Talk:Vasectomy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Secrecy

I got my vasectomy done in Pittsburgh (It went just fine, I'm very pleased with the results), but I was sort of surprised at how the priavcy bit went above-and-beyond what most doctor's offices ask for, even in this patient-privacy obsessed age. I had to tell the office exactly who they could speak to at my home about this - by name.

Is this because of modesty issues, or the fact that I live in a very Catholic area, or that a lot of guys get snipped without letting their wifes/girlfriends know? I've always wondered.--Pittsburghmuggle 07:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably mostly modesty. Some people would be mortified if their friends and co-workers were to find out they had been snipped, because they confuse their fertility with their virility. Maybe that particular practice had had a bad experience with a meddling relative of a client who found out something they shouldn't. --Slashme 10:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to look up the definition of Virility- the masculine property of being capable of copulation and procreation [1] Seeing a Vasectomy is a sterilization operation which permanently stops procreation, then I think a vasectomy has a lot to do with virility. Rearden9 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you cherry-picked your definition a bit there...

Free online dictionary, "virile":

  1. Of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an adult male.
  2. Having or showing masculine spirit, strength, vigor, or power. See Synonyms at male.
  3. Capable of performing sexually as a male; potent.

Wiktionary, "virile":

  1. Being manly; having characteristics associated with being male, such as strength; exhibiting masculine traits to an exaggerated degree such as strength, forcefulness or vigor.

Merriam-Webster, "virile":

  1. having the nature, properties, or qualities of an adult male; specifically : capable of functioning as a male in copulation
  2. energetic, vigorous
  3. a: characteristic of or associated with men : masculine
b: having traditionally masculine traits especially to a marked degree
  1. masterful, forceful
Note the etymology, by the way, directly from the Latin word for "manly". --Slashme (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't think cherry picked anything. I was curious, simply looked it up on dictionary.com and found that the word virility has a significant association with "procreation, potency, function as a male in copulation". This may be a semantics game but the previous post stated that it did not have that definition; I found that the word indeed did have a procreation conotation. In the previous post, I pasted the first definition for virility from WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.[2] For the sake of completeness, all the definitions listed at dictionary.com are:
"The quality or state of being virile; developed manhood; manliness; specif., the power of procreation (Websters Unabridged)"
"the quality or state of being virile: as a : the period of developed manhood b : the capacity to function as a male in copulation (Mirriam-Webster)"
"1. The quality or state of being virile. 2. Masculine vigor; potency." (American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary)
"1. the masculine property of being capable of copulation and procreation 2. the trait of being manly; having the characteristics of an adult male (Wordnet)"
"1. The quality or state of being virile; manly character. 2. Masculine vigor; potency. (American heritage)"
"1. the state or quality of being virile; manly character, vigor, or spirit; masculinity. 2. the power of procreation. (Random House Unabridged)"

Rearden9 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lifelong Post-Vasectomy Pain

I thought would preface this thread in defense of the original post below. There is now plenty of written proof of chronic post procedure pain as a result of vasectomy. Do the research about post vasectomy pain and you will find the numbers are high enough to make it part of the decision-making. Tubal Ligation is still done at higher risk (during the procedure) but has significantly LESS post procedure pain statistically, than vasectomy. The original post discusses the lack of disclosure regarding this chronic pain. This is because the evidence is just now coming to the mainstream, that is, being made available in the public domain. I also had the procedure, and have some pain when having rigorous sexual relations which cause lower abdominal pain, enough to sometimes interfere with those 'relations'. Everyone's reaction to the vasectomy will be different, and yes, most will come away from it pain free, or with pain that is not significant. Enough others will have pain significant enough to have regretted the surgery. I personally am on the fence.

The most significant complication of vasectomy is a lifetime of severe continous post-vasectomy testicular and epididymal pain. As a sufferer myself, I know from experience that such pain destroys quality of life to the extent that few other sicknesses can compare. The fact that a procedure, which is advertized to be safe and simple, has a rate of chronic and severe long-term pain in between 5-30% of men (depending on the severity of pain that qualifies for the particular study)), needs to be explained in detail in any article with the goal of elucidating the truth rather than advocating for a cause. Doctors often minimize this complication and sometimes, as in my case, they don't even tell their patients. If patients knew the truth, most, certainly myself included, would not have had vasectomies and this would cut deep into the pocketbooks of some urologists, hence the deception. Wikipedia is a place for truth, not for convenient, money-making "truths" that benefit only urologists and leave innocent people in lifetimes of severe, unbearable pain. Vasectomy is an unnatural procedure and the fact that some men seem to have no pain from it is the fact that should be surprising. Since Wikipedia is designed to cover the truth without the filter of powerful, deceptive, money-grubbing people, we need to create a section that outlines clearly the incidence and severity of post-vasectomy pain. luketh

