User talk:Zodon/Archive 2

Mononucleosis page issues

It was actually I who changed the article on mononucleosis to redirect to infectious mononucleosis, but I wasn't logged in at the time and failed to notice this. I apologize.

As for the actual concerns over the page, I simply feel that the current article is superfluous, too short to provide any depth of information, and just plain unnecessary, considering that there is a longer, more informative, and much better-written article right here. Thus, I will be changing the page again so that it will redirect to the preferred article; if you have a concern over this, please put it on my talk page as opposed to duking it out long-distance with me over edit summaries. Thanks, 62 Misfit (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded on user's page and article talk. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

EL in cervix article

Would you comment on the proposed EL for the cervix article again? Pakaran has not commented on the talk page, but is presumably pro because they added the link to the article (diff). Current commenters are an anonymous four months ago (pro, carries little weight as anon), the site owner (pro, but carries no weight), Mikka (opposed because the site does not meet WP:RS - says that WP:EL does not apply here), and me (pro). You were opposed the last time you commented; with the current lineup, I think if you're still opposed, there's no consensus. If you could be persuaded to support it, I believe I'd call consensus to add the link. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I will look at it again, want to think about it a little. Zodon (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate you taking the time to consider my request. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:

• Read our Manual of Style for medical articles and guide to Reliable medical sources
• Join in editing our collaboration of the week (the current one is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
• Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess
• Have a look at some related WikiProjects
• Have a look at the collaboration dashboard

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or feel free to ask me on my talk page.

Again, welcome!  --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

comment on content

Please remember to "Comment on content, not on contributors"Wikipedia:No personal attacks. On Template talk:Electricity grid modernization you have repeatedly misrepresented my postings, made accusations, and made disparaging comments about my level of subject knowledge, questioned my reasons for editing, etc. All of which is irrelevant to article improvement. Please don't. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We can all remember to assume good faith and not descend into wikilawyering as so often is the case. I am attempting the best I can to understand your argument regarding the inclusion of rural electrification. We are making progress and I am looking forward to getting some closure on it after two months of effort. If you took some offence to some response I made, I apologize. We can all get frustrated and I hope you can understand and forgive me. I am not trying to misrepresent your position. If you would like to summarize your argument there, please do. If not, I will distill what I have understood your position to be and ask you to correct or refine the summarization. Fair enough? -J JMesserly (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Vaccine critics vs vaccine criticism

Hi, Zodon. I created a new discussion at Talk:Vaccine critic about the names of the categories for Vaccine critic. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page. Thanks for letting me know. Zodon (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Papillomavirus template

Hi, I saw this template on your user page, its a great idea, are you planing to add it to Papillomavirus??, if you need any help, let me know Maen. K. A. (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I intend it to link the articles on HPV, Pap smear, cervical CA, etc. I hadn't made it into a template because it still needs a bit of work on organization (especially the part about Colposcopy, biopsy, and treatment). But since you expressed interest in it, I went ahead and created the Template:Human papillomavirus, so that others can help improve it. Zodon (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for inserting it on the appropriate articles, it forms a great way to navigate around Papillomavirus related issues Maen. K. A. (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sustainablity template

Hi Z - I like your colour of the title of the sustainability template - trouble is it displays black on my computer which is confronting when displayed with other nav bars as on the sustainability page. Is there a solution to this? Granitethighs (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It displays in the regular text color (black by default) on that page because it is a wikilink to that page. (Whereas the other items display in whatever color the user has selected for wikilinks). I don't know if there is a way to customize the appearance of a link to the page that is currently being displayed, but if you find the color distracting, seeing if you can customize your display styles in that way is the approach that I would try. (e.g., see Wikipedia:Skin). Zodon (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about all the changes Z. I'm happy to follow WP procedure or whatever the nav bar community follows. I just found the use of two colours in the title (generally black and blue) distracting (?overly decorative) when all the functionality could be retained using one color. Granitethighs (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This color distinction is functional rather than decorative (differentiates links from regular text). But as noted above, if you find the distinction distracting, customize it so for you links display in black. Zodon (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

VAERS Search Engine

Hi Zodon. I added an external link to the "medalerts" search engine on the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) page because it is used heavily by health professionals. I can give you citations if you want, from real medical journals, not alternative health sources. You removed the link claiming that it redundant. However, I know of no other search engine that is as flexible. The FDA/CDC did create the "Wonder" search facility recently, but that engine does not offer as much information, and therefore medalerts continues to be cited heavily. In the interest of full disclosure, let me point out that I am the maintainer of the medalerts database, and I work hard to make sure that the government data is presented there in its exact form. I have studied VAERS data for years and honestly believe that the data offered on that site is valuable to the entire medical community. Although the site does link to the NVIC, I am not their employee, but just "partnering" with them to reach a wider audience. Anyway, if you know of a search engine that is the same, let me know about it. Otherwise, please allow this important link to be added. Thanks! strubin (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The medalerts site is more difficult to use than the CDC Wonder site linked to by the VAERS links that are already in the external links section. (The government's site lets you pick from a menu of choices, rather than having to know what values to plug in to a field.) While it may offer a bit more flexibility in a few fields (like age), that doesn't make up for the lack of assistance for a general audience.

