User talk:Lyrl/archive3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I wanted to discuss some of the changes to wikipedia. Some of the content that was recently changed this morning was not by employees of Sew Fast Sew Easy but are valid changes. This article infringes on our trademark for products and our forum. Though your recent update states that the trademark does not cover products. US law allows the sale of products to support a registered trademark. Some of the products are labeled Stitch & Bitch and some are Stitch & Bitch Cafe. I look forward to your response and where we can discuss this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.77.123 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 July 2007

I have added the I love Stitch & bitch cafe to clearly demonstrate Sew Fast Sew Easy's usage. If you would prefer, I can submit another product or a whole collection. I am not sure why we are banned and being identified as vandals. We have a dynamic ip address and take no responsibilty for vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggarvin (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the SFSE article, as discussed on my user page. I think it will need careful watching and probably some editing. If it gets ed. by anons, we can semi-protect. DGG (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Lyrl.

) 00:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Leonard

OK... I am here to learn why you refuse to allow Samuel L. Leonard's , name to be included in the Wikipedia article on, Combined Oral Contraceptive??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.17.215 (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of Mr. Leonard in the article combined oral contraceptive pill was described by Lynn4 as "inconsequential digression citing unsubstantiated nonsense by a Washington Post obituary writer" and as "inconsequential digression citing unsubstantiated nonsense by a Cornell Chronicle life sciences writer". The primary sources of Leonard's published papers do not support the claim that he is viewed by secondary sources as important to the history of the Pill. I have been impressed by Lynn4's knowledge in this area in the past, and trust their judgment in this area. Lyrl^Talk _C 14:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Lyn4 is wrong,wrong, wrong! on both Professor Dr. Leonard and on Dr. Percy Lavon Julian. Here is excerpt from Leonard's obituary in the 11/23/07 NYTimes:

"Dr. Leonard was still a graduate student when he began his studies of sex hormones, produced at the base of the brain in the pituitary gland.

In the 1930s, in the infancy of endocrinology, it was known that the anterior pituitary had a general role in stimulating the ovaries and the testes. Dr. Leonard, then a doctoral student at the University of Wisconsin, working with F. L. Hisaw, his thesis adviser, and H. L. Fevold, determined that the pituitary actually produces two hormones with distinct effects on the sexual organs.

The researchers labeled the first hormone FSH, or follicle-stimulating hormone; the second they called LH, or luteinizing hormone, which is critical in the production of testosterone in men and can help trigger ovulation in women.

The findings went against a theory that held that there was only a single hormone involved. In 1931, when Dr. Leonard and his collaborators published their results in the American Journal of Physiology, they “created a storm that opened a series of investigations and fruitful research,” said Robert H. Foote, a professor emeritus of animal physiology at Cornell.

Dr. Foote said studies by other scientists reinforced the team’s findings. In the 1960s, FSH was employed in early experiments with female rabbits to increase the production of eggs; in the ’80s, it was used successfully in cattle. It was subsequently used to develop in vitro fertilization techniques for humans.

Also in the 1930s, Dr. Leonard looked at the function of estrogen in rats and rabbits and found that he could inhibit ovulation by manipulating estrogen levels, in a primitive form of contraception. In 1939, he conducted an elegant experiment with canaries after being asked why immature males were likely to sing, but females were not. He then treated female canaries with testosterone and induced them to sing as their male counterparts did.

The experiment was “an acute example of how sexual differentiation could be invoked by hormones alone,” Dr. Foote said." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.17.215 (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And here is the excerpt from the Washington Post: "Research that Dr. Leonard did more than 75 years ago has been described as a major step toward the modern sciences of fertility and birth control.

In one of his more striking experiments with hormones, he enabled female canaries to sing. (The male canary is generally the musically gifted one.)

As described by people who knew him, Dr. Leonard was a model of scientific, academic and personal accomplishment. By their accounts, he devoted the energies of an unusually long life to introducing undergraduates to zoology, mentoring graduate students, conducting research and setting examples of hard work and ethical behavior.

Three of his students became Cornell professors.

He was a "brilliant teacher and researcher and a very friendly guy," said one former student, Robert H. Foote, professor emeritus of physiology at Cornell.

