User talk:Giancoli

PVPS

Hi Giancoli. I moved PVPS because the wikipedia guidelines say article titles should use lower case, except for proper names. Diseases and syndromes are not capitalized unless they contain a proper name, e.g. Fanconi syndrome. PVPS is like e.g. complex regional pain syndrome not capitalized. --WS (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Disease and syndrome names are usually not considered proper names and are not capitalized anywhere on Wikipedia, so I don't think moving back would be appropriate. If you don't agree that is best discussed at WT:MED. --WS (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Vasectomy Page

Hi Giancoli, That's fine. I understand the openness of Wikipedia. I responded in the discussion page in the article "vasectomy" as well. I did use an example of why I used certain words (some of which you've gone on to change). I assume you will be spending time maintaining and editing the article, just as I have over the years. I can disappear for weeks or months at a time and find very little changed. I can come back a few days later and a lot changes. I usually will "clean up" "my" area of interest, and don't do much else in the article. I have to balance my interests here with my other personal pursuits as well, so what happens, happens!

One of the things I mentioned/suggested (only suggesting!) in the Vasectomy discussion page, was that you pursue the PVPS portion of the article given your experience with this after-procedure issue! I myself had a certain amount of lower-abdominal pain when jarring (vigorous sex) occurred. It seems to have subsided after over 3 years of dealing with it. That said, I've considered re-writing the whole section, using as much good info as could be found. It wouldn't be any time soon, but certainly it is an area of the article that needs work. Your thoughts? Best wishes, Dijcks (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Good Morning! I just read your message, and I think we will do the article proud. I am excited to have someone who also has interest and willingness to improve and make the article better! Of course we are not the only editors of the article, but certainly seem to be around the most! As I stated prior, I can disappear for several weeks, and come back to very little change (in what I've done), and sometimes come back and see complete revisions, or deletions. This is usually vandalism, and it seems to resolve by virtue of "bots" or other "keepers" of the site.. Let's see how it evolves, and I will also try to be less steadfast (as relates to what we work on together!.. as we move forward!

Have a great day, Dijcks (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Orchialgia

Hello. This message is to inform you that I removed your reference addition to Orchialgia. No text was provided for the reference, and it was causing a cite error. When you have the time, please re-add the reference with more detail. Thanks. Akerans (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Great Job on the PVPS article

Just a quick hello, and acknowledgment of the PVPS article that seems to be improving all the time! Best wishes, 96.247.7.197 (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OOPS, forgot to log in! Dijcks (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chronic pain

Hi Giancoli. I have reverted your edit to Chronic pain because the source cited doesn't mention medication and illness symptoms as causes of disturbed sleep. Please restore your edit if you can cite a source. Anthony (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You may want to re-read our "talk" exchanges again. Everything you said is true. I do disappear for certain timeframes.. So what?

In RE: The article Vasectomy. That's right , I do leave and come back. Actually I check in every so often, and, When I see big enough changes that don't help the article, I will step back in and make corrections, or additions as needed.

ANYONE can make changes to ANY article here BUT: The information MUST be correct, and verifiable. You (or anyone else for that matter) do NOT get to add misinformation to an article lest it be reverted.

Here's a couple of your edits that come to mind, out of several..

Example 1. You insist on using the word "Infertility" in lieu of "Sterilization" even though your word is INCORRECT for that purpose. LOOK up the definitions.

Example 2. In regard to traditional vasectomies, you insist on stating in the article that "Sometimes" the vas deferens is tied. THIS IS NOT FACT , and IS bad information. In traditional Vasectomy, it has, and ALWAYS was sealed in some manner. Only recently, (as in the recent past few years) have surgeons left one end "open" as described in the Variations part of the article. Even then, ONLY the testicular side is left open, whilst the other side MUST be sealed.

Additionally, I REMOVED the "availability and legality" information because it CANNOT be verified for any whole group of inhabitants of a certain country, Not to mention this IS the English version of Wikipedia in which this article resides.

