User talk:EvgFakka

Welcome!

Hello, MordvinEvgen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing articles related to medical topics

Hi MordvinEvgen, I'm Mathglot. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently made additions to one or more articles such as Orgasm where you added a citation to a reliable source. Thank you for respecting Wikipedia's policy on WP:Verifiability and for using citations! In articles related to medical topics, the standard for content and sourcing is defined at WP:MEDRS, and the references you added unfortunately did not meet that ideal and may have been removed. On the other hand, the sourcing for Hearing range looks fine, keep up the good work! Please have a look at MEDRS to learn about the quality standards for medical sourcing. You might also want to take a look at WikiProject Medicine. If you have any questions related to sourcing of medical issues, you can ask at the WikiProject Medicine Talk page. For general questions about sourcing, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Mathglot (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mordvin, you seem to be concentrating for the moment on articles about sex differences in cognition, emotional intelligence, memory, orgasm, hearing, and so on. That's fine, but be aware that beyond any issues of proper medical sourcing on those articles, there's an independent issue to be aware of, namely this: gender-related topics at Wikipedia, or articles touching on sex and gender differences can be controversial, so additional care has to be taken. I don't want to burden you with too many rules at this point, just when you're getting started, so just be aware of this, and be extra careful when editing anything that could touch on sex and gender issues.

Feel free to contact me at my Talk page if you have questions. There are also "WikiProjects", which are groups of editors that are interested in a particular topic, who get together on a Project page to share thoughts and ask and answer questions. Here are two projects that might interest you: WP:WikiProject Medicine, and WP:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. Each of those projects has a "Talk page" where you can ask questions; you can find those by clicking the little, blue "Talk" tab, upper left on the project page. Hope this helps, and once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello, I'm Optakeover. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Orgasm—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was not vandalism, and should not have been flagged as such. It was correctly reverted, but for the wrong reason. In fact, this good faith edit added a properly formatted {{cite web}} citation to the article; the problem with the edit was that the citation referenced a website which does not meet WP:MEDRS. The template Huggle/warn-1 should not have been used here. Going forward, in the event that an actual case of vandalism by this user needs to be flagged on this page (which I don't expect), it would be level *one*, not level 2. (Note: I have interpolated punctuation into the hidden-text template identifier in the post above, to block bots from seeing that it is present on the page.) Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your sex difference editing

An editor removed my last post to your talk page for incivility. I wasn't trying to be uncivil. What I want to say to you is to please stop adding the primary data to one-up other primary data. Use the sourcing you were advised to use. Wikipedia says we shouldn't artificially balance. When most sources say men and women are different in some respect, that's what we're supposed to support. You shouldn't try to challenge that with primary data. You were given good advice already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.128.238 (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP-37 is apparently referring to this revert by a third party. Mathglot (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I don't want to be rude either. But what secondary or ternary sources should I use?

I'll give you an example. Here in many books there is such a statement that men's peripheral vision (its field) is much worse(45 degrees), while in women it is wider(as much as 180 degrees). And all this is argued by the theory of hunter-gatherers(a controversial theory). I understand correctly, even in the absence of studies supporting this data(there are only studies where there are no differences, or they are small, and then there are very few such studies) I should publish this nonsense, not the primary sources that clearly say that there are no differences or they are exaggerated. At the same time, this warning(that women have better peripheral vision) is also found in more scientific works(for example, in Ann Moir's book "Sex in the Brain"). There are no references to research in this book, there is nothing in it. But for that not a primary source(Wikipedia logic). At the same time, any knowledgeable person in the field of ophthalmology will tell you that there are no significant gender differences. The norm of the field of view ranges from 120 to 180 degrees. We can't talk about any 45 degrees. Such differences cannot be found in a single species. These are species-level differences... But this information is still distributed in many magazines and second-rate books. This is the first example.