A signal achievement credited to him was the finding that estrogen can prevent pregnancy.

The study was performed on rats, but it was hailed as an important step in the development of the birth control pill.

In addition, he was credited with discovering that the pituitary gland produces two hormones, each governing an important step in ovulation and reproduction. In the 1930s, Dr. Leonard drove cross-country for days to present his findings at a meeting of a national scientific society, at which he was told in no uncertain terms that he was in error.

But the discovery became widely accepted and used in enhancing and controlling fertility and the reproductive cycle.

Many of Dr. Leonard's research papers were published too early to be easily available on the Internet, where many scientists search for information." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.17.215 (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You might also read Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill#Claim of Leonard's role in COCP. Lyrl^Talk _C 15:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevant journal citations:

• Meyer,R.K., S.L.Leonard , F.L.Hisaw and S.J.Martin. 1930. Effect of oestrin(estrogen) on gonad stimulating power of the hypophysis(pituitary gland). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 27:702-704.
• Leonard,S.L., R.K. Meyer, and F.L. HiSaw 1931. The effect of oestrin (estrogen) on development of the ovary in immature female rats. Endocrinology 15:17-24.
• Leonard,S.L.1931.The nature of the substance causing ovulation in the rabbit. Am.J.Physiol.98:406-416.
• Hisaw, F.L.,and S.L. Leonard.1930. Relationship of the follicular and corpus luteum hormones in the production of progestational proliferation of the rabbit's uterus. Am.J.Physiol.92:574-581.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.17.215 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2007

A suggestion to move from an understanding of normal endocrine control of ovulation (as the above references only address) to suggesting external hormone to disrupt normal fertility is not provided by these references. Indeed would one presume such a novel proposal would have warrented an article in its own right, being of somewhat obvious importance. As things currently stand, without evidence to support the obituary writer's and the universities flamboyant claims, the only way to include the information under NPOV would be to diminish his otherwise important constributions by something along lines of "Although Cornell univerity's inhouse magazine claims that Dr Leonard's had been the first to propose the role of these hormones for human contraception,[1] no paper by him ever made such claims." - and before 71.123.17.215 you object, provide the reference to his specific paper that would prove this wrong - note well,

WP:Synthesis are policies.David Ruben ^Talk

04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected sex

Hi. Per comments

) 04:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've replied here. Lyrl^Talk _C 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lyrl,

My review of fertility awareness was pretty cursory, and overall I think it looks fine. Here's a few minor ideas:

• Most articles with a "potential benefits" section should also have a "criticisms" section. For FA, I believe that the typical list of criticisms runs from "You can't expect normal people to (be mature and motivated enough to) just not have sex for ten days" to "Mucus is dirty" to "This only works for educated people" to "Our clients can't handle this."[2]

• I disagree with the 'globalization' tag. There's really nothing in the article that is USA-specific. However, if you wanted to make a particular effort to globalize the article, then you might see what you can find on using this method in the developing world. I believe that the Creighton folks have a "four seasons" diagram that they promote as being easily comprehensible to subsistence farmers (a là "If you plant something when it rains, then you can expect to harvest something a few months later...").

• Formally (according to the grammar mavens in my life), it's best to avoid having a single em-dash in a sentence. That is, em-dashes are supposed to work like parenthetical statements -- here's an example -- instead of like semi-colons. Having one em-dash connecting two complete clauses (like this) looks a little odd -- it's much better to just make two short sentences instead of letting things run together. The em-dash is overused as a substitute for semi-colons in this article, and improving this issue should be an easy fix.

• Because it seems odd (to me) to have "General birth control effectiveness" turn up in the Table of Contents box, I might rearrange the formatting under the birth control section so that these two subsections:

3.3 General birth control effectiveness

3.4 Fertility awareness effectiveness

become a single one, labeled "Effectiveness" (with perhaps bold-faced subheads using the current subheads [just not arranged so that they're official section heads in the ToC]). That section might also benefit from a See also to Comparison of birth control methods.