Furthermore, you INSIST on erasing other good information OUT OF SPITE, some of which I didn't author.

REMINDER: You also do NOT own the article.

Students and potential patients USE this information, and it NEEDS to be correct, whether you like it or not.

Why not re read our very first exchanges where I CLEARLY stated my intentions regarding the article "Vasectomy". Since you so contemptuously stated, "He comes back every 3 months and undoes everyone's work". Besides the fact that I told you that is what I do, YOU are virtually the only one to "contribute" to that article over the past several months, and by the way, I"VE been around much longer than you have (as relates to that article)...

Although I mean NO disrespect to you, there is VERY LITTLE of your edits worth defending, as they are mostly word changes (semantics), and minor edits(add a word, take away a word), for what reason I have no clue, BUT, I am willing to take this to 3rd party for resolution if you like.

Really, I have ABSOLUTELY NO desire to get all worked-up with you over this, but when editors of an article make unnecessary changes or Worse, place misinformation in an article, I WILL revert it, as will any other reliable editor here.

MAY I SUGGEST ONE MORE TIME: Read your OWN "talk" posts, (as relates to our original discussions) and be honorable. Make good changes/edits, and NO PROBLEM. Make poor ones, expect me or other editors to fix them.

Best wishes, Dijcks (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The things you attribute to me were mostly added by other editors. What I said is true: you have a hard-copy somewhere of a poorly written and poorly sourced version. Every three months or so, you return and revert all edits back to your hard copy. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing your work. Try http://arxiv.org/ or something for that. Many editors, not only myself, have contributed extensively to the article in good faith. We have improved your grammar and added additional material and important topics such as legal status that you want to delete. Note that this additional section was not started by me but it is a good idea and should not be deleted simply because you want to revert to a poorly-sourced version with botched grammar. Though you have a high opinion of your own writing and a low opinion of others, the many edits to your grammar in the interim by a variety of editors demonstrate that your grammar can be improved. Moreover you tend to use obscure phrases that are not standard. Respectfully, I request that you allow the editing of the page to continue and consider publishing your "original work" somewhere else. Wikipedia is a community resource. Giancoli (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I've gone through several of your edits. A very high percentage of them are word changes (semantics) that you favor over someone Else's full editorial efforts (not just mine). So, not only is/was the original body/text NOT yours, you've gone in to change certain descriptive words simply for your own satisfaction/credit. Furthermore, the changes I've made recently are not against a group of contributors because there haven't been very many since you entered the "scene" (After me I'd remind you).

ALSO, more importantly, It is irrelevant whose work I (or you) make changes to, as long as it betters the article. Those are WELCOME changes. But, yours/mine/others edits don't get to stay because YOU say so. Who, really, gave you ownership or control over this article? Answer? You did. Not sure why, since others have been around it MUCH longer than you, OR me. Full bodied texts that I've contributed have been welcomed by previous editors, why?, because they did help the article. Until you came along, only small changes took place which were helpful and made it better none of which is YOUR intention. Your intention is to make your mark at others expense, and it's there for all to see, thankfully.

You have, over the course of several months systematically made nearly (or over) 200 changes to the ORIGINAL work of others including my work, in an attempt to take credit for, or "ownership" of, the article. Clearly, you are exactly the person you purport me to be, hence someone who wants "THEIR" work to remain in the public eye. And, it's not even your work! Like I point out later on, Wikipedia keeps a history that will prove, if it goes to that, who did what, and when. I am not worried, because I have contributed actual full, researched paragraphs of texts to the article using my own ideas/efforts. It's right there to be seen by all.

You made the remark that I want my edits to remain, because they are Um, mine? NO, that is NOT the case. I chose my work over inferior work (sorry, I don't mean to be critical of your effort(s)) , AND, this is after having several others read through it. I've forwarded the links to the article to teachers in Grammar School, High School, and College, all of which critiqued my work but at the same time agreed that there are no better, more readable edits. EVERYONE has a writing style, but that's not the problem.

