User talk:Ratel

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Prostate Massage

Hi Ratel, I did not check the history of prostate massage carefully before making my additions, so I apologize for overwriting your section without consulting you first. However, I must disagree with what you have written as it is very one-sided when there are have been legitimate studies done that conclude that prostate massage can be beneficial for those suffering from prostate issues, in particular non-bacterial chronic prostatitis. The articles that I cite were found on pubmed and are legitimate sources. Urology, while very reputable, is not listed as a core journal. One study done in Urology should not exclude the use of other legitimate primary sources in this article.

In addition, you use two citations about the "risky" of prostate massage. These were isolated cases and to be fair and balanced should be indicated as such. The case of the 70 year-old man from Japan is particular iffy - he was already in poor health and already had diabetes. Fournier's gangrene is associated with a diabetic condition. Using an 18 year-old source as evidence of the riskiness of prostate massage is questionable.

Finally, the statement:

"As a consequence of these findings, prostate massage is not used in the treatment of any medical disorder today, and prostate massage should never be performed on patients with acute prostatitis, because the infection can spread elsewhere in the body if massage is performed."

is simply not true. There are still praciticing physicians who perform prostate massages to relieve the symptoms of various prostate conditions. The survey of the Chinese physicians backs this up. It is true that prostate massage should not be performed on patients with bacterial acute prostatitis, but you need to have a citation for this statement.

The article as it stands is simply too biased to be truly encyclopedic. At the least, more studies need to be done on the effectiveness of prostate massage. I await your reply. Thanks!

Shadow's Cradle (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drudge Report

Ratel thanks for your scholarship at the Drudge Report. Just so long as there is a mention of the true tenor of the Drudge Report in the first paragraph, I would be happy. Not everyone is as intelligent as wiki editors to sniff the truth out about a media site, so it is our responsibility to make sure the general public of all levels can clearly understand the truth. Jason Parise (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is an important core characteristic of any article, to have the first paragraph sum up the essentials of the whole, and a core essential in understanding the Drudge Report is knowing that it does have an obvious conservative bias. The article itself proves it. Perry wishes for more proof but I disagree. Please help me contact the appropriate wiki editors or whoever to help resolve this stand off we have going. Thanks. Jason Parise (talk)

Survey request

Hi, Ratel I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Hirst

Thanks for the useful contribution. However, please paraphrase the source, as there were parts cut and pasted into the article. Ty 23:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with a little cut and paste. I'm happy for anal-compulsives to come and tidy it up later. ► RATEL ◄ 01:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downgrading prostatitis

Hi,

I didn't find a formal review and thought it was a mistake. Prostatitis itself looks pretty crappy, nowhere near what was stated. If the article is split into pieces it should be re-evaluated, no? Let me know what grading you would apply.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-evaluated the article group and changed the grading on one of them. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The grading system is imperfect and subject to debate. Adminship has nothing to do with grading, so your opinion is equally valuable. However, I suggest you have a look at WP:1.0/B and the clean-up tags I just placed on the article. The referencing is indeed quite good. Once there is a proper lead section and the text is rewritten for the average user, this would definitely qualify for B-class. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drudge Report

Thanks for updating the references on the Drudge Report. I didn't want you to think I was deliberately giving you a hard time, I just wanted the sourcing to stand up to any future complaints. 72.84.238.145 (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You were right. ► RATEL ◄ 03:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drudge Controversy

"If you consider the published opinions of journalists and commentators inadequate proof that the DR page is conservative, what would you consider adequate proof?"

So according to your logic, if I present an article that calls MSNBC a liberal news outlet (which there are many), then MSNBC's wikipedia page should label it as a "liberal news organization." I think it is wrong to label it as a conservative website. It is right to mention the allegations but not to label it "conservative" when other organizations are not classified in such a way.

Drudge Report

One more thing... a conservative website would not post Barack Obama political advertisements. I think YOU have the bias.