I haven't checked any of the listed sources, which is often an interesting way of discovering disasters in these kinds of articles. Of course, you know a lot more about this article's development history than I do, but that's what it looked like to me this evening. I cheerfully defer to your better judgement if you disagree with me. Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

I noticed your puzzlement at my remark on

20:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I followed that part, but the statement at

unprotected sex says nothing about contraception. Rather, it states "Sex without protection from a drug used by one partner, but hazardous to the other" implying that the drug is hazardous to the adult partner. Lyrl^Talk _C

20:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Caffeine

I noticed that you - de facto - removed caffeine as a considered factor in the current understanding in the genesis of miscarriages. I do not like to go into an edit war, but here is my point:

Li's recent study (it may not be the last word) (as referenced in the NYT article, ref # 19) is the among the best we currently have and should be taken very seriously. You eliminated its point by just leaving it as a subject in "correlations", a section that obviously suggests that is just a unrelated linkage and that other factors are behind it (how do you know this?). The statement that half the patients were recruited after fetal death is not supported by the reference at all. Dr. Westhoff's personal opinion in the reference does not invalidate the study.

Li demonstrated not only that 200 mg are linked to double the miscarriage rate, but that there is a dose-response association. Why would you like to censor Li's findings? It may well be, ultimately, that there are other factors involved, but would it not simply be prudent to take this information seriously (adherening to the nil nocere concept) and not withhold it from the readers? Ekem (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Li's recent study is among the best we currently have and should be taken very seriously. I disagree that acknowledging the partially retrospective nature (and therefore potential bias) of Li's study equates to withholding information from readers.

From the New York Times article: "At the time of the interview... 102 had already miscarried... Later, 70 more women miscarried." Technically, 59% of the miscarriages had occurred before the patients were recruited.

Li did not demonstrate a dose-response association. The miscarriage rates of women with zero caffeine intake and caffeine intake of less than 200mg/day were not different enough to be statistically significant.

The New York Times article states the study group had "an overall miscarriage rate of 16 percent... a typical rate." But 16% is not typical of prospective studies. The only prospective studies I have been able to find (PMID 10362823 PMID 12620443) both found 25% miscarriage rates by the sixth week LMP. A further number (around 8%) miscarry after the sixth week, for a total rate of around 33%. So by recruiting women who were (on average) already 10 weeks pregnant, Li's study missed a huge number of very early miscarriages, about half of the total miscarriages that occurred. This could affect his results in two significant ways: First, caffeine intake may show the same relationship to very early pregnancy loss as to later pregnancy loss, meaning it is even more harmful that Li's study suggests. Second, caffeine intake may show an inverse relationship to very early pregnancy loss compared to later pregnancy loss, so "saved" very early pregnancies could cancel out the "increased" miscarriage rate later on.

Is there precedent for a drug affecting very early pregnancy loss differently than clinical pregnancy loss? Yes, tobacco smoke. From this prospective study: "the group of women whose husbands smoked >=20 cigarettes/day had the highest prevalence of early pregnancy loss in the first conception (nonsmoking: 22 percent; <20 cigarettes/day: 20 percent; and >=20 cigarettes/day: 29 percent), [and] the lowest prevalence of clinical spontaneous abortion (nonsmoking: 8 percent; <20 cigarettes/day: 10 percent; and >=20 cigarettes/day: 4 percent)."

So, again, Li's study is one of the best available and should be taken seriously. But because it was not a prospective study, I believe the potential for bias is too high to present his results as established fact rather than the strong suggestion that they are. I'm not attached to the current formatting, though, if others have suggestions for reorganization. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a complicated issue and it appears to me that the discussion is currently made without even having the primary source available, at least I have not been able to verify that the article has appeared in the January issue of the American Journal of Ob Gyn as the NYT indicated, - I have seen several press releases, a more comprehensive perhaps here: [3]. Where have you found the article itself to be in a position to critique its methodology?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such should provide verifiable information but not take personal interpretations in the scientific fray: when you place “caffeine” in the “correlation” you are making a judgment and saying this is an example of presumably spurious association. Li’s study is one of many that would caution a reader to come to that conclusion. Li' study is just lowering the bar, so the question should be how much caffeine may still be safe in pregnancy?