I used 2 examples that I have a problem with, and now you claim that they are not your work? Then what is the problem? Why do you struggle with those changes? Do YOU get to decide what stays and goes out of PURE stubborn spite? NO.. Regardless of who edits the article, it must be correct and understandable by a large audience.

Using my previous, ignored examples:

In "medical" terms, the word infertile, does NOT fit over the word "sterile". It simply does NOT. It has been used as a synonym but that does NOT make it a better word for this example, in this article. AGAIN, By suggesting that the VAS does NOT (or sometimes does not) get sealed in a traditional vasectomy is a HUGE error. You are misleading the public with this edit. A reader can extract that information when reading about the variations.

Using my previous, ignored example again:
In RE: Availability/Legal Status.. Let me touch, one more time on the part about availability/legality.. The HUGE problem with posting information about a country's legal stand on vasectomy, OR the availability of the procedure in each different country is a BAD idea. Why?, because not every inhabitant of that country has the same rights so it is not 100% correct and therefore cannot be used due to Wikipedia's TOS or TOU. Legal status of ANY thing in ANY country also changes which not many people can keep an eye on, AND furthermore, it really does not help the article. It's actually irrelevant to the descriptive quality of the article, and therefore should remain vague, at least in reference to what some other country is doing in RE.

I can't take the time to individually critique every one of your 200+ edits. They are not all bad edits, but the main, important ones, YES, I will work to make changes to them. AND, it has nothing to do with who authored them.

The great thing about Wikipedia is that the record of what has been done is right there for everyone to see. I plan to revert to NOT my own work but to the most readable and correct version of the article EVERY time I see it change for the worse.. OR, until at 3rd party moderation, someone there makes the call and we'll go from there..

Finally, I will NOT be pushed away from Wikipedia so you can have your way, but thanks for the link, I might just add my work there too. Make good changes and they will stay, with my, and anyone's blessing. A reasonable person will leave what clearly is a better version of the article to be read by the public. I'm reasonable, believe me. This isn't kindergarten.

All the aforementioned aside, again, best wishes, Dijcks (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do about credit: your version was a good start but other editors, including myself but not only myself, have built on your work for the past several months. To revert all of our work, i.e. to make all of our work for nothing, because you have such a high opinion of your own writing, is not in the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. What I suggest is that you make new edits to the work that has been done. If you don't like the word "infertility", then change it: the best word in this context is azoospermia which is the correct medical term. However, it is not acceptable to insist that a particular hard-copy version that you wrote and sent to high schools, colleges, etc..., must be the version maintained on Wikipedia by reverting everyone else's edits. Actually the grammar in your version, to say this politely, is not the best grammar, and other editors made edits incrementally to improve your grammar. Moreover, you have several claims that are not cited, and which after being flagged long time ago, were removed. It is not fair to other editors, including myself, to revert to an old version that was already incrementally improved. Moreover, the section on Legal Status was contributed by a wide variety of editors, I was not the one who created it, though I did rename it, since it was before called Availability with the same content. I have worked hard to improve the article, and I do value your edits, however I believe it is unfair for you to come back every three months or so and try to revert to your previous version, which has been improved upon by many editors. Giancoli (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's get "vasectomy" to "GA" (Good Article) rating. Currently it's at "B".

Thank you for the compliment regarding the additions in the Vasectomy article. I do appreciate it. I am hoping we can bring this article to "GA" status in the near future, but it will take some work, cleaning it up, updating statistics, better citations when needed and continuing to add good, reliable information. I've gotten pretty close with getting most of the alternative methods, etc, and now it needs some touching up. Some more info regarding Chemical Cautery, and Vas Irrigation needs to be added, but I haven't gotten to it.. If you can, then go for it.. The PubMed sources have helped a lot..

Areas that need help..

