User talk:Frankgyn

Your recent edits

I see that you've been making a number of edits claiming that certain contraceptives have abortifacient effects or other side effects. Please be aware that you must support any edit, and particularly edits having to do with medical topics, with citations to reliable sources, and that the reliable sources guideline for medical topics (WP:MEDRS) is much stricter than the guideline for other topic areas. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Thank you for the feedback. I am a practicing ob/gyn physician and consider proper informed consent to be an important ethical standard that all women deserve. Unfortunately, for political reasons, few women are given full information in this regard. I hope you will find that I do try to reference all of my edits with such clarifications with the most accurate and current scientific literature on the subject. Frankgyn (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits to risk factors for breast cancer

Hello. Regarding this removal, the material is being reinserted by a sockpuppet of a currently blocked/banned Wikipedia editor. Our policy is typically to remove such material, and that was the basis for my reverts today.

I'd be happy to further discuss the content with you at Talk:Risk factors for breast cancer. Just so I understand, do you feel that this text gives the reader a full overview of what is currently known about oral contraceptives and breast-cancer risk? It seems to me to ignore a large portion of available evidence and expert opinion in the field, which is why I ask. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If the original material was inserted the first time by a sockpuppet, I think such a move would be justifiable, however, I added the material after extensive research including correspondence with one of the primary investigators of the research. Therefore, yes, I do believe such data is important to give the reader a full overview of what is currently known about this risk. As in the tobacco situation, the fact that the data shows information potentially detrimental to very profitable industry would certainly give many reason to keep such objective data from public exposure. Since Wikipedia is not funded by the pharmaceutical industry in the way most medical journals are, this is the ideal venue where unbiased data should be allowed to stand on its own merit.Dr. Frank (talk)

Mastcell, thanks for the suggestion. As you suggested, I've openend a new category for further discussion of this matter: Talk:Risk_factors_for_breast_cancer#ContraceptionFrankgyn 03:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

1RR

Abortion articles, broadly construed, are subject to a 1RR restriction. This means that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours.

If you are unsure of whether or not an article or an edit falls under this sanction, please ask an uninvolved administrator.

Please visit Wikipedia:Edit warring for more information about what types of edits are or are not considered reverts for the purpose of 1RR, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion for more information about the sanctions, including standard discretionary sanctions, on abortion-related articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You've violated this rule with your recent edit to Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York. In spite of your previous edit-warring and other tendentious behavior, you will probably not be sanctioned for this edit, but be aware that future violations of the rules will indeed get you blocked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)