I do not understand your position that the study is invalid because women were studied posthoc; that is how most epidemiologic studies are conducted, just think of all the studies looking at links with cancer,

It appears to me from the data so far released that patients with > 200 mg caffeine had about a 100% increase in miscarriage rates, those with less caffeine exposure a 40 % increase, and those with no exposure were the zero controls: isn't there a dose - response?

It is my simple suggestion to place "caffeine" back into the discussion of putative causative agents, and include a reference to Li’s data which have been already discussed in the general media. I have no objection to the attachment of a qualifier attached if that appears appropriate and is referenced. Ekem (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'd like to copy this entire conversation to Talk:Miscarriage if Ekem is OK with that. That would allow any other interested editors to participate in the discussion. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That is fine with me. Ekem (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The PBS Kids Logo Image:Pbs-kids-girl-boy.png was created by me in photoshop. I just put a copyright sign on it because the boy and girl are from PBS Image:Pbs-kids-girl-boy.png is not located anywhere on the PBS website or on the station. Timothy Chavis (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you combine two or more images, it is definitely considered a derivative work, and if the images are copyrighted, as in the case of this image, then you have copyright infringement. There is a Wikipedia article on

talk

14:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears you changed the content I added at the D&C page without reading the reference I provided. The data for Asherman's incidence following D&C did not distinguish between sharp curette, vacuum aspiration or other. Please take care to read references before making incorrect changes. One cannot add to or change published scientific data. Floranerolia (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the D&C discussion page. Floranerolia (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ovusoft is a clearly commercial site, soft and book are not free, also it doesnt have any free information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fella22 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the props.

As for the confusion over temperatures and what each range is, I based it off of a table that was in my materials science textbook when I was in college. Its been a few years since I've had that class and I've slept since then so I couldn't tell you if you are right or not (not that I'm assuming you are wrong). If you have references to back up what you are saying go ahead and modify the table as I believe that I published it as public domain material. --Wizard191 (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure myself and another reviewer felt that along with the doggy edit history, outside views or infrequent editers were having little or no say. There seems to be a worrying level of ownership of the article. Also the stance of the article has shifted of recent. We both feel it would be unwise at this moment to proceed with a full review. However i realise you have waited a LONG time to get it reviewed and this must be a disappointment. Therefore i will give you and everyone else on the article time to pull yourselves together and get the article balanced. In two weeks if things have improved contact me directly and I will fast track the review so you dont have to wait any longer. Is this reasonable? Realist2 (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has great potential, the decision to not review it as not taken lightly. Realist2 (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the talk page. Realist2 (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your help in dealing with what's going on here and here. Despite my best efforts at trying to ask for clarification, it seems things are spiraling out of control. I think somehow the reviewer feels insulted by us, and I don't know what's going to change that at this point. Nonetheless, I do think the article's reached GA-status, and a failure at this point seems terribly premature. - Chardish (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lyrl,

You wrote : - "Latex condoms have significantly smaller pores than the study on latex gloves you cited. "

On what do you base this assertion? Can you provide a reference? Having worked with NRL I can assure you ALL latex has exactly the same lattice (pore) size and why would medical gloves select an inferior grade if such existed? Latex gloves have a longer dip dwell time and in most cases more coagulant dips than the two used for condoms. The formers (in terms of composition) and coagulants used are identical.

1). A paper in the February 1992 issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology reports that filtration techniques show the HIV-1 virus to be 0.1 micron (4 millionths of an inch) in diameter. It is three times smaller than the herpes virus, 60 times smaller than the syphilis spirochete, and 50 to 450 times smaller than sperm.

2). Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) researchers, using powerful electron microscopes, have found that new latex, from which condoms are fabricated, contains "maximum inherent flaw[s]" (that is, holes) 70 microns in diameter.

These holes are 700 times larger than the HIV-1 virus. There are pores in latex, and some of the pores are large enough to pass sperm-sized particles. Carey, et al., observed leakage of HIV-sized particles through 33%+ of the latex condoms tested. In addition, as Gordon points out in his review, the testing procedures for condoms are less than desirable. United States condom manufacturers are allowed 0.4% leaky condoms (AQL). Gordon states, "The fluctuations in sampling permits many batches not meeting AQL to be sold." In the United States, 12% of domestic and 21% of imported batches of condoms have failed to meet the 0.4% AQL.