  • Your non-NPOV anecdotes are not as interesting to others as you might think. If you ever have surgery again, consider yourself informed that all surgeries have a potential for complications. Also read the forms they give you to sign before the surgery. If your doctor truly did not inform you than you have the makings of a lawsuit. More probably he did inform you, you signed forms that you understood the risks, but all you actually absorbed was that it was a routine procedure that normally does not have significant side-effects. Besides which, who is to say you aren't just an anti-birth-control zealot making things up? I'm not saying that's true, but you don't make a compelling case for modifying the article without compelling evidence that your experience is significant and not uncommon. - Gripdamage
My vasectomy cost $500 and there are no side effects. You think a doctor would lie about issues like this and risk malpractice suits to make five hundred bucks?MichaelBrock 03:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Mine went fine, too. No problems. A lot of the people for whom the procedure went well don't talk about it probably. How many guys do you know who talk about how well their vasectomy went?
PVPS certainly does not occur in the majority of patients, but it needs to be adequately addressed, because it is the most troubling complication of vasectomy. The minority who do suffer claim that the pain is really life-altering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luqmanskye (talkcontribs) 23:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Guillebaud is busy with a prospective study. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a control group, but his results so far are interesting:

CONCLUSIONS: We have found that in the cohort of men undergoing vasectomy in our unit, one in 10 experiences some form of scrotal discomfort before the procedure. We have found that 7 months after vasectomy one in seven asymptomatic men experienced scrotal discomfort of some kind, although the average level of discomfort is not great. Paradoxically, fewer men with scrotal discomfort before the procedure experienced discomfort at the same point afterwards. These early data indicate that CPVTP is a genuine entity, and longer term follow up in this group will allow further evaluation of how this pain evolves over time.

This from: T.A. Leslie, R.O. Illing, J. Guillebaud and D.W. Cranston, PD-10.03: A prospective assessment of chronic post-vasectomy scrotal pain, Urology, Volume 68, Supplement 1, 28th Congress of the Societe Internationale d'Urologie, 28th Congress of the Societe Internationale d'Urologie, November 2006, Page 35. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VJW-4M4KY0D-3H/2/dcc70676bd582cb70f361df61a5a9d59)

I don't really have time to hack this into the article at the moment, but if anyone here has the time and inclination, go for it. --That guy whose balls also ached from time to time before his snip 23 July 2007 12:47 SAST

Discussion on origins of article

Shouldn't this have its own article? --Tothebarricades July 1, 2005 05:55 (UTC)

  • I agree. The article history suggests this has never been anything but a redirect. – drw25 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Since it does now, I adjusted Defrentectomy to redirect here instead of Sterlization Kuronue 23:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Psychological effects

There should surely be some data on this? Rich Farmbrough 16:07 16 July 2006 (GMT).

How long must a man wait after vasectomy before it's safe for him to have sex without getting anyone pregnant? It would be nice to add that to the article.

  • There is no answer to that question as such. A semen sample is tested shortly after the operation and again a few months later. Only after the second has tested clear is it safe to rely on the vasectomy. Unfortunately, from memory, I can't say what the time periods are, but if someone else knows this information should be added. Emeraude 15:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • One month after the operation is when the first sample is tested, two months for the second. It's been 3 weeks now since I 'supplied' the second sample and I've not heard anything yet.80.42.170.0 22:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Thinker

As a rule of thumb, for all other mammalian species it is 60 days before you can be confident there are no active spermatazoa left in the epididymes. I se no reason why humas should be any different. Dlh-stablelights 22:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vasectomy vs. Tubal ligation

What is the point "stronger motivation for sterilization in the man" supposed to mean? And why wouldn't the same for a woman be a reason for tubal ligation? I actually don't get that point. 69.124.143.230 04:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is basically a list of why people choose vasectomy over tubal ligation. One reason would be that because the man in question feels more strongly about sterilization than the woman. The statement is not intended to mean that men in general are more strongly motivated to be sterilized than women are. Maybe this should be reworded for clarity. --Slashme 10:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I get the general idea, I'm just asking if this article is making some claim that couples, in general, prefer to choose vasectomies over tubal ligations because of some "preference" for sterilizing the male? I mean isn't that the whole idea of the list in the first place -- what determines "stronger motivation" for sterilization in the man? It's kind of like listing the topic of the list itself as one of its own points, you know what I mean? (or am I just assuming wildly as I am oft to do?) 69.124.143.230 00:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Can there be more information on the Mortality rates of both choices?