Second. For example, as about an orgasm. There is a statement here that each subsequent orgasm can be more pleasant(perhaps. As with men). But, for example, there is a study(yes, there will not be many of them, since the topic is not very interesting in scientific circles) that claims the opposite. Don't like the research (original source)? OK, here's another link(https://www.issm.info/sexual-health-qa/what-are-multiple-orgasms-how-common-are-they/). Looks like it's a reputable organization? Why is this source worse than the book? I don't understand... I understand that I have to follow certain rules, even if I don't like them, but here's your argument that I deny gender differences(edit removed) In my opinion, this is very funny.

I always notice when I edit articles about gender differences(not particularly protected ones) how much they like to use primary sources. I am trying to clarify the heterogeneity of sex differences(and they are INCREDIBLY HIGHLY HETEROGENEOUS). This is extremely important for understanding the entire picture.

For example, one meta-analysis showed that on average, with little effect, verbal episodic memory is better in women. Okay, I'm not denying it. But this is in SRDENEM. But people will think: well, this means that everywhere is 100% better (because Wikipedia is visited by ordinary people, not scientists. They don't even understand the size of the effect). But this is not the case. In this meta-analysis of more than 300 studies of verbal episodic memory (not to be confused with working memory), quite a few found no differences in verbal episodic memory or found an advantage in men(the authors did well, they provided data on sample sizes and effects in tables for more than 700 studies). Yes, on average, the data is still in favor of women with a SMALL EFFECT SIZE(g = 0.28). The coincidence is great(that is, we can postulate that memory in men and women is very similar, and that it does not have two very different forms. The overlap between the groups is huge). Yes, studies in which the differences were in favor of men or where there were no differences were smaller than studies in which there were differences in favor of women, but this does not negate the significant heterogeneity in the scientific community that needs to be DEMONSTRATED(and this is taking into account the influence of studies in which the sample is from 6 to 15 people and it is not equal between groups = a sign of a non-qualitative study).

The third example. Here they write about the differences in the number of nerve endings of the clitoris and penis(the clitoris has twice as many as 8000). Well, a controversial statement-this is confirmed by knowledge of embryology, etc. BUT in fact I am not a scientist and I can be wrong, okey. But here I am reading the books that your wikipedia links to, and I am somewhat puzzled. From what? There are no adequate references to the original source. I COULD NOT FIND A PRIMARY SOURCE THAT WOULD ESTABLISH THIS DIFFERENCE IN A SUBSTANTIAL SAMPLE with a description of detection methods and so on. But I was able to find in those books(for example, Sexuality now) a source for another book where this statement occurs and is probably the original source. This 1999 book, "Woman: An Intimate Geography" by Natalie Angier. And oh, my God. In this book, there are no special references to this statement in the text, i.e. it is just a statement without data, who discovered it, how it was discovered, and so on. I assume that this statement probably originated from one study (or from this very book), which is MOST LIKELY INCORRECT, etc. After quoting this book in "The Vagina Monologue" (SOOOOO POPULAR BOOK AMONG FEMINISTS), this information went everywhere. Does this make this information reliable? If you are a reasonable person, the answer is obvious-NO!!! This is just an illustration of the problem of gender differences, which many people talk about but many do not hear, namely, when one study (book, etc.) begins to be cited on such a scale that it gets the status of TRUTH, even if it contradicts other research and common sense, which simply goes unnoticed in society. This data can be considered at least somewhat reliable when it is repeatedly analyzed and reproduced in subsequent studies(for this, meta-analysis, even if not always, is certainly more useful, although the way some write it ignores data that contradicts their claim, but that's another topic). It doesn't exist, because if it did, you would be publishing meta-analyses, not simple books.