REFERENCES

Lytle, C. D., et al., "Filtration Sizes of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 and Surrogate Viruses Used to Test Barrier Materials," Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 58, #2, Feb. 1992.

"Anomalous Fatigue Behavior in Polysoprene," Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Vol. 62, #4, Sep.-Oct. 1989.

Collart, David G., M.D., loc. cit.

AND

Carey et al.(xxii) observed the passage of polystyrene microspheres, 110 nm diameter ( HIV diameter is from 90nm to 130 nm) across 33% of the membranes of the latex condoms which they studied (29 over 89 nonlubricated latex condoms). More recently, Lytle et al., while criticizing the "exaggerated conditions" of the in vitro, polystyrene.

The condom itself is not 100 % safe. Result of examination show the following :

A condom is made of rubber (latex), a hydrocarbon compound with polymerization, which means that it is fibrous and porous like woven cloth. By means of an electronic microscope the pores of the condom can be seen in a non-stretched state with a width of 1/60 micron, while the HIV/AIDS virus has a width of 1/250 micron. When the condom is stretched the pores of the condom are 10 times as wide as that of the virus; in other words, the virus can go through the wall of the condom. The condom was designed for family planning (to strain sperm, not viruses); and a condom is not meant for fornication/prostitution.

Research carried out in the U.S. on 89 condoms in circulation on the market proved that 29 out of 89 leaked, which means that the leakage was about 30 %. In Indonesia condoms imported from Hong Kong in 1996 were withdrawn from market because 50 % leaked. In practice in the field there is often failure of condoms use for family planning because of leakage, let alone for fornication/prostitution. As a comparison, sperm are as large as oranges and viruses as large as a period (dot).

Another examination conducted in the U.S. ( the Physical Division of Human Sciences, Maryland, USA, 1992) showed that particles as minute as viruses can be detected going through the wall of condoms.

In every condom there are 0.4 % pinhole, microscopic defect in the manufacturing process. The area of the condom is 80 cm2 and if you count 32,000 pinhole in each condom, and if each pinhole is 1/1000 micron, you can imagine the total number of pinholes in a condom.

FOR REFERENCES (to above) AND TO READ THIS HIGHLY DETAILED ARTICLE go to: - www.humanlifeinternational.com/condom_facts_safe_sex_aids.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimulti (talk • contribs) 03:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide references that contradict the above I will be happy to withdraw my objections to the assertions in the article.

P. S. In addition, the article you referenced (as a rebuttal) cited no references whatsoever and thus should be considered simply an opinion.

Also to claim my references are outdated ignores the fact NRL (latex rubber) is a natural material and has not ever changed (at least in modern times) in structure. The only improvements have been in the area of 'on shelf vulcanization' (loss of modulus over time-or hardening to use non technical terms). This has been improved by changing additives. The pore structure (lattice) cannot be modified.

ADDENDA

Latex glove specifications Studies done by Georgetown Medical University and the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., published in Nature, Sept. 1, 1988, show that latex gloves, made to much higher specifications than the condom, have pores 50 times larger than the 0.1 micron HIV virus.

Even if there were no pores in latex, in-use breakage and slip-off rates are "so high as to make condoms ineffective for protection against HIV," says biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. David G. Collart, Ph.D., of Stone Mountain, Ga.

Aimulti (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing for GFDL means, that author shares pretty much every right for his work with the world and in fact loses them. For some reason i doubt that autors i ask will agree to release their work on GFDL. Pseudohuman (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, many people see it this way, and working to obtain images for Wikipedia can be onerous. However, the author retains the right of attribution, and gains the exposure of their work to the large audience that reads Wikipedia. There are many people who find such terms worthwhile. Lyrl^Talk _C 03:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I´m sorry to bother you, but I see you´ve done some excellent editing with the article on extended cycle/mesntrual suppression. My question/comment is concerning the category. My concern is that perhaps the article should be named menstrual suppression, and all three forms of achieving it should be mentioned. It can be done with a sub-cutaneous implant, through injection with substances such as depo-provera, or as mentioned in the article with the pill. Or if that articles main point is the pill itself, perhaps we could start another article on menstrual suppression itself. What do you think? Thanks for your attention & Best Regards!85.59.101.82 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best way to address the subject would be. I can see where it would be nice to talk about all contraception-caused amenorrhea in one article. But limiting the article to amenorrhea/suppression would exclude extended cycle regimens. Also, the current article limits itself to combined methods, which after one year of use have close to 80% of women with no bleeding. Progestogen-only methods like Depo, Implanon, and Mirena have much lower rates of suppression: according to this site 50% on Depo have no bleeding after one year, and 20% of women with the Mirena or an implant. Because of these lower rates of "success" when used with the purpose of suppressing menstruation, I'm unsure of including those methods.