1. Also, even though there is a separate PVPS article, I really think this article needs to be fattened up with a bit more in that part since it seems to be representing a larger number of patients.. If you are unable to add to that part, then at some point I might try. Again, PubMed has been a great resource.
2. Outlook could stand a better overall explanation of what to expect after the surgery. I cut it from another section I wrote.
3. Prevalence/Availability/Legality was almost ALL "citation needed", which is why I removed it. Poland? DOES allow vasectomy, for example. I researched this fact, which is why I struggle with this information being displayed.
4. Article Really needs better and more updated Post surgery statistics regarding outcomes. It works now, but some of it is old.

As you know, it has always been my goal as a contributing editor to provide the best possible lead, and first 3-4 parts of the article, and now I've added a few other parts that seem to work. I feel it is getting there ("GA")now.. That said, whether the format I've chosen is the best it can be, I suppose that's semantics. Bullet lists, or numbered lists.. Or leave it in a full paragraph. The current layout seems to work, but let's see.

"B" Rated medical articles Vs. "GA" or higher..

If you look at the number of "B" rated articles compared to "GA", it says a lot about the editors that can bring it to that level. That means you too. This is my goal for the article "Vasectomy"

Azoospermia, and/or oligozoospermia.. Also, It's interesting how when you hear/read a new word, such as the one you suggested "azoospermia", how many times it becomes noticeable when reading texts. OF course I've been researching to bring the article along but clearly the article could be raised in quality by adding such words (in the right places), (along with an initial definition link). That said, it's NOT my place to do that, it's yours. I wouldn't feel right using it in my syntax runs after telling you that I wouldn't use it. That said however, I think it has its place at certain points in the article. There is another description of <100,000 sperm that is a widely accepted "Sterile" status, called "oligozoospermia". You may find this information in certain research texts. It seems that the use of these words is/are still mostly reserved for medical texts, but they are creeping into mainstream texts now too.

It can be difficult to incorporate larger, more unknown words in to an article that needs to reach an average 8-11th grade level of readability. This is typically the level of grammar you will find in most encyclopedic texts as well, I'd think. Anything higher, and you cross over in to Professional and Peer-based texts, white papers, etc..

Anyways, I really want to keep adding to, and improving the article and have no desire/intention of being the lone-ranger. Come back, research, add, adjust, and let's get this to "GA" status.. Okay? Thanks again and, See ya there.. I've posted this in the Discussion page at Vasectomy as well...

Best wishes, Dijcks (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

FOCUS

Giancoi,

You need to focus on the mutual desire of all editors to IMPROVE their respective articles of interest, and stop snipping away / changing original researched/verified accurate content.

I thought we were past this but,

You CANNOT use the word "sometimes" in the lead paragraph of the Vasectomy article, at least not in the context in which you are trying to use it. I know that open-ended vasectomies don't occlude both sides of the vas, but the lead paragraph is NOT the place to incorporate that information. The lead explains what Vasectomy is, why people do it, and that's it.

Variations, and Details about how the surgery is done, is/are explained fully in each section as relates to open, closed, ligated/sutured, cauterization, and so forth.

Please consider reading in FULL this information (or at least section 1 and 1.1) .. [[1]]

Regarding the other change recently in Section 2.. ("Some studies [sic] show that"... ), this is also WRONG and there are Several HUNDREDS of cited/referenced peer reviews, statistical info, studies and more to prove this fact. Maybe you should click on those links. There is a difference between a successful surgery, that is, one that is/was successfully done, and the concurrent outcome(s), such as PVPS. I did, however make a concession and changed it to "Numerous" studies.... and so forth.