"Couples who choose vasectomy are motivated by, among other factors:[14]

The lower mortality of vasectomy[15] ChuyDawg (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tubal ligation mortality about 4/100,000 in industrialized countries (mostly due to anesthesia). For vasectomy, less than 0.1/100,000.[15] In less industrialized nations the mortality rates for both are higher, mostly due to infection (though for tubal ligation anesthetic overdose and hemmorage also increase mortality), but still tubal ligation has higher mortality than vasectomy. (e.g. Bangladesh 19 vs 16.2/100,000). Ninaad S. Awsare, Jai Krishnan, Greg B. Boustead, Damian C. Hanbury, and Thomas A. McNicholas (2005). "Complications of vasectomy.". Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 87 (6): 406–410. PMID 16263006. doi:10.1308/003588405X71054.  Zodon (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Recovery

people who had a vasectomy should follow the doctors rules if they don't want to do this then they shouldn't have one




"For the next 24-72 hours, the patient should remain at home, sitting or lying for most of the time." What? Is this for wimps? Everyone I know (and myself) had the op late afternoon and was at work the next day, albeit taking things gently, especially avoiding sudden movements when sitting or standing. There are clinics who advertise to a vasectomy during the lunch break.... Some clarification please. Emeraude 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Having had the operation myself just 3 months ago the "remain at home, sitting or lying for most of the time." is completely justified. After the operation the patient may feel fine after half a day (as you and your acquaintances did), however swelling may occur(as it did in me) and the feeling is not unlike the one you get after having been kicked in the testicles, the only difference being it can last for about a week. I had mine done on a Monday and wasn't capable of working properly until the following Monday when the swelling had gone down and I was then (as you were) taking things very gently.80.42.170.0 22:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Thinker
"For wimps"? It's not about the pain.. it's about the fact that a very thin line has been severed in a very sensitive area of the body. Better to err on the side of safety than get pain in your testicles any longer than you have to have it.--Pittsburghmuggle 07:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Chronic Post-Vasectomy Pain

I just finished reviewing Ref 14. I believe there is an error in this article due to a misreading of Ref 14 by the author of this article. According to the article:

The incidence of chronic post-vasectomy pain is estimated to be between 5% and 30% depending on the severity of pain that qualifies for the particular study.

This is in contrast to this quote from Ref 14:

Eventually, the pressure would become too great for the compensatory measures; increasing to uncomfortable levels due to the lack of a pressure valve or sperm granuloma. Although this is an attractive hypothesis, it suggests that PVPS is a natural progression of events in the estimated 5%–30% of patients who do not develop a sperm granuloma following vasectomy. However, only a small percentage of postvasectomy patients (less than 10%) develop PVPS. This suggests that other factors besides the lack of a sperm granuloma must predispose patients to the onset of epididymal congestion and pain.

According to this Ref, less than 10% of vasectomy patients experience pain. The 5-30% referers to the number of patients who do not develop a sperm granuloma following vasectomy.

I hope this helps. the preceding comment is by 24.177.14.58 (talkcontribs) 15:54, 7 January 2007(UTC): Please sign your posts!.

Hmm, it does. I'm not great at maths myself, but feel free to Be Bold and edit! --RedHillian 23:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ref 14 doesn't seem very reliable. It's best to reference the primary studies. McMahon et. al. (1992) report the incidence of PVPS at 33% of vasectomized men. Choe and Kirkemo (1996) give 19%. The discrepency seems to be in the severity of pain that qualified for PVPS in the particular study. Luqmanskye

"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate"

Note discussion at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" re replacing occurrences of "failure rate" with "pregnancy rate". I would also like to see the same change on this page. Please make any comments there. --Coppertwig 03:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Note ongoing discussion at above-mentioned talk page including specific mention of this article, and involving need for citations to support the numbers given in the infobox and need for definition of "failure rate" as used in the infobox on this page. I assume any discussion will continue there for now at least; if related discussion moves here please put a note there about it. --Coppertwig 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Misreading of Study (Or is It?)