I would encourage you to start a discussion on the article talk page and advertise it at the

doctor's mess. Hopefully getting another few opinions would help with a decision on how to move forward with the article. Lyrl^Talk _C

22:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC for Cervical cap

Thank you for seeking further opinions on this. I am writing simply to alert you that I edited the RfC as I felt it unfairly framed the discussion. I attempted for complete NPOV; see

) 12:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have carried out the changes that you asked for on the article covering The Museum of Curiosity. I now believe that it now of GA status and have re-nominated the article. If you could review the article again I would be very greatful. Thanks. ISD (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to find references for that missing inforation but could not find anything, so I decided to remove the unreferenced information. Other than that, all the other changes made to the article now make it a GA in my opinion. Thanks. ISD (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! ISD (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made several flickr agreemtns but nobody in the commons can ever be bothered to OTRS them properly.

13:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If I was given admin tools in the commons given the huge amount of work I do on here I would be a great asset and would be able to make many more flickr agreements and OTRS them within minutes. Wikipedia is missing out big time because of this

13:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Its quite an insult to think I went out of my way to get permission to use the images. I sent the flickr mail I received to the commons for OTRS ticketing montsh ago but I still get threats that they will be deleted, The OTRS ticketing scheme in the commons it has to be said are the most inefficient team I;ve ever come across.

Here is the permission I received. Would you like to contact Chris and Steve on flickr to show I am telling the truth?:

Dear James

Thank you for your email. I would be pleased for you to use my photos on Wikipedia. I considered posting some myself, but it was a bit out of my league!

Could you send the addresses of any pages you create so I can have a look?

Thanks

Chris

Please can you do something to sort this out and the OTRS ticketers in the commons don't follow up with it.

22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say it is a let down as some of these guys have thousands of images from all over the world and the commons do very little to sort it out. If the OTRS team was more efficient it would be several thousand more images better off now from me alone.

22:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand this but the process could be made a lot easier and faster. If you like I'll send another flickr mail asking them to issue a statement that we can use them under GFDL. I had hoped Riana could have done this mnoths ago but she has rarely been active

10:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people go out of there way to help us. I've had a reply already. Here it is.

You've been sent a Flickr Mail from Chris&Steve:

---

Re: Tristan da Cunha and other images and Wikipedia

"I agree to permit wikimedia to use these images under GFDL"

Thanks for sorting it. Wikipedia is a bit beyond me!

Chris

PLease can you sort this out asap as I find it unacceptable to be taggin the images as possibly copywirghted but I hae indicated at least five times we can use them freely. Would you like to leave me your email address so I can pass the mail onto you?

11:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No I haven't forwarded it to the OTRS permissions because I did that several times with the first message and nobody did a thing. Anything you can do would be warmly appreciated. Regards

08:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've forwarded it and sent a message to OTRS it to permissions. The ball is in their court now as I've done what I can.