When you "correct" someone with wrong information it's frustrating. When you correct someone with good, reliable information, it's much easier to accept.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dijcks (talk • contribs) 15:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This response on your part was very unexpected. You should know that Wikipedia is about collaborative editing; the basic idea being that no one editor can write a perfect article, but through the collaborative "snipping away / changing original researched" content, an article better than any one editor could write emerges. What I find troublesome is that you revert all my edits, including the most recent edits: you claimed that all vasectomies use ligation in the lead, when you know well that there is continued debate in the medical community about the best way to perform vasectomy, with many opting against ligation. Furthermore, you cite studies that do not consider PVPS whereas the studies that do consider PVPS prefer no ligation. Please be more collaborative. Best wishes, Giancoli (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Vasectomy#Requested_for_protection

Greetings.

Please be advised I have requested that the Vasectomy article be fully protected for as long as possible. I shall respond to my original comment linked to above with either the duration of the protection or informing you that my request was denied. If you respond to me suggesting you would like me to do so, I shall also add such information to this section of your talk page.

Regards, A F K When Needed 16:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Dijcks that it is not yet the time for this. However, I emphasize that, by looking at the history, you can see User:Dijcks has been consistently reverting all my edits to insist on his own writing style and point-of-view throughout. Giancoli (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Giancoli,

Don't you think that comment is a bit unfair (about "my POV") given nearly all of the content I've written in that article is backed up by Pure, Cited and Verified Secondary sources? You are saying that I am reverting your work to my POV? Consider that Every time I've made a change, that I've backed it up with proof, citations, and general factual data. I challenge you to show me anywhere or any place in Wikipedia that I've forced my actual POV on you or anyone. I write and will always write 100% neutral here. As a matter of the number of actual edits, I have a low count, but a large number of those edits are from HARD work and long hours of researching. After that research, I have to turn the information in to original text. This takes a lot of time and effort.

I have tried at every juncture to work with you in tandem, citing reasons for reversions, and trying to be fair about the steps taken as we move forward. I've offered that we work together, bringing in new content, and getting the older content up to date. There is a HUGE difference between forcing a POV and insisting on good, accurate editing. And what make it even harder is when someone feels stepped on because of it. There are simply some things that need to be the way they are, and I've tried, and will continue to try to work with you or anyone else to better this and other articles as I become more involved..

If you like, I am willing to work with you on a list of items you would like to see changed, and we can hammer it out together, or take it to a "third opinion" as a first step bringing in someone else to help.

I hope this finds you agreeable to my thoughts, ideas and offer.. Best, DIJCKS (Ask) Efforts 23:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dijcks for your reasonable reply. Yes, this sounds like a good idea to work on a list of edits to improve the article. First of all, I was bothered by your reversion of my edits to the lead of PVPS. In addition to the correction of a clear grammatical error, my edits also defined PVPS as long-term genital pain which is the most accepted definition and the one used by the majority of the sources we cite in the article. After this edit, I'll restore those edits. Please don't revert them this time. Then we should start a list for agreement on future edits, as you suggested. Best wishes. Giancoli (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Morning Giancoli, (GMT -8 here!), One thing you do need to understand in my offer to work with you does not mean I am willing to compromise the articles that we work on. When I edit, I display my reasons for the edits in the edit summaries. For example, PVPS needed a shorter lead and a separate "symptoms" section bringing it in line with the formatting that other medical articles have.

Also, importantly, PVPS is NOT limited to the genetalia.(I posted and cited verified references to this fact)..

..here is what I've gleaned from our exchanges, and your last note:

• If you've worked on or added content, (PVPS for example) you are unhappy if I change or add to it.
• If I've worked on or added content, (vasectomy for example) you are unhappy if I defend it.

To a certain extent, I worked on PVPS to make a point and it worked.

Even though I feel that the changes to PVPS were an improvement, I mainly started working on it, to see how you would respond, and you proved my point. Sometimes the only way to help someone understand the concept of what's happening is to put the shoe on the other foot, which I did and you responded exactly as expected.

I think it might be best to find 1 or 2 persons/admins in the medicine project to mediate (or offer opinions regarding some elements of the articles being worked on). I'd planned on asking for expert help anyways, because I want to work to bring vasectomy in particular to GA status.