Compare this passage:

Though much of the content that can no longer exit the body is reabsorbed by these macrophages, examination has shown that, over time, essentially every vasectomized man also experiences an epididymal blowout, which is the formation of a sperm granuloma in the epididymis, to relieve the high intra-luminal pressures in the delicate epididymal tubules.

With the abstract of the study referenced:

Pressure-mediated effects of vasectomy on the epididymis and resolution of this effect via microsurgery of the epididymis are reported, and a technique of vasectomy modified to limit these pressure effects, making vasectomy more reversible, is suggested. Assuming mastery of microsurgical techniques for vas reanastomosis, the lack of which is one reason for low reversibility of vasectomy, other problems are still encountered that result in low sperm counts and demonstrable infertility. All vasectomies produce micromechanical, pressure-induced changes; 1000 vasovasectomies observed through the operating microscope always showed some degree of dilatation of the lumen of vas deferens and some congestion of the epididymis with dilatation of the epididymal tubule. Rather than augmenting infertility, the presence of a sperm granuloma seems to be a safety valve that decompresses the vas and prevents build-up of excessive pressure; this microscopic study discovered epididymal blowouts with extravasation of sperm from the epididymal tubule into the interstitium, causing secondary obstruction. Simple suture of the vas deferens is not sufficient for reanastomosis, but suturing of the inner lumen to the vas directly to the one cut epididymal tube leaking sperm must be performed. Open-ended vasectomy has a greater chance of reversibility as well as greater likelihood of spontaneous recanalization, a problem with solutions if research is started.

The study is completely misrepresented in the Wikipedia article. The study did not find that all men experience an "epididymal blowout." Rather, it found that all men experience some microscopic dilation of the epididymal tubule and lumen of the vas deferens. The study went on to look for reasons why some men have problems with vasectomy reversal and found that some of these men have a secondary obstruction caused by a sperm granule which formed as a safety valve.MichaelBrock 03:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You actually have to read the article. You had no basis for deleting the original text without reading the supporting article. If you don't have access to the article's full text then look at the author's website where he says "after vasectomy, the testicle continues to produce sperm and fluid normally. This causes a build-up of pressure within the vas going all the way back to the epididymis. In most individuals (emphasis added) this pressure causes a "blow-out" in the epididymis, similar to a leak in the thinnest part of a tire that has more pressure than it can handle. Sperm then leaks into surrounding tissue and causes scarring and obstruction." This quotation comes from the section "The Need For Epididymal Repair (More Complex Cases)" at http://www.infertile.com/treatmnt/treats/mvr/mvr.htm. Note that the article cited (of which you quoted only the abstract) strongly supports the original text's claim of "essentially all". Luqmanskye 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Vasectomy 10:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)How soon after ejaculation are the sperm absorbed into the body? How many consecutive ejaculations would it take for "epididymal blowout" to occur? alanVasectomy 10:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sperm is stored in the epididymis and is released either by ejaculation or being absorbed into the body. "Epididymal blowout" is just a fancy term for the epididymis running out of room and sperm moving into the vas deferens. It can form a granule there, which acts as a "safety valve" (sperm can collect there when the epididymis fills up). This has no consequence unless you try to reverse the vasectomy, in which case this secondary blockage may need to be removed so sperm can continue to travel all the way through the vas deferens. Vasectomized men ejaculate just like normal, as sperm only makes up less than 3% of the fluids ejaculated. The only difference is the sperm itself stays in the body and is absorbed. It has no effect on libido or anything else. MichaelBrock 19:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Michael, epididymal blowout does not involve the vas. The sperms leak directly from the epididymis into the scrotum. When it is in the vas, it is just called a sperm granuloma. Doksum 23:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Flavor?

ew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazykenny (talkcontribs) 02:54, 18 May 2007 That's right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.199.127 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Point

There is a great deal here about how vasectomies are carried about, its after-affects and success, which is good, but there is not a lot here discussing WHY a man might choose to have a vasectomy. Is there any sense in adding this anywhere? CO.