In addition, the web site in question has several problems

• It is inaccurate or at least misleading in its description of the VAERS access through the government. (Claims that broken down by years, etc. The CDC Wonder interface does not have these problems.)
• The VAERS disclaimer is not prominently displayed ("before using ..." is buried at the bottom of the section). This is especially important for a general audience.
• In addition it provides several graphs of questionable value with no explanation/disclaimer pointing out the limitations of the data/graph.
• The site is misleading in that it does not clearly indicate that this site is not provided by the US Government, and is just using copyright-free data from the US government. (If one doesn't know what the National Vaccine Information Center is one might think this was a government program.)
• It doesn't indicate how stale the data is compared to VAERS.

So the CDC Wonder search engine provides most of what this provides, with an easier to use interface, and comes from a recognized authority, rather than being a personal web page promoting the NVIC.

No disrespect intended to your work, but that is why I don't think it belongs in the external links section under the policies of Wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about your connection with the site, please also consider WP:EL#ADV. Zodon (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You make some good points. Because Medalerts predates CDC Wonder, the comment about multiple data files is no longer relevant and has been removed (the multiple data files issue only applies to users who download the government data files). I have also promoted the disclaimer to the top and described the independent nature of the site. However, I disagree with your last point about stale data. In fact, it is the Wonder site that does not tell you how current the data is. Medalerts tells you the exact range of data being offered (it used to be in the "Basic Search" section but it is now on the top-level). I have noticed that Wonder does not update their database as often as Medalerts, and also that Wonder users are advised to mention the date of the search when citing, rather than the range of data that is being searched. Also, Wonder may have a simple menu-driven interface, but that interface is misleading because the Symptom section of the VAERS also includes a textual writeup which Wonder does not search.

I propose that instead of adding an external link, I (or both of us working together) add a new section to the VAERS page titled "Searching" which describes three different ways of accessing the VAERS data:

• CDC Wonder
• Downloading government data files
• External search engines (Medalerts being just one...there are others out there which are not as current).

I will post this proposed section to the discussion page of VAERS and we can continue to edit it there. strubin (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out bibliography

Thank you for pointing out the short hand to the bibliography section in the Human rights article. I was looking at the reference wondering why someone would leave something like that.

I'm still not sure about how the reference is handled, using publisher rather than title where their is no author, but will leave the reference as is until I can find something one way or the other. IMHO (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I can sympathize, first time I saw an article with references of that form it took me a bit to figure out what was going on. If it helps any, Wikipedia:Citing sources gives links to the various citation styles, and in particular WP:CITESHORT might be helpful. Zodon (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice

I like the changes you made to my addition to the privacy article! Asbruckman (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Zodon (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites

Hi Zodon. Since you do not seem prepared to discuss your changes to this article I have decided to revert them. Granitethighs (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. As I can not find where you initiated any discussion about the changes, I can't see how you figure I am unprepared to discuss them. Zodon (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of WP:BRD and so read about it. It seems to be a rather confronting form of editing. The normal procedure IMO would be to either:

• Mention the changes you would like to make on the Discussion page before doing them or,
• Make the changes and, on the Discussion page, say why you made them.

The description of WP:BRD says: # BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.)

1. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.
2. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, following WP:DR, and reach a compromise.

Apply the compromise by editing the page, after which the cycle repeats. When people start regularly making non-revert edits again, you are done. What BRD is, and is not BRD is most useful for pages where seeking consensus would be difficult, perhaps because it is not clear which other editors are watching or sufficiently interested in the page, though there are other suitable methods.

BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure.