This also applies to the duration of the orgasm. There are 1-2 such studies in men and a little more in women. All of these studies differ in average values and all have extremely small samples(small sample combined with huge variance within the group = little confidence in the existence of stable inter-group differences). There are also differences in measurement methods. Some people just subjectively evaluate by pressing a button, which is, of course, subjective, others by spasms of intimate muscles, which is more objective. For example, I have already tried to publish data on orgasms in 1980 and 1982. The sample of 11 people is small, but it is enough to demonstrate incredible differences from person to person in the duration of orgasm(for this, the study had data with the number of muscle contractions and measurements in seconds from start to finish). And this data(high variability in the duration of orgasm in humans) has been proven(although it has not been emphasized) in other studies. Again, there aren't many of them, just less than 10. But there is a huge difference from person to person. While one man or woman has an orgasm within 6-7 seconds, another man or woman has an orgasm within 30-60 seconds. This has been scientifically proven. And more than once. Most authors simply did not set themselves the task of measuring the time of orgasm. But where they have data on the duration of orgasm for each subject, the judgment about the huge difference in the duration of orgasm between people(regardless of gender) is confirmed. For this reason, at the moment, the common opinion that women have longer orgasms is erroneous or at least exaggerated. Just as men can have orgasms that last longer than women, so women can have orgasms that last longer than men. I could cite a number of studies, but I don't think it's necessary.

Of course, why read a bunch of primary sources and understand them. You can just read/write a book about common and probably hyperbolized or false information. For me, there is no authority in books. I study the material bit by bit, read about the quality of the sample, about the research methods, etc. And all my edits that are partially rejected are fair, but they contradict the Wikipedia rule that I must obey. That's all. Your assumptions about my denial of gender differences are unfair, I recognize them, but I also recognize that the data is ambiguous, the data is often exaggerated or false in the media. Wikipedia also distributes this data. After all, it doesn't allow its own rules to look at things more intelligently. This is my personal opinion.

P.S. I apologize for the errors in the text. English is not my native language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MordvinEvgen (talk • contribs) 17:00, May 20, 2021 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease

At Parkinson's disease, you have inserted for the second time [1] [2] a series of primary sources at Parkinson's disease used to synthesize a conclusion (original research) about sex differences. Please review WP:MEDRS and WP:3RR and WP:BRD. If you want to insert a conclusion about sex differences in mortality, please find a secondary review that complies with WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE that draws that conclusion rather than inserting your own speculation based on primary sources. When your bold edit has been reverted once, you should discuss text on talk before reinserting it.

Also, please review WP:CITEVAR and use the citation style established in the article; you can generate a citation from a PMID by using this tool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesizing data

Apparently, others have told you what I'm telling you now.

Objectivity comes from reviews and book publications that have reviewed the data. You can't just keep synthesizing data because you have an issue with what it reports. Leave the primary stuff out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBFEE (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is your objectivity based on a single 2014 meta-analysis? This is the first. Second, with what fright you remove explanations in memory to locations where I specify that in studies with some parameters, differences are in favor of men, in other cases in favor of women. These data were taken from a meta-analysis in the Discussions column that I attached. Unlike you, I read thousands of studies and read all the meta-analyses. You have no objectivity. If necessary, I'll clean your edits every day. In addition, a 2000 meta-analysis was attached which argued that motivation was an important parameter for empathy. Like I said, you have no objectivity. Wait, I'll delete your stupid edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MordvinEvgen (talk • contribs) 17:00, May 20, 2021 (UTC)