Hi, there. Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of what you have written. This provides the time and date stamp.
As far as reasons for getting them, perhaps you could search online for research performed involving polling of men who had vasectomies and the reasons for having them. Joie de Vivre T 15:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


It is very simple we humans are a serious infestation to the planet earth. I wish there was more research into temporary male sterilization so they could make their contributions to population control. The best reason to get one for ALL men is the fact that as of 2012 there will be 7 billion people on Earth...Crazee Cracker68.49.238.17 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Virtually the ONLY reason for choosing to have a Vasectomy is for Birth Control. This is addressed in the article and cannot really elaborated on from a population control POV (bias), as it is an elective surgery.. Your POV regarding human "infestation" as you put it, may be of interest, but it would be difficult to add without creating a non-neutral POV, which is against Wikipedia's Neutrality Goal. There may be articles at Wikipedia that might enjoy your contributions as relates to World Population, and such similar interests.. Best, Dijcks (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Post procedure pain

For those wondering my case seems to be similar to another who posted on this talk page. On the day of the procedure I began to feel better by the end of the day, I had it done in the morning. Mine was done using a single incision and the physician then directed the vas deferens to the incision to interrupt. After roughly two days it was just a persistent soreness, then on the 5th day a much worse pain persisted that was similar to the pain level on the day of the procedure. Given that I have not fully recovered, I will edit this posting to reflect current status. Somehow, this is having a cathartic effect that psychosomatically reduces pain levels. Ardoreal 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How long ago did you have this procedure? Delayed pain is not uncommon though most do not experience this. Possible causes include prematurely overdoing it (feeling fine on day 4 and going for a ball-jostling jog, for instance) or developing a sperm granuloma (sometime you can feel a little pea-sized nodule). The good news is both of these causes usually resolve themselves quite simply if you take it easy. Also as you have noted pain, and ball pain in particular, is highly susceptible to suggestion, so if you can relax and realize that it's not so bad and it's going to go away you are likely to feel better a lot faster than if you fret over being doomed to a perpetual ball-ache (an Extremely Unlikely proposition). NTK 03:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The procedure was done 5 days prior to the above posting. Mainly I had taken it easy, but then felt able to do some chores. I went and mowed a portion of our lawn and the next day was when the pain had become noticeable. It is now 11 days after the procedure and the pain is completely gone. It "feels like my old self" so to speak. The incision is still recovering but it has healed to the point that I can now flex and walk normal to how I use to. The sutures were absorbable and are gone from the wound now. For those worrying about pain, your mileage may vary but it is a great thing when you return back to normal. Sex drive is all still there as well.Ardoreal 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
There you go. Also, you may well have experienced an even easier recovery had you found a urologist skilled in the no-scalpel procedure, which involves only one small puncture and no stitches. NTK 14:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation added by anon.

An anon (User:71.251.34.77) added a bunch of misinformation over a year ago to this article. Some of it was overblown recovery information that has since been removed, but it also included changing the "Benefits" from "local anesthesia compared to general for female sterilization" (which is true, except for new and uncommon procedures like essure for female sterilization that can use local), to "local except in some US states like NJ that now require "full" anesthesia," which is totally false. I find it unbelievable that ANY state requires general anesthesia for vasectomy, and a quick Google shows that this is total bullshit with regards to New Jersey. Given that vasectomy is an incredibly simple outpatient office procedure, no state could possibly legislate to require general anesthesia, which carries a small risk of DEATH. I know some doctors will allow general anesthesia if the patient wants it, but most won't offer anything more than some sedation for the squeamish, if that.

It speaks very poorly of Wikipedia that this uncited, outlandish statement added by an anonymous IP editor survived for more than a year right on the sidebar. NTK 03:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous vasectomy reversal?

I know this is known to happen. A man I know had had a vasectomy and was convinced his wife had been unfaithful as she had gotten pregnant. It turned out his vasectomy had simply healed itself. I'm trying to search for citations of this, but no luck so far. Anybody want to help? Professor Ninja 13:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, found it immediately after posting this. Do I ever feel silly. Professor Ninja 13:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
A really good link on that is available here http://www.vasectomy-information.com/moreinfo/recanalisation.htm . The term is called "recanalization". Although it is an extremely low occurrence my physician mentioned it to me as one of the risks for failure. Though he stated that 1 in 300 suffered this problem, I can't find sources to ratify that.Ardoreal 14:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Rasmus

I've reverted the claim that the procedure for a Vasectomy is also called a 'Rasmus', mainly on the basis that I can find no evidence of any such thing, the cite tag wasn't responded to and thee's a pile of similar edits by the IP editor who made the claim, all of which have been reverted as well. --RedHillian 14:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"A recent study..."

