User talk:Lyrl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Subpages 2 Christian views on masturbation 3 Move 4 Delete of Analysis of a problem 4.1 More analysis of a problem 5 QF 6 Citing less than 1000 G-hits as a deletion criterion 7 But... 8 Various methods of fertility awareness 9 Obolisk image 10 menstruation edit 11 Category change on COCP article 12 Thank you 13 Religion and condoms 14 Ovulation 15 Abortion 16 Commandaria

[edit] Subpages

• My sandbox
• Overpopulation
• Archives:
  • November 2005 - November 2006

[edit] Christian views on masturbation

I am contemplating a larger article on this very interesting topic. Thoughts? CyberAnth 01:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is precedent for it, in the article Islam and masturbation. Personally, I would prefer to see an article Religious views on masturbation. I think it's nice to be able to easily compare the viewpoints of different traditions, and I don't think the topic would get so long as to require separate articles for each religion (if it did, they could always be spun off later). My tendency would be to post on the Islam page and see if there was objection to moving it to a more generic title, and then add information on Christian views to that article. I would help with the set-up if you decide that's the way you want to go. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 13:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am game to that. However, I think it may be more peaceful, less conflict-ridden, to simply create Religious views on masturbation and incorporate material from Islam and masturbation into the article. One reason for this is that Islam and masturbation is already part of a larger Islamic Jurisprudence project. The second is that the most logical organization of the new article would be per the number of adherents of religions, see this page for the breakdown. Christianity is 2 times larger than Islam. I venture that the folk over at Islam and masturbation will not take kindly to seeing Christianity placed at the top of the article they started. CyberAnth 05:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a draft folk can work on User:CyberAnth/Religious_views_on_masturbation, if that would be helpful until it is ready to be posted. It is mostly still a cut and paste from Masturbation, although I drafted an intro, added tags where needed, and made a fair number of changes but as yet no real expansions. CyberAnth 06:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really amazed at what a comprehensive article has developed in your user page. Great work! I would say it's certainly deserving of being put into article space. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Hey, I think it was lousy that you moved the content of Oral contraceptive over to Combined oral contraceptive pill, the move that I had suggested, after the Proposed Move notice had been up for less than two days. I thought that people would respect that other might be busy with their families during the holidays, and be courteous enough to wait for them. I think it would have been more reasonable to have given it more than 48 hours, especially since it's two days before Christmas. Joie de Vivre 21:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended. Should consensus emerge to move it back, I would certainly be willing to offer my time to reverse the move. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 21:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I proposed the move; of course I support it. I think it was lousy of you to take advantage of my courtesy and willingness to give ample time to others, in what seems like a effort to grab the credit for yourself. Whatever, have a nice holiday. Joie de Vivre 21:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete of Analysis of a problem

Hi,

I guess you right to remove the paragraphs. They are just an introduction to the new theory. The theory is much more powerful than for example “resistance to parasites” theory. I would rather think that sex helps you get more diseases than resist them :). What do you suggest? Make a new page, move it to another existing, edit? Thank you Sashag 00:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The added section had quite a few issues.

• The title was not descriptive. "Analysis of a problem" gives little to no useful information as to the contents of the section. Entitling it "Geodakyan's theory of asynchronous evolution" would be more descriptive.
• It used unusual and confusing words to describe ideas for which there is a commonly accepted and used phrase. This makes reading the section very confusing. The main examples are "sexual process (conjugation..." instead of "sexual reproduction"; also "differentiation (partitioning..." instead of "different sexes" or "differentiated sexes".
• Saying that there are three basic forms of reproduction and leaving it at that ignores the huge numbers of species that use more than one of the forms presented. Most plants can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Numerous animals can reproduce both hermaphroditically and also with a partner. This statement also ignores the species (such as slime moulds and fungi) that have huge numbers of sexes (about eight hundred for slime moulds, tens of thousands for fungi).
• It stated evolution had an "objective". Evolution is a set of rules. It has no goal. Personifying it like that is unscientific. The rest of the article is rank with this kind of thing ("purpose of sex"), but that doesn't make it right.
• It presented claims not accepted within the general scientific community as if they were true. That the existence of distinct sexes is the "opposite" of sexual reproduction, for example. Or that the existence of distinct sexes causes reduced genetic diversity. Or pretty much the entire last paragraph. If these claims are to be presented, they need to be qualified to let readers know it's just this one guy making these claims. For example, "Russian scientist V. Geodakyan has proposed that the existence of distint sexes within a species results in reduced genetic diversity for that species."; "Geodakian claims that his theory of asynchronous evolution adequately explains things long considered puzzles regarding the evolution of sex."
• Part of the new section would have been better worked into existing sections. "The two-fold cost of sex" section discusses the lower reproductive potential of sexual species vs. asexual species. Geodakyan's theory about having distinct sexes reducing the reproductive potential below that of hermaphroditic species would fit in here.
• Almost the entire article is about theorized advantages of sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction; the sentences about "since the asexual process is much more efficient and simple... The purpose of the sexual process is clear... bi-sexual methods have no visible advantages over asexual ones..." - all that is duplication of ideas that are already addressed in the article.
• This sentence: "the sex problem is commonly considered as a reproduction problem but not an evolutionary one." makes absolutely no sense.
• Links to outside websites within the text of the article are generally discouraged. Having a link to Geodakyan's website in the external links section should be sufficient. (But please, call it "Theory of Asynchronous Evolution". "The Evolutionary Theory of Sex" is just too vague a term to use it to refer to a specific theory. Especially when the author himself uses a different title.)

Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 02:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am still digesting your answer. Will respond piece by piece. Name: "Theory of Asynchronous Evolution" is more an umbrella that includes the "The Evolutionary Theory of Sex". There are other Theories based on the same principle. so looks like it's too broad. "The Evolutionary Theory of Sex" too vague I agree. More precise will be to call it "The Evolutionary Theory of Dioecy" because it applies to organisms with separate sexes (males and females). Even more precise may be will be "The Asynchronous Theory of Dioecy" or "Dichrone? theory of Dioecy (Sex)" reflecting the fact that two sexes sort of separated in time. "Geodakyan's theory ... - doesn't sound too loud? please visit http://www.geodakian.com and let me know what you think Sashag 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC}

I think if it were notable someone other than Geodakyan would have picked up on the theory in the last sixty years. The lack up such acceptance in the evolutionary biology community should be acknowledged in any Wikipedia article (is that what you meant by "doesn't sound too loud"?) Lyrl ^Talk _C 12:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is accepted (see web site). Most important that there is almost no criticism.

The three basic forms of reproduction is a classification. Classification is a separation based on some principles. The principles of proposed classification are presence or absence of process of fusion of genetic information of two persons.

The outcome is types (forms) of reproduction: asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction If I will use the same word for criterion and outcome (sexual reproduction) it will be confusing?

That huge numbers of species use more than one of the forms presented. Most plants can reproduce both sexually and asexually. – This fact does not prevent us from distinguishing (and using) two main types. Same as division to males and females (there are mixing cases, division in time, dependence from environment etc.)

Species (such as slime moulds and fungi) that have huge numbers of sexes are should be in the “different sexes” category. May be word bi-sexual reproduction is not good.

The main difference between hermaphrodite (+, -), and bi-sexual reproduction is that hermaphrodites are still unitary system (same type of elements) while bi-sexuals are binary system (two (or many) types of elements). Again some species can use both but I do not see why it should prevent us from using this abstraction (actually the whole world is already using it).

I would greatly appreciate if you edit this text with right terminology. It should probably also be moved into biological reproduction article. There is an article Evolution of sex but there is no article (or section) “Evolution of reproduction” (Evolution of sex is a part of it). Sashag 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary biology is something I have read a little about and find interesting, but am certainly not an expert on. My lack of expertise, and the fact that English is not your native language, make it very difficult for me to understand what you are saying. In other words, I believe you have some good points, but it comes across as nonsense.

As far as accepted, see Wikipedia:Notability: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. To be included in Wikipedia, this theory should be able to cite several sources that:

• discuss this theory, not just mention it in passing
• are not connected to the author
• are serious scientific sources ("not trivial")

The website provides an impressive bibliography, but does not address the notability question important for Wikipedia articles.

I believe the English language difficulty is a big problem here. You might try posting in your native language first (if that is Russian, the Russian Wikipedia is one of the larger ones at about 126,000 articles). Perhaps someone either more familiar with evolutionary biology or with Russian will be able to help you better than I can. Lyrl ^Talk _C 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting in Russian: yes, of course, but it is much less important compare to English speaking audience (much less people know about it). English language difficulty: In most cases I do not translate myself. I copy/paste/edit from (1) scientific articles published in English and (2) articles published in Russian in the magazines that are translated into English. Articles of the first type passed English editing and review, articles of the second type (I hope) are translated by native English professional translators (otherwise the whole magazine will have the same problem and “come across as nonsense”). The problem can be that in most cases the translator tries to be as close to the original as possible. For example “dispersija” (russ math, statistics) was translated as “dispersion” but looks like should be “variation” (biol).