Giancoli what has happened, is that I am spending more time defending my right to work on, and improve articles lately, than I am actually working on them. I'm tiring of it.

What my offer meant:

• I am willing to work on ANY article with ANYBODY who is willing to improve it for the better.
• It means that if you have CONTENT that you want to add and it's relevant, then of course it should be added.
• It means that if you have more accurate or more current information to add that will improve the accuracy of the article then of course, do that.
• It does NOT mean that I will allow misinformation or incomplete information to remain in/on articles.
• It does NOT mean that I will "trade" with you on one article for another, (for example, you asking me to leave the article PVPS alone).

I listed myself as a WikiProject Medicine contributor because I want to work to improve as much content as I can in these sections. Just as you've asserted your rights to make changes to vasectomy, I assert my rights to make changes in to other articles.

In short, I CANNOT bring myself to leave edits in place that contain misinformation ~ which means I will revert the PVPS edit, but will try to leave as much of your edit in place as I can.

Finally:

I will start to put together a list of what is in dispute and look for guidance from the appropriate administrator(s), mainly because I am spending more time writing to you about why certain content should persist than I am actually adding content to the articles. I've lost several opportunities to write for the articles due to dealing with this and had hoped to start bringing other editors here for final help in bringing the current vasectomy to WP:GA.

I will post that list here and then await your input before taking this step however. Bye for now, Dijcks HotTub Pool 15:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine! I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities: Read our Manual of Style for medical articles and guide to Reliable medical sources Join in editing our collaboration of the month (the current one is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess Have a look at some related WikiProjects Have a look at the collaboration dashboard Have a look at the Trusted Sources recommended by Wikiproject medicine Have a look at the most powerful citing tool Diberri's tool If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or please feel free to ask for help on my talk page. Again, welcome!. Happy editing, JFW | T@lk 20:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine, tasks you can do:

}

Changes to the PVPS article

Greetings Giancoli,

I've gone in and made changes to the PVPS article that I'm confident will meet both your and my ideas regarding the information displayed there. I've left your info regarding "genitalia" alone, even though I don't feel it is the best use of that word (see the link to genitalia.. This is how I determine certain word placement within Wikipedia). Nevertheless, I've once again tried to compromise to make this a combined effort.

I also added a symptom list that can be added to, but I think I've covered all the typical areas of pain involved with PVPS.

Everything I do at/in Wikipedia is done AFTER researching and referencing reliable medical data. I hope you will find the recent edits to be a good compromise AND an improvement overall to that article. That said, PVPS really needs a LOT of work to get to a higher level of quality. It'd be nice to see it improve, AND the area of PVPS in the article "vasectomy" improved as well. I haven't had time to work those areas yet. Working on PVPS was a suggestion when you first came to Wikipedia which I see some changes have come about, but overall the articles still need a lot of work. I'm urging you as a contributing editor to push those areas to a higher level of quality, (since this is your writing Bias and POV) and that effort will automatically raise the quality of both articles, which is a win-win. Dijcks HotTub Pool 21:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S., I see you added content to existing messages, out of order on your talk page. I happened to see it, since you've steered me here from PVPS. It does not flow with the days/times and so I almost missed it..

I've answered to your text in BOLD

(giancoli):"This response on your part was very unexpected. You should know that Wikipedia is about collaborative editing; the basic idea being that no one editor can write a perfect article, but through the collaborative "snipping away / changing original researched" content, an article better than any one editor could write emerges."

(dijcks): I agree. Any editor can make changes/additions that are valid and verifiable. You can too, without bias or POV slant.

(giancoli): "What I find troublesome is that you revert all my edits, including the most recent edits:"

(dijcks): Not true. I don't revert anything that makes a better article, and you cannot make claims that I've reverted your edits when many of them were my edits to begin with! Even then, I try to compromise. Look at the history.

(giancoli): "you claimed that all vasectomies use ligation in the lead, when you know well that there is continued debate in the medical community about the best way to perform vasectomy, with many opting against ligation."