How is my objectivity based on a single meta-analysis of 2014 when a bunch of reviews and academic publications all report what you keep synthesizing and biasing with your cherry-picked sources? I hate to break it to you, but Wikipedia doesn't care about "thousands of studies." It's concerned about what has been reviewed in appropriate sources. Further, other people have tried to tell you this, but you keep synthesizing everything, adding your own words (like "common sense") to things. You aren't cleaning up. The multiple warnings you've gotten should tell you that. If you keep doing this, I'll report you to the venue(s) that handle stuff like this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GBFEE (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I WILL continue. Report. And again, I publish not only primary sources, but also meta-analyzes. The effect of motivation on empathy has been known for a long time and in a host of studies. I have attached one meta-analysis from 2000. It's just that you are too lazy to look at what I publish. Also, I clarify some points with text and conclusions from the meta-analyzes themselves. It is not possible to argue solely with meta-analyzes, since they often consider a narrow part of the entire data. For example, it is known that women consistently excel in empathy in self-reports, but if more objective methods are used, then the differences are not so obvious. YOU also don't publish the meta-analysis effect sizes, which is a dumb publishing method. You don't even have enough brains to open meta-analysis and arrange everything humanly. I said your edits will be removed in the future. If you think you will stop me, good luck...— Preceding unsigned comment added by MordvinEvgen (talk • contribs) 17:00, May 20, 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GBFEE (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:MordvinEvgen. Please try to avoid WP:Personal attacks such as 'you don't even have enough brains to open meta-analysis'. If you are having a disagreement with GBFEE, there are methods of WP:Dispute resolution that are recommended on Wikipedia. A sentence like 'If you think you will stop me, good luck' suggests you plan to engage in WP:Edit warring, which is blockable. Generally we try to reach agreement on talk pages. Options such as WP:DRN and WP:RFC are available to you if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My opponent has absolutely no knowledge of science. My opponent developed a reflex in the spinal cord: "I did not like a few words, I will delete the entire line or paragraph with links." I consider this an insult and a manifestation of incompetence, not observing banal etiquette. This person did not even try to come to a compromise by contacting me, but simply deleted what he did not like. I have never allowed myself to do this on your resource. If someone canceled my edits, he argued it grammatically or contacted me with different methods. And I made concessions by editing only a part or adding my own edited part, without touching the publications of another editor. Here, a person removes whole pieces of text with links to SECONDARY SOURCES because of two words, arguing that these are my words. He does not want to bother and edit exactly the words that he did not like. This editor simply removes what it does not like entirely. I HAVE NEVER ALLOWED MYSELF TO DO THIS. If I didn't like some pieces of text, I edited them without touching the links and the general meaning. This is a sign of respect for other editors, because collect and analyze data(as in my case) this is quite hard work, which is not paid. A resolution with this author will be problematic. In the future, I plan to modify all its edits. The author refers to secondary sources, ignoring the layer of literature that brings objectivity to a certain area. The author does not even bother to publish the sizes of effects from meta-analyses, in fact, the most important parameter in meta-analysis. Without publishing the size of the effects, readers have the erroneous impression that the differences are fundamental or fatal(i.e. there is a hyperbolization of differences, which is extremely harmful). The publication of the size of the effect eliminates such a disastrous outcome. Further, alas, not all meta-analyses are qualitative and not all meta-analyses include an extensive list of literature. Not all meta-analyses consider the field objectively. I have studied a lot of meta-analyses and primary sources. I know the vast picture. The edits that my opponent introduced only draw a narrow part of it. It is not possible to use only secondary drains on your resource. Firstly, there are not so many of them and they do not exist for all areas of science. Secondly, often in these meta-analyses, part of the scientific literature and part of the theory, hypotheses, or proven positions may be kept silent(intentionally or accidentally), as in the case of my opponent. Further, secondary and tertiary sources may publish erroneous and unjustified data. For example, the differences between the nerve endings of the clitoris and the penis. A number of TERTIARY SOURCES that are cherished on your resources claim that the clitoris is twice as sensitive as the penis, and this is despite common sense that homologous tissues do not differ much by gender. But few people wonder where this data comes from. Your tertiary sources refer to another book from 1999, where there are no sane verified primary sources that have proven this in humans. Moreover, most likely, these data are modified, because in 1976, this was discovered, but not on humans, but on cattle, although the author himself admitted that this is probably an anamaly of measurements. I can give a lot of examples of the failure of both your system and the behavior of my oponent. If he is offended by my rather affectionate insults, I apologize, but he fully deserved them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MordvinEvgen (talk • contribs) 17:00, May 20, 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I don't know why all of your signatures have a timestamp from the 20th of May on them - perhaps you are copying and pasting the text from an older signature, rather than signing by typing four tildes (like this: ~~~~). Please try to sign your posts properly, putting the wrong timestamps on there is confusing.