I have removed to references to "A recent study by John Guillebaud on 5000 patients studying the effects of PVP" as this is nothing close to a verifiable source. At the moment, the statements attributed to this vaporous "study" remain with a "citation needed". Barring a source in the near future, I'll axe the associated claims. Mdbrownmsw 13:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

%

In the first source cited for 15% to 33%, it says "Of 396 replies, 108 (27.2%) patients complained of some testicular pain following their vasectomy operation. In 88 (82%) of these 108 patients the pain was brief and was not defined as CPTP, while 20 (19%) patients had pain for > 3 months;". That's 20/396, or 5%. - Mdbrownmsw 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this correction. I had been briefly confused by the 19% figure. I have also added a citation for a study, McMahon et. al., with a 33% PVPS incidence. User:Luqmanskye 23:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Electrocautery procedure

When I had my vasectomy done a few months ago, the procedure involved electrocautery of the vas. Can anyone look up some more information about it? There's a study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=4009138 which indicates the electrocautery method is more successful. I was surprised to see that this page doesn't mention electrocautery at all. 82.152.210.132 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a reversal?

Is there really a reversal, or is this just another evidence of faultiness of Wikipedia. --Kid Sonic (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is - it's called Vasovasostomy, and is also covered in the article under Reversal. --RedHillian (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How old do you have to be?

I live in NY. How old do you have to be to get a vasectomy in NY? --Kid Sonic (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia probrably isn't the place to ask that - you'll be able to get much better medical advice from a professional local to you (WP reference desk guidelines on medical advice). Also, this talk page is for discussion of the article itself, not the issues within it. --RedHillian (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vasectomy-Dementia Link

The above section is referenced, currently within the article - it needs to be changed to a proper referencing & citation and put into more wiki/encyclopedic style, but it's all referenced. --RedHillian (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who originally added this reference but in retrospect I think perhaps it was a mistake. This was a single small observational study relating to a rare condition and has never been replicated. Given the long medical history and ubiquity of vasectomy I am no longer sure that this single paper merits a reference--it's more along the lines of "breaking research news" and nothing has come of it since. The paper seems to have gotten little attention after some initial popular reporting, so I don't really think it passes notability muster and there is a danger that having added it to Wikipedia I have artificially raised the notability of the paper by the Wikipedia reference. Having talked to doctors about it medically it is of little or no significance at this time. No criticism to the paper's authors intended. I would appreciate non-ideological feedback before removing it again though. NTK (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems like sometimes giving brief coverage of something (and clearly indicating limitations of the study) may work better than simply not mentioning it. (May cut down on drive-by edits adding it, which are often not as good as something that has been refined here for a while.) The coverage could certainly be condensed; if there are further references commenting on it to the effect of what you wrote here, adding the perspective might help. - Just a thought.
But if want to remove it on basis of undue weight, that seems okay too. Zodon (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Condensing lead

It seems like the lead has expanded too much, more of the details should be down in the article, with a shorter summary/introduction in the lead. I split it up by adding a couple of section titles. I am not so sure of the "side effects" section - should some of that be in complications? Would it make more sense in a mechanism of action section?

Now the lead could be expanded a little to just summarize/introduce the method. Zodon (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Keepers" of an article.. and my "ownership" of the first 3 sections of the article "vasectomy"

To any editors of the article "Vasectomy". A little over a year ago, and having before that gone through a vasectomy procedure myself, I re-wrote the first 3 sections of this article. The main reason was to create a better understanding of, and better readability of, the Article in question. I used my experience, and research to make the changes. None of those changes were met with opposition with the exception of minor revisions. Never did I write those sections to "step-on" or oppress any one (or multiple) editor of the article.

Over time when reading different content in Wikipedia, I've noticed that there are many time, individual "keepers" of different sections in this and many other articles, that is, several editors work on and support on article to the article's betterment.

I was prompted to write this in answer recent changes to "my" part of the article. I consider myself to have enough logic and reason to have written it, (by virtue of limited changes to it over time) and also can read edits to determine if changes are for the better (based on my own knowledge and research if necessary). In many cases, I watched my original text edited (or even reformatted) and didn't revert the changes, even though I didn't feel the changes were all that much better. But they didn't seem worse either, so why not?

When a writing "style" comes in to make bold changes, to me, that's stepping on another editor's feet, if it truly does not add to the betterment of the article. It's the "tomato" or "tomaato" argument.

