Hello, Wgnome0613. Like I stated here, articles do not get tagged with the WP:MED banner simply because they include medical information. WP:MED has generally restricted its WP:MED banner to articles that are mostly medical or are otherwise substantially medical. See this and this discussion for further detail. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- While I disagree, i didn't contest your reverts of it... It's really not worth GAF over. I did tag the safer sex statement in the lede Non-penetrative sex as needing clarification because I think it over-simplifies the safety aspect in an irresponsible way. The safety aspect applies to the HIV transmission aspect but not skin-transmitted STI's. I did not revert your revert but did add a flag for a 3rd party to give an opinion. Thanks and happy editing. Wgnome0613 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you disagree with the WP:MED banner aspect, you are disagreeing with how WP:MED generally applies that banner; like I stated, it is clear from the discussions I linked to above how they generally apply it. I am a part of that project and I sometimes see the banner removed from topics that are not mostly medical or are not otherwise substantially medical; the editor who usually removes that tag in such cases is Jmh649 (Doc James). I didn't revert you on adding that tag to the Non-penetrative sex talk page, especially since that article substantially discusses health risks, but Jmh649 or some other editor might. I am not as strict about that banner; I removed it from the Frot talk page because I knew that it would be removed by Jmh649 or some other WP:MED editor eventually. As for the STI transmission matter, seen here and here, it's not only about HIV transmission being reduced. As you know (since you thanked me four minutes ago for the expansion via WP:Echo), I commented on that STI/STD matter while expanding the lead in that regard. There is not much, if anything, that we can do about WP:Reliable sources calling such acts "safe sex" or "safer sex"; for example, see this current discussion at the Safe sex talk page.
- No worries... I was just popping in to do some updates in another topic area and then poked around some. First time on WP in months and getting serial whapped by a script spouting policy citations, yow :-D ... anyhow, i was putting my retirement notice back up anyway, policy lashings aside ;-) and the revision looks fine, thx for letting me know. cya. Wgnome0613 (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes we have WP Sexuality and I agree with Flyer that that is sufficient. The problem with adding a large number of these topic to Wikiproject Med is that it gets us bad press. We have had published comments that all our top viewed topics are sex related.
WPMED is about medicine and while a few sex related topic overlap sufficiently to be included not all of them do. Our most important topics are disease related and we keep our scope fairly narrow.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello there! I'm looking for some feedback on the Ricardo Azziz page - could you take a look-see and edit as necessary? I've done a fair bit of work on it (and apparently somebody else from my same IP has been, as well...) and have a few more ideas, but would rather get someone to take a look at it first. Could you take a few minutes? Thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ricardo Azziz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reproductive endocrinology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|Thanks for all of your edits on the Ricardo Azziz page to make it better! GRUcrule (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)|