I recognise that you are new to this platform, but above you have made a very worrying statement: In the future, I plan to modify all its edits. I interpret that as you saying that you intend to go around changing to edits of a particular user: that would likely be prohibited by our WP:HARASSMENT policy, specifically by the section on WP:HOUNDING. I'd be grateful if you would make a clear statement to the effect that you have read and understood that policy, and that you will do no such thing.

With regard to your observations about the potential pitfalls in our approach of relying mainly on secondary sources: what you say is perhaps true, but it is unavoidable, and it is not a justification for ignoring the guidance at WP:OR and WP:MEDRS. As a community of random people on the internet who may or may not have any actual expertise in the subject matter we write about, we cannot allow ourselves the privilege of interpreting primary sources, or relying on our personal understanding and experience. Our aim is to summarise what the best secondary sources say about any subject; if those sources contain errors, so will our articles; that is an unavoidable consequence the of the way we create them. Please do take time to read the guidelines I've linked to in full, and try to abide by them in future. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MordvinEvgen and sex difference information (permalink) has been closed. Please bear in mind what has been explained by experienced editors regarding no original research and no personal attacks. Those policies are an important part of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. I was away and therefore I was too lazy to respond to all the attacks in my direction. I will answer here to the point. I understood some of the claims, but for some reason the main part of my claims against my opponent was hidden. My opponent edited the statements that motivation and stereotypes influence gender differences in epathy. And he edited it as follows, just deleted it. My statement was supported by both the primary source and the review(15 studies). I NEVER attach exclusively primary sources. The objectivity of your WIKIPEDIA is below zero. After all, now, in the graph of empathy, it is flaunted that these are innate differences. There is no reason to think that empathy can develop, that both stereotypes and motivation influence empathy. Congratulations. Wikipedia is no better than the yellow press or newspapers. Further, it is clear that not everywhere there are meta-analyses(is this obvious, or is this a revelation for WIKIPEDIA?) at the same time, the meta-analyses themselves can express not only a general preponderance in one direction or another, but also heterogeneity(for example, a meta-analysis of sex differences in memory for the location of an object in 2007). I try to use meta-analyses where they are available and appropriate. This has been noted by others. But building an objective point of view using only meta-analyses is not acceptable. The analysis of the fact that the tertiary source may be more flawed than the primary one already exists, I developed this topic on the discussion page. My knowledge of the topic I am editing is extensive. And unlike many editors, I read all sources and not just the title column. Next, the editorial war, right? It will probably be, because I do not agree with the edits that my opponent made. Some of the edits were more or less acceptable, some were not. I can agree with one part, but not with the other. Threats regarding blocking do not concern me. There is nothing complicated in registering a new account. What kind of objective dialogues can there be with a group of people who do not understand ANYTHING about how to distribute OBJECTIVE information. Namely, different points of view. Most meta-analyses only summarize the data, they do not test hypotheses for reliability, and there are quite a lot of meta-analyses that not all studies include. There are no evaluation methods on your resource. You are not able to assess the quality of the meta-analysis, as well as the third source or the primary one. The only difference is only a collective factor. It is not enough for "objective" statements. You also HAVE NO REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLISHING THE SIZE OF EFFECTS FOR META-ANALYSES IN WIKPEDIA, WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. The size of the effect is what clearly characterizes the degree of differences. Most meta-analyses show trivial or small sizes of effects, but wikipedia does not indicate what masks, or rather hyporbelizes, the significance and magnitude of these differences, because an ordinary person will not understand what this means. Does this mean that 100% of women are more empathic than 100% of men or not. Although in fact, according to meta-analyses of empathy, the effect size is trivial and is ONLY 0.17-0.19, which means an overlap of 93-95%(this is a trivial effect size, which is also included in the hypothesis of gender similarity). In general, I can discuss a lot, but there is no sense. While I'm leaving the activity, I'm disappointed with the flawed rules of Wikipedia and editors, but if I suddenly have a desire, then I'll come back, and at least block it. I will create thousands of accounts. There is no difficulty in this.

