User talk:Helen4780

Page created. Helen4780 (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Helen4780, I've reverted your additions to enema. The problem here seems to be a relatively common misunderstanding about PubMed. While PubMed is operated and maintained by the NIH, NIH isn't actually the publisher of the (vast majority of) work listed therein. PubMed is just an index, like a library catalog.

For instance, where you cited this page on PubMed, the abstract and the paper aren't NIH publications. The actual paper was published in Applied Nursing Research (that's the "Appl Nurs Res" above the article title) back in 2000. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't start (or resume) an edit war at enema by reverting your changes back in without consensus. Please instead refer to the links that Doc James provided you above, especially Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of sources for medical claims (the shortcut link is WP:MEDRS, which you'll see mentioned frequently on article talk pages).

For medical claims in Wikipedia articles, you will generally need to present secondary sources – systematic review articles, meta-analyses, clinical practice guidelines from major organizations, and the like – rather than individual primary research studies. Try to find publications which reflect current knowledge and practice, as well—the two Appl Nurs Res papers you cited were from 2000 and 2004, which is getting rather long in the tooth. Going forward, if you would like to propose or discuss changes to the article, you can go ahead and do so on Talk:Enema. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll not start an editing war, but please note that most of what is presently in the article is entirely unsourced and for many statements I can not find any references other than from fetish sites. What I'll discuss on the talk page, I suppose, is removing much of what is presently in at least that section of the article. Helen4780 (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Helen4780. I see that. Doc James and TenOfAllTrades addressed you about sourcing in 2016. You are still adding unsourced material, like you did here, and poorly sourced material. Yes, you stated "needs work" in your edit summaries, but you should be looking to make sure that the content is properly sourced and contains no WP:Synthesis before you add it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If you "cannot find any references other than from fetish sites," then that is an indication that the material should not be added. In fact, it's quite clear that it should not be added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What are you referring to about "cannot find any references other than from fetish sites"??? While I did make such a remark elsewhere, as a reason to delete an article, I utterly fail to understand what you are talking about here! The only referneces I added from new sources are and and I feel certain that the accompanying text is important information to include. Helen4780 (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I do apologize for unsourced material! Helen4780 (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

My sub-sectioning I believer to be uncontroversial and useful, so I'm re-introducing that without further discussion.. Helen4780 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Why are you confused? Above, TenOfAllTrades was referring to the Enema article, one of the two articles I've reverted you at. You stated, "I'll not start an editing war, but please note that most of what is presently in the article is entirely unsourced and for many statements I can not find any references other than from fetish sites." Maybe by you "cannot find any references other than from fetish sites," you were referring to the existing material in the article rather than any material you were looking to add?

You've been pointed to WP:MEDRS before. Have you not read it? Per WP:MEDRS, you should be avoiding WP:Primary sources. Per WP:MEDRS, you should be avoiding very old sources unless using it for history material (see WP:MEDDATE). And I was clear about not adding unsourced material. Regarding this, this, this and this, you need to source "Agnew, Klismaphilia:76" properly; see WP:Citing sources. And you shouldn't be creating a WP:Undue weight section based on Agnew's view. And as for "misuse of the word klismaphilia," what sources are stating that it's a misuse of the term? That seems to be WP:Synthesis on your part.

I might query WP:Med on their thoughts regarding your edits to the Klismaphilia and Enema articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this, I saw the "Agnew, J. (October 1982). 'Klismaphilia--a physiological perspective'. American journal of psychotherapy. United States: Association for the Advancement of Psychotherapy. 36 (4): 554–66." source and the "Agnew, J. (2000). 'Klismaphilia'. Venereology." source in the section, but one can easily confuse which of the two sources "Agnew, Klismaphilia:76" and "Agnew, Klismaphilia:74,77,78,79" are referring to if not looking closely enough. There are options to make it clearer. The 2000 source appears to be a review; so even though it's from 2000, it's better than using primary sources. But per WP:MEDDATE, one should still be looking for newer sources to see if anything stated in the 2000 source is now outdated. I'm fine with you using the 2000 source as long as what you are adding is not out of date. But you still should not devote an entire section to things stated by Agnew in that source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Several things; here are a few for starters: Firstly, the 2000 source is 5 pages long and so is not a review. I'll go in and make consistent the Agnew articles' references, adding the 1982 one to "Notes" and change the text of the article to disambiguate them. Then, unrelated to the topic at hand, I'm doing something similar by shortening the verbose text of references to ""The History of the Enema with Some Notes on Related Procedures (Part …" Helen4780 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

An important addition that I wish to make is referenced by the sources below. Rectal douching" has now been shown by many studies to *increase* the spread of STDs, contrary to the assumptions implicit in Agnew's work that one of reasons for this activity is that it may decrease the spread of STDs. This seems to me to be an important piece of information that belongs here, but given mistrust in my additions, I'll wait at least a day, so that you may veto it, before putting it into the articles. Helen4780 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't yet read the 2000 source, but I stated "appears to be a review" because the abstract states, "This paper reviews physiological and psychological elements of klismaphilia, then discusses contemporary visibility of the practice."

I appreciate you tweaking the references to be clearer.

As for the sources below, those are individual studies. They are primary sources. Again, have you taken the time to read WP:MEDRS? You should use secondary sources and tertiary sources instead of primary sources. Above, Doc stated, "We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations." When it comes to medical topics, that is true. Also see WP:SCHOLARSHIP for why it's best to avoid primary sources for academic topics. Google Books commonly has medical sources one can use for medical information. I suggest you look there first for sources for the information you want to add. Then look on PubMed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, the "Document Type" aspect in the link to the 2000 source above states "Journal Article, Literature Review." So, yeah, seems to be a literature review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll abandon editing for, at least, the near future, with one final edit: Rectal douching has an entire section, "Risks", which is referenced by primary sources only, so I'm deleting that section which, of course, you can always revert. Helen4780 (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

__

References

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Butt plug, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Please accept my apology. I'll soon re-do the change with a reliable reference. Helen4780 (talk)

WP:MEDRS again

I did not pay close attention when you added this, but WP:MEDRS still applies. That is not WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

And as you know, I focused on this piece for the latest removal per WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see my comments in Talk:Klismaphilia. Helen4780 (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion request declined

Please note that I have declined your request for a third opinion at WP:3O because, as implied by the name, there are already more than two editors involved in the discussion. 3O is explicitly for discussions where a third opinion is desired. You are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

DonIago, please accept my apologies; at the time I made the request, no other editors had been involved. Helen4780 (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem! These things happen. :) DonIago (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Klismaphilia and "Alcohol enema"

Hello, I saw on the article "Alcohol enema" that you undid my edit. In the revision history, you said that "the fatality [of the 52-year-old man in the medical report] referenced in that paragraph" was not related to klismaphilia. However, the report's abstract clearly states that it "describes an individual with klismaphilia whose death resulted from acute ethanol intoxication by rectal absorption of a wine enema." The death of the man from his white wine enema was the only case reported. I assume good-faith, and I restored my edit. Joesom333 (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Joesom333

Greetings! Please accept my apologies for my erroneous reversion of your edit. I thank you for reverting it back and explaining what I wrongly interpreted. I failed to read to entire abstract and seeing references 7 and 11 for "two were discovered to be in association with sexual fetishes", but not reading the last line of the abstract stating "an individual with klismaphilia", I rashly assumed you had matters confused. Again, I apologize. Helen4780 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That is no problem! Thank you for all your work on here. We all need to work together Joesom333 (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)