All of this looks very cautionary to me. It implies it is a procedure to use when compromise is unlikely which is a presumption. Anyway lets not get bogged down in this. If you just mention why you think the changes you made were necessary we have the basis for discussion.Granitethighs (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Some background - "Sustainable ..." has followed on (more slowly)from the well-established Sustainable Agriculture. It has almost nothing to do with Sustainable architecture. The clumsy title is because "Sustainable gardening" will not serve the purposes of "Sustainable sites" or "Sustainable landscapes" and the affinity between these three is so great that if they were created separately then they would need merging. Permaculture has much in common with "Sustainable ..." but it does differ - I expressed this through the sentence you deleted ... although the wording is poor and I will re-express it. Reliable sources are cited that clearly establish the historical significance of the topic (see History section). The guidelines cited are for the American landscape industry; the whole article is well referenced could you expand on why a "Notability" sign has been appended. Could I also suggest you go to the Sustainability disambiguation page and browse the range of topics with "sustainable" in the title and also those starting off with "Sustainable". I think you will find possibly more than 100 far less notable than this article. That should keep you busy tagging for a while. Granitethighs (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded to most of this on the pages involved. Please note that the standard procedure per Wikipedia:How to edit a page, etc. is to use the edit summary to explain what changes one made and often to make it clear why. Discussion at the talk page is not in general necessary (or even desirable) for every little edit, usually reserved for when one has questions about an edit or it seems likely to be controversial.

If you chose not to use WP:BRD, that is up to you, but it pays to be aware of it, and to consider how your expectations will interact with those who follow WP:BEBOLD, etc. Zodon (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The article was prepared in good faith. After putting it up the next time I looked it was tagged for merging or deletion, it was described as a "mish-mash". A large, and to my mind, important section had been deleted altogether with just a minimal cursory explanation in the Edit Summary. This to me was a major edit. I am amenable to discussion but found the approach dismissive to say the least. Wikipedia:How to edit a page states Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page. This is the context of my "personal" statements for which I apologise. I think we can get along fine but both need to treat one-another with a little more sensitivity and respect. Granitethighs (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Sorry to have to jump into this discussion but Granitethighs above is in a marked conflict of interest.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites . ^ a b c d e f Cross, R. & Spencer, R. (2009). Sustainable Gardens. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. ISBN 978-0-643-09422-2. Granitethighs is involved in the book promoted on Wikipedia in the article, discussed above, and also promoting the Botanical gardens in which he is involved .The book also was promoted/reffed/noted on the Sustainability article in a ref/note which I have removed. More info. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites#Original_research_and_unverified_claims -- skip sievert (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sustainable gardening

Thanks for walking me through these procedures - that's great, I'll know next time now. Granitethighs (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about just having "gardening" in the nav bar. My thinking was that in the article, although named S G'ing we actually deal, in broad terms, with "sites. landscape architecture etc etc. ". The broader title might therefore help people in the nav bar? No? Granitethighs (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For preference, navigation templates should link to article by its name (there are cases where other names are appropriate/used, but in general).

Also, navigation templates are to help users navigate among articles - so it points out what articles are here. (WP:Navigation template). If each article had two or three different names it would make the template much harder to read.

Redirects allow those searching for various terms to find article, but the article's name should indicate well enough what it covers that don't need to list multiple names. Zodon (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Vaccine interference

I'd merge it with Vaccine; there's plenty of room there, and the topic is a natural for Vaccine. Eubulides (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a merge in Talk:Vaccine #Merge from Vaccine interference. Eubulides (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why did you remove all my edits? Are YOU a Medical Doctor? The Article, as is, is misleading. I clarified it with a Medical Doctor, obtained necessary references and contributed to Wikipedia. Such offensive moves by an Admin like you discourages people from contributing. Respond to the question right here. Thanks Worldedixor (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove all your edits to Human papillomavirus. Things that I did remove I noted why in the edit summaries redundant with information already there, misleading claim not supported by reference (e.g. warts may need treatment, similarly anal cancer, penile cancer, etc.). Another portion was more detail than needed in the lead, so moved to body [2] (WP:LEAD).

Part of Wikipedia is that one's edits will be further edited by others - that is just the nature of the project - not an offense. (e.g. see WP:Own) By the way, I am not an administrator.

If you feel that things aren't clear in an article, then please use the article's talk page to raise questions about edits and try to work out clarifications (so that everyone interested in the article can participate, and it to serve as reference for future editors.) Zodon (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

notable

looking this over, not sure what you mean by additional refs. It seems many are listed and all were verified on pubmed.com by myself. Many of the publications appear to be on unique, novel topics and notable within the medical field. Not so sure the award needs to be in the article, but if the info is to be encyclopedic, then landmarks such as that may be notable. Please remove the notable tag.