MordvinEvgen (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please refrain from signing using your previous username, as it is confusing to other editors. Please use your current username in your signature. If you want to include your previous username in your signature, please use the signature customization section of your user preferences to say something like EvgFakka (formerly MordvinEvgen). Please also ensure that your talk page link comes directly to your current user talk page instead of being directed to the talk page of your former username and then being redirected. Your current signature does not comply with our signature guidelines in that it is not immediately apparent from your signature what your username is currently. Right now, clicking on your username directs other editors to the user page of an unregistered account. Thank you for your co-operation. Risker (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources again, same article again

Hi EvgFakka, I didn't recognize your username when I reverted your recent edit at Orgasm because you used a WP:PRIMARY source to support your content, but when I came here to your page, I realized I had told you the exact same thing above, at #Editing articles related to medical topics, referring to the exact same article, when you had a different userid.

If you are going to continue editing articles containing biomedical content you're going to have to spend the time to read and understand WP:MEDRS. Alternatively, maybe you want to investigate articles in other topic areas, that don't have the same requirements as these do. If you have a question, feel free to ask me, or check out the WP:WikiProject Medicine for more information. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mathglot. Hello. One more time. I will stop insulting your Wikipedia platform for now. I just want to get an answer to one question. A VERY LOGICAL QUESTION: why is the original source also listed under the 67th link in the article "Orgasm", which says that the nipples are projected (partially) on the same area as the genitals of women. If I understand correctly, this is the original source, and you are not deleting it. Now let's move on to the funniest part. I suggest a more modern source from the same author as the source number 67, and it has been removed. My source says that men have a similar female sexual reaction to the nipples (the nipples are projected onto the genital area). I ask again, why ARE MY EDITS BEING DELETED WHEN YOUR ENTIRE ARTICLE ABOUT ORGASM is just overflowing with primary sources? I tried to correct the data that women have orgasms longer than men (this is a BANAL LIE), but you didn't give me. I'm trying to add more objective information to your resource, but you always get in my way. So you have already decided, either you yourself do not follow your own rule (primary sources are prohibited) or you are hunting for me? If you don't like my source, delete the source number 67. Otherwise, it looks very much like discrimination and looks little like objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvgFakka (talk • contribs) 20:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By "you always get in my way", I assume you mean that I've reverted some content you added. This can be frustrating and disappointing, no doubt, but rest assured it is done to protect the article and maintain its quality, and has nothing whatever to do with you. So, in that regard, please assume good faith that I am acting to improve the article; nobody is out to get you. By informing you about principles of Wikipedia, including proper sourcing of articles with biomedical content, I'm also seeking to uphold the article quality, and since you were notified in April but it was happening again at the same article, I thought you might be due for a reminder.

As far as the article being rife with primary sources, that may be true, and I've tagged the article accordingly. But just because five drivers ran through the red light in front of you, doesn't mean you get to drive through the red light also and expect no consequences. This is a volunteer project, and if you object to the other primary sources all over the article (as well you should) then feel free to remove them, as well as to remove any content that remains unsourced or improperly sourced. But that's all irrelevant, with respect to edits you add based on primary sources. (If you do remove sourced content and references, please leave a detailed edit summary explaining why, and how it's an improvement to the article, to make your intentions clear, otherwise other editors may misunderstand and revert.)

Regarding your specific points about orgasm, nipples, or any of the rest of the points regarding the article, I'm not going to respond to those comments on this page, because discussions of article content should be confined to the article talk page, where other interested editors may find it and offer feedback if they wish; but no one will see such a discussion here. You're more than welcome to raise this topic at the article talk page.