Notability: I’ll try to address this issue. Where I can find clear examples of how it should be done?Sashag 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More analysis of a problem

Notability just means people, other than the author, have "noticed" the author's writing. An example for a fiction book would be There Goes My Everything (book) - see how in the "References" section it shows where other people have commented on the book. Good comments and bad comments both count.

"Species where autonomous individuals fertilize each other" might be what you meant by "sexual process"? So hermaphrodites still count, but not when they fertilize themselves?

"Sexual process" is, to me, a synonym of "sexual reproduction" and not what I think you intend to mean.

"Person" normally only refers to humans, and I think you mean to refer to all organisms - "individual" or "organism" might be alternative words.

When you say "asexual reproduction", do you actually mean reproduction that only involved one individual? Whether or not meiosis and mitosis and fertilization occured? Because that would be a very different definition than what is normally used. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QF

On January 3, 2006, at 11:35 EST, ABC News Nightline will air a special, "The More the Holier?", on the Quiverfull movement. See http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2767898&page=1 - I thought you might be interested. CyberAnth 04:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but way past my bedtime. I'll stick to reading about it ;) Lyrl ^Talk _C 12:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Mary Pride#Mary Pride and NFP. CyberAnth 06:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing less than 1000 G-hits as a deletion criterion

Citing less than 1000 G-hits as a deletion criterion is a fallacy. The following is a quote from Wikipedia:Search engine test: "Hence the list of unique results will always contain fewer than 1000 results regardless of how many webpages actually matched the search terms." Deletion nominators should read the guidelines. Regardless, G-hits are meant to be a test to confirm notability, not disprove it.

-- Kevin Murray 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Sokol. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] But...

But Margret Sanger (the person who started PP) distributed pro-birth control literature. Chooserr 04:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

She promoted spermicides and diaphragms and condoms and was involved in developing the pill. I have never read about her promoting abortion. This does not mean that such information does not exist, but it does mean a citation is needed for the sentence in question. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, honestly it isn't the most important thing to me. It's just that I had the impression that PP had always at least been pro-birth control. Chooserr 04:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

PP's primary mission is to provide contraceptive services. That's always been what they do. I just am not convinced that abortion has always been included in their birth control offerings. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, abortion did come later. CyberAnth 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various methods of fertility awareness

Hey, Lyrl, I know that before you said you were hesitant to describe the different forms of FA, but I was really impressed by how much you knew about the different methods. Would you reconsider adding just a brief descriptor of the differences between BOM, CM, TCOYF, etc? I think it would be possible to write it in such a way that no one would try to use it (which you said was a concern). I that putting this info in, in some form, would be really helpful. Joie de Vivre 22:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obolisk image

In two edits on the condom page (diff), the bot first replaced all <!-- --> tags with ⌊⌊⌊⌊0⌋⌋⌋⌋, and then replaced the characters with copies of an image from the beginning of the article. (It also dated the citation needed and expandsect tags.) Any idea why it would insert random characters and images like that? Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled, at the moment I'm putting it down to a bug in history. Rich Farmbrough, 11:13 17 January 2007 (GMT).

[edit] menstruation edit

Hi. You just took out the word "most" in the menstruation entry (which I had added earlier today). I don't have any special advanced knowledge of these issues, but there is a little inconsistency in the entry, and it sounds like you have advanced knowledge about mammalian reproductive cycles, so I suggest you edit this sentence in the next section, which says: "Most mammals reabsorb the uterine lining during their oestral cycle." That should be "all other mammals" to be consistent, or both should be "most", whichever is correct. I don't have knowledge of all mammalian estral cycles, though I had thought dogs sloughed off some of their lining when they're in heat and don't get pregnant, which is why I put in "most" in the first sentence (the second sentence already had "most").QuizzicalBee 01:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dogs always slough off some of their lining when they are in heat, regardless of whether or not they get pregnant. It's analogous to mid-cycle spotting that some women experience (i.e. near ovulation), not to menstruation (which is at the opposite point in the cycle).