Furthermore, do the other tags need to remain? the article appears "clean" but could be further wikified.

sorry, this is in regards to rashid m rashid article —Preceding unsigned comment added by MDreviewx2 (talk • contribs)

Responding on the article talk page. Zodon (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re

I replied to your comment at WT:PHARM:CAT. Thanks again for your help! kilbad (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Condom article image

Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed content from Condom. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article. You have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yourname (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of immediately accusing people of ownership or censorship, please consider the reasons given in the edit summary. If you have questions on why material was removed, raise them on the article talk page. (WP:BRD)

Wikipedia is not censored does not provide any rationale for adding information (merely for not removing information). It is up to the one adding information to provide a reason for doing so. Zodon (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Condom, you will be blocked from editing. Yourname (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please participate in discussion of edits rather than just reverting and threatening. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours, as you seem to have little regard for the BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS cycle - and yet are happy to quote other WP policy where it suits your purposes. Your bold edit in removing an image, which has been properly licensed and has consensus for inclusion, has been reverted and now it is for you to explain, with reference to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, why that consensus should change. I would also note that templating editors back is not constructive, and you should refrain from wikilawyering in an attempt to impose your preferred edit over consensus. If you wish to challenge this sanction, please use the {{Unblock|''your reason here''}} template below this message. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zodon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Insufficient warnings, other editor using warning templates to threaten rather than participating in discussion

Decline reason:

You were told to stop reverting. You continued to revert after being told to stop. Clear edit war, block fully justified. As you give no indication that you intend to stop the behavior that led to the block I am not unblocking at this time. Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I did explain why I thought the image should be removed, both in my edit summary, and when it was reverted, [3] on the talk page talk:condom#Picture of penis with condom. (Which the other editor did not respond to at that time, instead just reinserting the image and accusing me of censorship[4], and subsequently using it as a forum to comment on user[5], rather than on content).

Unclear what you mean by "little regard for the BRD cycle." The illustration in question was added recently [6]. I questioned it's addition (Revert), giving reason first in edit summaries, then in talk page. So far the editor insisting that the image must remain has not responded to the problems indicated, just citing Wikipedia is not censored, which is not a reason for inclusion of material and has nothing to do with the problem.

I did not make any further removal of said item after the "last warning". (There was a first warning, a last warning (subsequent to which I have not made any edits to the condom article), and then a block.) This does not appear to follow standard convention either in terms of number of warnings, or in terms of waiting until there is further problem after a last warning before applying a block.

I did not "template" another editor. I wrote my own message to the other editor politely informing them that they did not appear to be following regular conventions (reinserting challenged material rather than providing reason for it to be there or discussing, going from a first warning directly to a last warning, reinstating material while refusing to participate in discussion). As I understand it, use of user warning templates with long standing editors is frowned upon, writing messages in the individual case as needed is preferred. (At least that is what I was told some time ago at the Editor assistance board.) I thought it was courteous/proper to let another editor know if one thought there were problems before proceeding to more formal steps. Zodon (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to anyone reading this in the archive:

As noted, I did stop reverting before the block was put in place. I raised the issues with the image on the talk page. The blocking editor did not follow the policy documented at that time of waiting for further actions after warning given before instituting block. Since I had not made any reversion of the material after the final warning was issued, and had requested discussion on the talk page, there was no evidence that I would continue reversions. In fact I was leaving this until the other editor responded on the talk page, and was engaged in other editing when the block was placed.

As it happens, the other editor User:Yourname was repeatedly blocked from editing [7] for edit warring, among other things, shortly after this. Zodon (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Please stop abusing warning or blocking templates. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not make fause allegations on my user page as you did here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yourname&diff=286113548&oldid=285950567] this is against wikipedia rules and will not be tolerated. Yourname (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not use a warning or blocking template.

I made no false allegations - you repeatedly (no reason given[8][9]), reinserted material into condom at first without explaining why, and then without responding to problems with the material noted in edit summaries or on talk page.

Your use of templates appeared to me to be threatening rather than a helpful reminder of procedure.

If you think something was false, please clarify what. Zodon (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories for renaming

Hi Zodon! Your input would be appreciated here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 26#Category:Drugboxes missing ATC code and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 26#Category:Drugs not assigned ATC code. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of “The Year of the Goat: 40,000 Miles and the Quest for the Perfect Cheese”

“The Year of the Goat: 40,000 Miles and the Quest for the Perfect Cheese”, an article that you tagged for questionable notability, has been nominated for deletion, in the belief that it does not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. An explanation may be found at the start of “Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Year of the Goat: 40,000 Miles and the Quest for the Perfect Cheese”. So long as you are not otherwise subject to a block or ban, your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you and others are quite allowed to continue editing the article to address these concerns. (In some cases, such edits may persuade those participating in discussion that the article should be kept.) —SlamDiego_←T 05:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)