Finally, what *this* page is for, is passing information and notices to users, and discussing user behavior. Regarding the latter, I find your tone above to be WP:UNCIVIL, so please dial it way down when talking with other editors here. A continuing pattern of uncivil behavior could result in your editing privileges being suspended, so let's just say you got a little bit hot under the collar on this occasion due to the understandable frustration of having an edit reverted, and hopefully it won't become a habit. Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what Mathglot said, please consider that we can’t get everything on a volunteer project (we can sometimes only address the red light that is run before our eyes), and see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you talk. And my frustration with your platform has increased even more. Your logic, as far as possible, follows the path of the editors' war. In fact, I have no complaints about the original source No. 67 in the "Orgasm" section. He is in the right place. I just added a similar source actually, which complements the previous one. The second source concerned men and proved the ASSUMPTION (which is written in your article) that men are also capable of experiencing nipple orgasms. If you follow your logic, then 67% of the article should go to the trash, because there are much more primary sources. And don't get me wrong. THIS IS A NECESSARY MEASURE, BECAUSE TERTIARY SOURCES AND SECONDARY ONES often become obsolete very quickly. Tertiary sources are engaged in self-citation, without considering new primary sources (research) and without correcting their own data. As you understand, such a source is a weak authority. But I have already realized that it is useless to criticize WIKIPEDIA's policy. I've come to TRY to make A REASONABLE edit. She was rejected. With these words, I return to oblivion, let your wikipedia continue to move along strictly contrived rails.

SandyGeorgia. I ran a red light because there is no other light in the area described in this article. This data could and should have been used. But since we have strict rules, I understand you. I don't want to be rude or go against YOUR SYSTEM anymore. I found objective and qualitative data for myself, because I have always been interested in objective reality. That's why I'm a man of science. But in many fields of science (sexual differences in orgasm, one of them) there are simply very few adequate tertiary sources. Often there are only a few primary sources, and that's it. As I said, if I followed your rules, then 67% (approximately) articles about orgasm would fly into the trash, because there are primary sources everywhere. Even the banal statement about the longer duration of orgasm in women (which does not correspond to the mass of data) should actually be deleted. I remember trying to delete the original source under the statement about the longer duration of orgasm, but even then my changes were deleted. I was only able to remove and then by entering into a stupid argument of the statement that they say men have an orgasm lasting 15-20 seconds. When, according to various data, it can be 30 seconds, and 25 (again to primary sources). So the question is still the same: do they interfere with me? Why are you all RUNNING A RED LIGHT, but they stopped me and fined me? Very interesting. All the best to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvgFakka (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounded like a frustrated roar of adieu, but I hope not. Wikipedia could certainly use a man of science like yourself. Ironically, it's also true that scholars sometimes find it difficult to adjust here, because of some of the rules that you complain about. One solution to that, might be to switch to non-medical topics, whether scientific topics in an adjacent field not your own, or to a completely different, non-scientific field.

One of the joys of editing here, is you don't have to be an expert about something (indeed, it sometimes gets in the way), you can just learn about a topic from sources, and improve articles or create new ones based on what you've learned. I certainly didn't know anything about peasant wars in medieval Catalonia, or the history of Vichy France, when I started writing about them, but starting with small edits I learned a great deal, and was able to improve some articles, and create other ones.

You can do that, too: pick an interest area of yours, you may find that in the end, writing about something you know little about gives you a great deal more pleasure than writing about something in your field, if the latter just gets you upset all the time. You should certainly be able to enjoy what you're doing here, because otherwise what's the point? For example: here's a list of science stubs in need of improvement; just click the links until you get to a Category page, then pick any of the articles listed there needing improvement that piques your curiosity; how about one of these prehistoric mammal articles?