The introduction specifies humans and great apes as experiencing menstrual cycles, then says "all other mammals" to mean all mammals other than humans and great apes. The "as part of the menstrual cycle" does not say anything about humans or great apes. So "all other" would be semantically incorrect - other than what? It could certainly be edited along the lines of "mammals other than humans and great apes reabsorb...", though. Feel free to do so if you feel it would make the section more clear. Lyrl ^Talk _C 03:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category change on COCP article

I'm not sure why you recently added combined oral contraceptive pill to Category:Human reproduction. I've proposed removing it (along with a number of other articles) at Category talk:Human reproduction. I would appreciate any comments you may have. Lyrl ^Talk _C 15:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I feel that those items pertain to human reproduction in the sense that things that impede or prevent human reproduction are as much about human reproduction as are things that promote it.QuizzicalBee 15:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I want to thank you greatly for your respectful words on my Talk page. It is true that we disagree on many issues, but I truly, truly appreciate that you noticed my efforts to remain neutral and civil when stating my views. It honestly is meaningful to me, so I thank you very much.

If I may explain, the concern I had was with your statement that my edits were based on a seeming "disagreement with their (Catholics') religion". I would like to clarify: your view is close, but not exact. I object to including any religious content, without making it explicitly clear that that is what it is. I am currently forming a response to your concerns at Talk:Birth control.

Although we frequently disagree, I do enjoy editing alongside you. You are very precise and thoughtful in your editing. I have noticed that you are knowledgeable not only about the content of the articles you edit, but on how to correctly incorporate content into Wikipedia. I appreciate the care you put into your edits and I honestly hope that we can build some sort of rapport and work together.

Thank you again for your words. Joie de Vivre 22:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and condoms

Hi, I removed the section because I couldn't work out what these guys' morality issues had to do with condoms. Putting it back is okay. No problem. --Tony Sidaway 01:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ovulation

I recently edited this article and provided a list of key facts related specifically to ovulation, and I cited the source. Your comment stated that you were deleting this section and noting that it was information on "fertility awareness." Although FA and ovulation are certainly related and information related to each overlap, this was specifically related to Facts about Ovulation. Would you please consider reinstating the information - or tell me to do so and I will gladly do so. I am also curious as to why an External Link to an Ovulation Calendar and Calculator are not appropriate on an article about ovulation? The external link is from the American Pregnancy Association which is a national nonprofit organization supporting pregnancy. Let me know your thoughts - thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by T2myJane (talk • contribs) 12:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A Google search for the phrase "ovulation calendar" gives 350,000 hits. I am certain a large proportion of these calculators are from reputable organizations. However, Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and considering the enormous number of fertility calculators out there, including links to them would make this article such a "repository". Without criteria that would exclude the vast majority of ovulation calendars, I will not support adding any links to such sites.

The "facts about ovulation" were only facts related to fertility. They were from the American Pregnancy Association's page on "tracking ovulation" (a.k.a. fertility awareness charting). Some of them are only tangentially related to ovulation (women born with all their eggs? Addressed more appropriately in menstrual cycle. Menstruation's relationship to ovulation? Also addressed in menstrual cycle, as well as luteal phase. "This body temperature increase is the cornerstone of fertility charting or fertility awareness techniques" - how is this more related to ovulation that fertility awareness?) Others are already covered in the ovulation article. (Mittelschmerz? Already addressed in "clinical presentation"! - Basal body temps are now linked in "postovulatory phase".)

Also, the random list of facts is unencyclopedic. Integrating relevant information into sections and paragraphs makes for a higher quality article. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I will resubmit in a paragraph form. The article did have a paragraph on tracking ovulation, but it covered more than that too. I will make sure that any facts included are speaking to ovulation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by T2myJane (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion

Hi. I know you edit a lot of the women's health, contraception, etc. pages, and I wanted to ask your advice. I'm sure the topic "abortion" is very controversial, and there must be some way people control conflict on that page. Well, there's a category:Abortion page, and we're having a conflict right now--someone wants to add it to the category:death and the category:human rights abuse and category:causes of death. I personally don't think they belong there. Any advice on ways people have dealt with such conflicts on other abortion-related pages?QuizzicalBee 13:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commandaria

Hi, thanks for your time and recommendations on the article. I have made some changes and replied to your entry. Would you be kind enough to have another look when you have a chance? Cheers! StephP 12:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reworded article per point 2.StephP 09:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)