22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This source might provide some ideas for other cycle-related symptoms that are not present in Wikipedia yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Reproductive rights Birth rate Rotary valve Estrostep Spermatozoon Wildlife contraceptive Mifepristone David Gunn (doctor) Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act Caroline Moreau Intrauterine hypoxia Aktion Leben Luteal phase Computational electromagnetics Casual sex Martin Haskell Levonorgestrel Eljigidei Cervical incompetence

Cleanup Iron deficiency (medicine) Lamb Chop's Play-Along Cervical dysplasia Merge Legal name Low back pain Shōsōin Add Sources Gynecologic hemorrhage Selective reduction Ghusl Wikify Seth Black nationalism Raoul Wallenberg Expand Earl Amyotte Fetus Benzalkonium chloride

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cervical cap . For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have some more questions about the Image:MarkONeillSmall.JPG I can get in contact with the Mark A. O'Neill to short those things out. I think he put this image here in the first place. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have been in contact with O'Neill and he has given me two answers, which where not quite clear. Now he didn't return my third email send 2 June, inwhich I asked for some more clearence. Now can you tell me what should I do? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a possibility that I send you the email (I have recieved for O'Neill), so that you can take a look at it yourself. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi agian. I removed the Persmission data at the image, because I contacted Mark A. O'Neill, but couldn't get the proper conformation. I guess it is now a matter of time that the image wil be deleted. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I was going through shoulder dystocia, and realized that all the articles related to childbirth (actually the mechanism of labor) and associated terminology are very inadequate in their treatment. So, I'd tried to created a few articles; they're all stubs now. You can get the list of the articles I'd created in this period here. The problem with expanding them is I don't have a textbook that would help me with the verifiability part of it. I'd be glad if you too would like to look into those articles.

Actually, it's very surprising that such an important subject (Obstetrics), which is likely to be searched by many users has been neglected to this degree. I'd contacted WhatamIdoing who'd suggested that I contact you in this regard. Also, it'd be very difficult for a single person to put in the kind of effort that'd be required to improve those articles to a reasonable degree.

If you feel you might find it difficult to help in this case, it'd be nice if you could request some one else, or let me know who I could approach.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 06:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It is rather in the nature of Wikipedia to have extensive coverage of certain obscure topics while treatment of some common topics languishes. It doesn't surprise me anymore, although it's probably interesting to the sociologists who study online communities such as Wikipedia.

One option when we don't own textbooks or other resources (I don't have any books on childbirth, either) is to borrow them from the library. I recently did this for the history section of the condom article. It really improved the article and didn't cost me any money. But it was a lot of pressure to have to go through the entire book and add all the relevant text to the Wikipedia article before the book was due back at the library. I'll probably do that again sometime, but I need to recover for a few months, I think.

Childbirth is an area I'm interested in, though I don't have a lot of resources to draw on. A little bit of work on cervical dilation is probably the sum total of my contributions in that area to date. I'm not aware of others working in this area, although I will let you know if I come across anybody.

I'm a big fan of merging stubs into larger Start-sized articles. It allows readers to access all the information Wikipedia currently has to offer, without having to navigate through several stub pages. I'm currently involved in setting up a task force for reproductive medicine (proposal here). If you're interested in help creating redirects and merging, I'd be happy to do that within the next few weeks. In the short term, I'm not sure I can offer help other than that. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the long and interesting reply. The problem is also that I have my studies to look after. Might not be able to devote much time to this (apart from of course not having a formal textbook). But, as and when I gather more information, I'll try to add to these articles. It was pointed out that the basic problem with Project Medicine is the lack of contributors (something I really wasn't aware of). So, may be these tasks will indeed remain challenging. I usually make the redirects I feel and create new pages when I feel they're are appropriate whether it's obstetrics or some other subject. All the best with your proposal. Regards. —KetanPanchal^taLK 07:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lyrl, forgive me for intruding but I was struck by the veracity of your comment on

15:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I hadn't read

WP:RAUL is getting quite bloated anyway. JFW | T@lk

05:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Name

Please use my IP in comments, thanks. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I referred to you as 'anonymous' for weeks in the discussion on cervical cap, while you edited from a seemingly dynamic IP that included this address as well as several other addresses. It felt kind of rude on my end, but seemed to be what you preferred. Then you registered an account, declaring "Hi, I'm the editor previously known as anonymous," implying you preferred to be called by your account name. You remained active with that account until less than a month ago. Now you ask me to refer to you by this IP address only. Which would be misleading, since you edit from multiple IP addresses, not just this one.