If you're dead set on improving the Orgasm article, then starting a discussion on the Talk page about some of the concerns you list above is probably the best way to go. Either way, I hope you find a path here that is enjoyable for you. Best regards, Mathglot (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: regarding your comments above about WP:SECONDARY sources being inadequate because of age or other reasons, and why Wikipedia should prefer WP:PRIMARY sources instead, one of the things about Wikipedia that perhaps you did not know, is that even these policies can be changed. Just like the articles, the "rules" here are also written by Wikipedia editors, and it is possible to change them. They have been edited and discussed over many years by many editors, and have evolved to the state you now see them in, so I would not make changes to policy pages based solely on your own opinion (that is almost certainly going to be reverted), but instead discuss any changes you wish to make at the Talk pages of the policy or guideline you disagree with. If you get a sufficient consensus of other editors to agree with you, then the policy will change. I have to be honest and tell you that it in my opinion it is highly unlikely that you will be able to achieve consensus that primary sources are better than secondary ones, but there is nothing to stop you from trying. Feel free to raise a discussion like that if you wish—you could try at WT:NOR or WT:Verifiability—but once again, talking about it here is a waste of breath, because no one will see your concerns here. I hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mathglot. I will not change Wikipedia's policy. I came here for objective information. Wikipedia with the existing publication policy is not able to become an objective source. And I'm unlikely to come to a consensus, it's true. That's why I don't waste my time trying. In the sequel. You probably misunderstood me. I'M NOT SAYING THAT PRIMARY SOURCES ARE BETTER THAN SECONDARY ONES. IT'S JUST THAT SECONDARY SOURCES DON'T COVER MOST OF THE AREAS I EDIT. I have already given an example more than once. Especially you. I think I'm being clear enough. I use primary sources where secondary sources just don't cover the topic. Tertiary sources, as a rule, are a fairy tale. They are often biased (especially when it comes to sexuality, there is a lot of attention paid to the female sex, men are often downplayed), so I try to avoid them. I use systematic reviews and meta-analyses where I can use them. But I think it's obvious that meta-analysis also doesn't cover all primary sources. And not in all areas. So it turns out that there are simply no real reviews about the possibilities of "Nipple orgasm". There are only some primary sources from very important and reliable scientists. In this case, a delema occurs. Or worsen the Wiki article and not talk about interesting data that is still being confirmed. Or, in principle, delete the paragraph about nipples and their erogenous sensitivity due to the lack of sane secondary sources. I would not like to shorten the Wikipedia article due to the lack of secondary sources because it will be poor and boring. But this is my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvgFakka (talk • contribs) 09:29, December 11, 2021 (UTC)

I can’t speak to what is going on at orgasm, but in the edits I called to your attention in the Parkinson’s disease section of your talk page (above), the absence of secondary sources was not the case. In this edit, you added six sources, and then used five primary sources to argue back-and-forth what each of them say. And yet, one of the sources in that list of six is a recent secondary review. PMID 31282427 You could have used that source to summarize its findings, rather than trying to build a case from primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again SandyGeorgia. Yes, you were not mistaken. My activity decreases with every disappointment on your resource, because it becomes disgusting to me. I will probably still try to edit something when the desire arises, but it will be sluggish because there is no motivation. Next, I edit those articles that are interesting to me because I have something to add and something to say. I don't share Wikipedia's ideology. It just so happens that this is a very popular source, and I am for the objectivity of opinions, for their universality, so that people receive the full breadth of existing scientific opinions and data. This is called objectivity. Wikipedia does not allow this. I know there are articles that require improvement. But I'm not really interested in that. Anyway, what's the point? I will start editing there, my edits will also be deleted. A waste of time. I have an extensive baggage of secondary sources, but I have even more primary ones. I archive and sort them. I have something to take them. But there are dozens of times fewer secondary sources than primary ones. At the expense of 5 primary sources and 1 secondary. As I said, where I can and find a secondary source suitable, I add it. Where there is no secondary source or it is not suitable, I add a primary one (due to the lack of a secondary source).

All the best to you and your platform. You don't have to answer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvgFakka (talk • contribs) 09:38, December 11, 2021 (UTC)

Talk page conventions

Please sign your entries on talk pages by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. This page explains how to indent your responses so it is clear to whom you are responding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello EvgFakka! Your additions to Y chromosome have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Generalrelative (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]