(dijcks): NOWHERE in the lead does it say that all vasectomies use ligation as a method of vas occlusion. It says "Tied/Sealed, in a manner which prevents..", those terms of which include several different methods of vas occlusion AS STATED IN THE LEAD. Open-ended vasectomies are covered in the text, and this method is currently NOT in high use. There are countless studies supporting the methods as stated in the article. Your own PVPS is causing you cannot continually bias the article to your individual POV, making it misleading to those reading it. The word "sometimes" is very misleading without substantial explanation. This is why it comes later.

(giancoli): "Furthermore, you cite studies that do not consider PVPS whereas the studies that do consider PVPS prefer no ligation."

The studies are, verified medical studies. PVPS is a separate subject-matter. You act like I am trying to ignore PVPS. Take another look at the history of our messages. Even so, you cannot allow your own PVPS bias and/or experiences to prevent neutrality when editing the vasectomy article. In other words, you cannot slant "vasectomy" and the definition because there are no PVPS studies that support your position.

(giancoli): "Please be more collaborative."

(dijcks): My efforts here at Wikipedia are fully available to anyone wanting to question my willingness to be a collaborative partner with others here. I am happy to work with editors who make..

• neutral editorial efforts.
• use of only verified data to support their additions.

(dijcks): I hope this offers agreeable answers to your message. I don't want to go back and forth over these things anymore. If you make changes to the articles that focus on the particulars of these continued debates, I really don't see that we have any other option but to seek outside help within Wikipedia by posting links to each version of the text that we are struggling with, at which time either an administrator can "rule", or give guidance.

I hope, one more time that we can move on. Thanks you, Dijcks HotTub Pool 21:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved the details of our debate to WP:3O

Giancoli, We need to put these few debates to rest so we can both move forward, therefore I've moved to enter in to WP:3O, and we should receive some input from other editors regarding this I hope. To be honest, I'm tired of it all, and want to get on with editing here.

Thank you,

Dijcks HotTub Pool 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Response

It is clear that Dijcks tends to overreact about small edits. Overall, I see his recent edits and contributions as fairly good, however there are points where he places incorrect material that is not cited, or where he takes a particular side in ongoing medical debates, citing sources for only one side of the argument. His grammar and spelling also need some work. He tends not to be collaborative, instead approaching disagreements by trying to bully anyone involved, which is a point of concern. One edit from me prompts three or four long responses on my talk page, in which he attempts, sometimes poorly, to justify his point of view. He says that open-ended vasectomies are not worthy of mention in the lead, yet large-scale studies (including http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1493712) show that open-ended vasectomies are safer in the long term, and they are widely performed in practice, becoming more and more standard (see for example http://www.contraceptivesbirthcontrol.org/24-the-open-ended-vasectomy.html). After all his overreaction and claims of bias, none of which is true, he modified the lead to include open-ended vasectomies as I had originally suggested. Why the initial bullying instead of initial collaboration? A similar situation exists in the PVPS article where he is currently trying to extend the definition of PVPS to include abdominal pain though he has no citations for it. When I flagged it, he cited an article that doesn't mention abdominal or pelvic area pain outside of the genitalia at all (see the diff here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post-vasectomy_pain_syndrome&diff=423813885&oldid=423798068), and also tried to support his claim with another article about pelvic pain that has nothing to do with pvps at all, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21056360. PVPS may extend to the abdominal area, but, if it does, he needs a reliable citation to support such an unusual claim. It is important that User:Dijcks learn how to collaborate with other editors and not overreact and revert every small edit or to assume bad faith or bias on the part of other contributing editors. It is important that the articles be well-sourced and readable. I think we are on the path to this, but some work still needs to be done. This should not be a one-man project by Dijcks but rather a collaborative effort. It is upsetting that each of my good faith edits, even small innocuous ones, prompts a tirade on my talk page where he tries to bully me with every mechanism at his disposal. At this time, I request that all future discussion take place on the talk pages of the respective articles, rather than on my personal talk page, so that other editors can participate in the discussion. Respectfully, Giancoli (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Giancoli. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
Message added 11:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:TRUCE offering.