You have a right to decide what you want to be called. But unless you tag all your recently active accounts with one of these templates, I feel like you are asking me to participate in a deception by referring to you only by this IP. Lyrl^Talk _C 17:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Users are allowed to create multiple accounts. I did not edit abusively. Users are not required to publicly link any of their accounts provided that they are not editing abusively. (This is how editors are able to edit on embarrassing or controversial topics.) You are the sole person who drove me away from Wikipedia in the first place. The least you could do is refer to me by my IP and not make claims that ask more of me than the policies do. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not choose what IP I edit from. I have no control over that. I am not required to use a linking template; that won't be happening. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Also: I did not say that I wanted you to refer to me "only by this IP". I said "please refer to me by my IP": whatever that happens to be. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit as it broke the template. _→AzaToth 18:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into what you made so it broke, and you had added an newline too much _→AzaToth 13:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

U suck! Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So i was just reading this article today and came to this paragraph "A contributing factor to the loss of contraceptive knowledgewas the rise of the Christian religion, which considered all forms of birth control to be sins". See the italics should it not be:was the rise of the Christianity,. Iam not a English major so i was wondering which one is correct?. Can you help?. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"the rise of Christianity" and "the rise of the Christian religion" are both grammatically correct. ("the Christianity" is bad grammar, however.) I'd prefer "Christian religion" because a few international readers may not know that Christianity is a religion. That's a minor point, though, that I don't feel strongly about. Lyrl^Talk _C 15:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It has been rewritten to "A contributing factor to the loss of contraceptive knowledge was the rise of Christianity, which considered all forms of birth control to be sins.". Now it make sense to me and maybe others. Thanks to Zodon for correcting grammar error. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How come I got no information from you in regards to the deletions that you made on my posts about partial birth abortion? My posts were extremely enlightening on such a topic, and I think the disregard you showed in deleting ALL my posts was inappropriate. I can see your biases in your interests and I understand these likely heavily influenced your actions. I posted OBJECTIVE information and I made every attempt not to interject my own opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuter1000 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Lyrl 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) 17:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

) 14:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lyrl

I'm new to understanding how Wikipedia articles are written and edited. I don't wish to write any or make any edits on existing pages. I just found out that regular, everday people are the authors of these pages. I investigated when I saw your page and realized these pages are not published through a science or related publisher... just information from a regular people. The reason I am writing is, I am the person who deleted the "blister pack" photo from your "Menstral cycle" page. I would have asked you about it first, but did not realize if or how I could contact the author. I see you put the image back up. The problem I have here is that young women are probably going to look at your page, looking for information. Being a seasoned oral contraceptive user (I'm 26), I found it may be confusing to a reader if she saw the blister pack's pills punched out in the random order your picture shows (Skipping pills on the weekends). As you undoubtedly know, this could potentially lead to misinformation that could change a little girl's life forever. I just recommend that either a full or a properly punched blister pack be shown to lessen confusion for those who don't know any better. Just like me, I used to take Wikipedia as a factual online encyclopedia. If these girls think they can "skip pills" because they forgot what their doctor told them and are looking for information online, this image could be damaging. Thank you for your consideration.

Please email me with questions.

Thanks

Pam Jezek

[email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.35.184 (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Pam! Thanks for the note on my talk page. Your concern about a picture showing pills punched in a random order sounds concerning. I looked at the picture, here, and I must be looking at it differently. To me, it looks like the user started in the green area (the blister pack says, "Start in the green section") on a Wednesday, then followed the arrows to the left all the way to the end of that row, followed the arrow down to the next row, then followed the arrows to the end of the tan section, and finally followed the arrow down to the next row (staying within the tan section). Starting in the green section and following the arrows seems like it would be the correct way to take those pills.

Wikipedia policies encourage articles to have a number of images; they seem to make the articles more accessible to readers. If the current image is confusing, there are several other free images available: see here. Do any of them look like they would work better?

Finally, just some technical notes:

• When you edit articles, please give a brief reason in the box at the bottom of your screen labeled "Edit summary". The reason I just put the picture back (instead of contacting you to discuss your concerns) was because the edit summary was left blank.
• If you have a question about an article, it's best to ask on the article talk page, such as Talk:Menstrual cycle. That way, everyone who is watching the page will see the question pop up on their watch list. If you are OK with it, we could move this discussion to the Menstrual cycle talk page.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the blister pack! Lyrl^Talk _C 00:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)