of CDs: How obvious would the article's omission be to the teacher?

A common approach is to look at the other articles in the given importance category and see whether this article is a better "match" for this list or that list.

Finally, there's nothing quite like "learning by doing" for this. If you'd like to have a go at Category:Unknown-importance_medicine_articles and assess a few dozen (or hundreds), then I think you'll get a better handle on it. If figure that our first duty is to get an approximate rating associated with each article. If we later decide that this "High" is really "Mid", or the other way around, then that's not a bad thing. We just don't want to make huge mistakes, like rating something "Low" when it should be "High". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up to Vasovasostomy information

Good day Zodon. I feel like we having a bit of an issue resolving conflict of information and revelance dispute. I am asking other editors to take a look at the content issue that we have with us. Please reference WP:COIN for more information. Thank you for working with us to make sure the information on the disputed pages is relevant and informative.

We discuss some issues

You seem to be making unverified changes to Wikipedia, and possibly violating WP:NPOV

(e.g., removal of references to vasectomy reversal contributions as well as other modifications item control in articles, "see also" list of vasectomy), when sources claim equivalence you should not have modified them for other reasons. Also you've edited reproductive rights to articles of family planning I believe that this should not have been done.

Pdbs (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The primary edits I have made to vasovasostomy have been to further wikify it and remove repeated attempts at adding advertising links for your business to the external links of the page. Rather than repeatedly adding a questionable item, or trying to modify the format of the article away from wikipedia/WP:MEDMOS standards, please discuss WP:BRD on the talk page, or ask for help.

As to your comments on reproductive rights and family planning, please be more specific, it is not clear what changes you are referring to.

So far I could not find the entry on the COIN. Please provide link when/if you make a posting there. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccination and religion

Hi Zodon, I'm wondering why you reverted my additions here with the edit summary that "chiropractic is not a religion".

While chiropractic does contain metaphysical elements, your edit summary is quite right, and that was never claimed in my contribution, IOW your summary is a straw man.

The section is about religious exemptions, and the properly sourced content I added was about religious exemptions. In this case it involves a controversial church started by a chiropractor which gives religious exemptions. It could have been started by anyone and it would still be relevant to the section. Likewise Barbara Loe's article about religious exemptions is relevant to the section. What gives?

BTW, DD Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, actually did suggest that chiropractic be classified as a religion. After all, according to him it originated "from the other world." He was an avid spiritualist. That's just an interesting bit of history:

D.D. Palmer's Religion of Chiropractic

-- Fyslee / talk 06:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion might be more profitably carried out on the article's talk page, where it would form a part of the history for the article, and get participation from other editors. (e.g. WP:BRD) So I have created a new section Talk:Vaccination and religion#Vaccination, religion and chiropractic for it and copied your question there, along with my response. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. That makes sense. -- Fyslee / talk 13:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HPV vaccine

Your revision of my additions were worthy to a point and I thank you for your industry. However, I cannot agree that a study by Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, stored on the FDA website is a low quality source. I take on board your comment about the small sample study and my misinterpretation. Would you say the same about the combined sample of 18 150 present in page 15 Table 21 that shows a -11.7% efficacy for Gardasil against the relevant type of HPV when compared to the placebo? Surely you must agree that these results in Table 21 show the Gardasil vaccine may increase the risk of cervical cancer in some recipients of the vaccine. Watergoesred (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The low quality source is the other source cited, which provided the interpretation of the data. The FDA background document notes study 13 (which is the only one of the studies combined in table 21 in which the placebo appeared to be better than Gardasil) as an area of concern to be discussed at the meeting. It does not say that that means that Gardasil may increase the risk of cervical cancer. It does say that there are other risk factors that may account for the results in study 13. As the meeting in question has undoubtedly taken place, the results of the meeting would be more relevant than this background document.

So as far as I can see the FDA document does not establish that Gardasil vaccine may increase the risk of cervical cancer. How you or I would interpret it would be WP:OR. (And no, I would not interpret Table 21 that way, I would start by seeing how the panel dealt with it, or check for review articles published in peer reviewed journals.) Zodon (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the clean-up. I'll try to be more careful. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

I responded to your concerns in my talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New response on my talk.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STD testing

Nice edit. [2] I should have thought of that.

--davidz (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usc-title-chap

Thanks for fixing it. -- davidz (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonintrusive load monitoring

Thank you for your edits.--Nowa (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting the article, interesting to learn about. Zodon (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual health clinic

The talk page for the sexual health clinic article gets unwieldy. Would you please consider refactoring it. Consider breaking longer entries in Other changes into specific topics. Consider moving all discussion of Curable v treatable into one section. Roughly follow the structure of the article expect for topics that apply to the whole article. Preserve content but summarize as you see fit. Thanks. -- davidz (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare Template:Unreferenced vs {{Refimprove}}

Please refer to discussion on talk page for Progestagen --Kuzetsa (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Human Sexuality Barnstar
		Thank you for your well referenced improvements to the Safe sex article, Simon Speed (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially thanks for correcting a well intentioned but dangerously non-factual addition about soap and water. I worried about this when I saw it but (like most editors) don't have the medical knowledge and pretty much restrict myself to removing deliberate vandalism. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hard-drive,1968-11.html

[2] ttp://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hard-drive,1968-10.html

[3] ttp://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hard-drive,1968.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 218: / Line 218: @@
 :: Sure thing. That makes sense. -- <i><b><font color="004000">[[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">[[User talk:Fyslee|talk]]</font></b> 13:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
+== HPV vaccine ==
 Your revision of [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gardasil&oldid=247331199 my additions] were worthy to a point and I thank you for your industry. However, I cannot agree that a study by Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, stored on the FDA website is a low quality source. I take on board your comment about the small sample study and my misinterpretation. Would you say the same about the combined sample of 18 150 present in page 15 Table 21 that shows a -11.7% efficacy for Gardasil against the relevant type of HPV when compared to the placebo? Surely you must agree that these results in Table 21 show the Gardasil vaccine may increase the risk of cervical cancer in some recipients of the vaccine. [[User:Watergoesred|Watergoesred]] ([[User talk:Watergoesred|talk]]) 08:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
+:The low quality source is the other source cited, which provided the interpretation of the data.  The FDA background document notes study 13 (which is the only one of the studies combined in table 21 in which the placebo appeared to be better than Gardasil) as an area of concern to be discussed at the meeting.  It does not say that that means that Gardasil may increase the risk of cervical cancer.  It does say that there are other risk factors that may account for the results in study 13.  As the meeting in question has undoubtedly taken place, the results of the meeting would be more relevant than this background document.
+:So as far as I can see the FDA document does not establish that Gardasil vaccine may increase the risk of cervical cancer.  How you or I would interpret it would be [[WP:OR]].  (And no, I would not interpret Table 21 that way, I would start by seeing how the panel dealt with it, or check for review articles published in peer reviewed journals.)  [[User:Zodon|Zodon]] ([[User talk:Zodon#top|talk]]) 20:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 ==Thanks==