WP:TRUCE

I would like to get past what really has been a very long and involved argument over some pretty minor stuff, so I am asking that you consider my offer of a truce, and WP:let it go.

Each of us, in our own way, haven't "Played-nice" but, at the same time, we have not edit-warred or caused any disruption of the article's progress. The article nevertheless, has been temporarily shut down, which I vehemently oppose. We've broken no rules at WP:PP, at least none that I can see.

I have recently come to the realization that, at best, all we are is 2 people somewhere in the world with a similar interest in a few areas of Wikipedia. And, all we can do is find some common ground on which we can move forward with our mutual interest in these articles.

What I am offering / suggesting:

• That we WP:Let it go because all that will happen is a sanction, which is silly because we are not getting paid to do any of this. And, to be "punished" well that's humiliating. I assume you have a life and so do I. We can either keep arguing, or do what we came here to do, hence work on the articles of interest. Arguing is not an option.

• That we make real efforts to be more flexible in what we want to see in the articles of interest.

• That we try not to nitpick every change.

• That personal assaults and insults stop.

• That we both take a position of mutual respect.

• That we remain neutral in our efforts and focus on the factual content of the article.

• That we bring our differences to the talk page in a peaceful manner.

My offer is genuine (the other ones were too), but you must understand that I will still call in to question, or make changes to content that has bias or is incorrect, and I understand that you would the same thing. Understand also, that the content there represents a huge amount of work that yes I've contributed, and yes, sometimes I make mistakes. I am the first person to admit this fact, if/when it's pointed out. If I make bold reversions, they will be for good reason and I will do my best to be objective if/when I make such changes. As well, I will do my best to be less "abrupt" in the edit summaries moving forward.

My only major concern, (and it is a valid concern), is that your PVPS experience in some cases interferes with getting factual data that relates to the Vasectomy Procedure (that is the surgery and the actual information about vasectomy procedures) in to the vasectomy content.

What I mean to say is

• vasectomy is a (Surgical PROCEDURE).
• PVPS is an effect of vasectomy (a Medical CONDITION).
• Vasectomy "affects" a PVPS condition in some patients. The data about PVPS may not have a place in the article when it slants the informational value/description of what a vasectomy procedure actually is.

The article vasectomy is best served by incorporating information that applies to what it actually is, and secondarily what it may cause, hence PVPS. That said, even if PVPS were taken completely out equation in/of the article, vasectomy would persist in its definition.

ANALOGY: IF vasectomy caused gout for instance, it would NOT change the statistical data regarding the success of vasectomy procedures. PVPS is no different, this is why I've not been concerned with finding data to support it as relates to the definition of what vasectomy is.

I've said this before as well. In order to raise the quality of the articles we NEED reliable statistical data for both articles, and this is a lot of work to get right. I've have suggested before, that you help with this too. What I am saying is, there is room for both of us to get our Wiki-fix and make the articles better.

There is a place for PVPS related content both at vasectomy and PVPS. I've offered many times that in some sort of collaboration, or better, that you improve those areas of content, but currently they are stagnating it seems, and this IS, your area of interest.

Whatever you choose to do however, I will try to be more tolerant and also try to less "obtrusive" in my explanations of what I do.

This is my offer, which I hope will be met with a favorable response, Dijcks HotTub Pool 00:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		for the incredible progress made on a very contentious article. Well done; recent efforts are a model of collaborative work. - Philippe 01:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A new medical resource

Please note that there is a new freely accessible medical resource, MedMerits (to which I'm a medical advisor) on neurologic disorders. A discussion on ELs to MedMerits and medical ELs in general is currently in progress ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world"). Presto54 (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)