There have been recent edits to the first 3 sections of "Vasectomy", in my and a few other opinions, they are not better, or more understandable than the original text, and therefore, I've insisted (by virtue of reversions) in returning it to previous edit-states. I do NOT mean to upset any person. I do NOT mean to be a bully or a stubborn editing counterpart with other editors. But, at the same time, I would like to see my original effort remain in tact, unless a substantially better overall text is written.

COMPROMISE? Obviously, I cannot stop anyone from "mercilessly" editing my original text/work, but..

But I do ask that in compromise that unless substantially better information is added or it be written in substantially a better, and more readable format, that it be left mostly alone except to correct any misinformation! (if any) or grammatical error(s) (NOT writing style). I suppose this could be an invitation for several folks to "rewrite" these parts of the article, but I have put in a reasonable amount of time and effort to create a good and easily understood first 3 sections of the aforementioned article Dijcks (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi Djicks, I see you undid all my edits, though I worked hard to improve the article. It is great that you wrote the original version; however this is Wikipedia where articles are continually being changed, and where all must be free to edit. Let's compromise, but not by undoing my work. I am happy to defend my edits. If there are particular edits with which you disagree, I would understand that, but I do not understand wholesale undoing of my work. Please let's continue to discuss any future changes here. With best wishes to you....Sincerely... Giancoli (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


Hello Giancoli,
Thanks for following up on my "talk" regarding some aspects of editing this article. I am totally ok with your suggestion(s). Interestingly, most posters/editors, take on a specific area of interest, and you seem to have personal experience with PVPS. Why not focus and improve that area of the edits? (not that you cannot work on any parts, but this does seem to be your area of both personal and researched experience. Of course we ( you and me ) have gone through the procedure. I spent a lot of time looking up and researching vasectomy prior to doing the original edit all those months ago.
One example of semantics as relates to writing style.. The phrase "entering the seminal stream" , or "entering the seminal fluid". Which is better? Depends. In this case "stream" fits as the medical profession uses this syntax when describing the events surrounding male orgasm. "Stream" suggests/depicts movement, "fluid" does not. For sperm to "enter" it MUST be moving. This just one example of why I've chosen certain discriptive words!
Best wishes 96.247.7.197 (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

More Research for Temporary Male Sterilization Measures

When will more research take place that will address the serious overpopulation issues the human race ignores. We have turned a total blind eye to an ongoing and increasingly disasterous situation. Real population control measures could include temporary sterilization of all humans after puberty and after application of a license to parent showing a promising human contribution rather than just another waste of oxygen and overburdened resources.

Real population control is in dire need or earth will fail miserably. All humans need to stop reproducing every 3 years for 2 and than the earth will have time to heal its wounds and replenish its resources.

Roland Tatts;a.k.a. Crazee Cracker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.238.17 (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Correspondence between User:Dijcks and User:Giancoli (Please note interspersed text)

(The following interspersed dialogue was moved from user:Giancoli's talk page by user:Giancoli) (note dates))

Hi Djicks, i am glad to see that you defend your original work, but there are a few changes that I view important. I will try to make these changes with as little impact as possible. Best wishes....Giancoli (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


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)


Hi Djicks, your suggestions sound good. My focus then will be on other sections of the article..Also your help on other sections would be greatly appreciated.....Best wishes.....Giancoli (talk) 03:16, 15 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)
(END of interspersed text)

Current Discussion Continued Here

After repeated reversion of the article by User:Dijcks to an earlier version from months ago that had already been improved upon by numerous editors, I edited with the comment: "every 3 months or so, djicks comes back and reverts everyone's edits to his last edit. wikipedia is a community resource. this is no longer acceptable. many editors have contributed to this article in the past several months." Giancoli (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


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 (from a MEDICALLY defined standpoint).
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dijcks (talkcontribs)


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)


────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Let me quickly try to address your last post..
Before starting, I'd like to address one thing that you keep posting. That is, that I have a "hard copy" of this article somewhere, or that I have this work posted to colleges or schools etc.. My efforts to this article are unique to this site, and do NOT reside elsewhere EXCEPT those websites that have utilized the legal right to reproduce it. In simple terms, my work here has ONLY been submitted here. However, if it does reside elsewhere, great!, that must say something about my effort(s) here.

That said,

First of all, it has everything to do with credit, else you wouldn't be insistant on leaving bad information in the article. We are all proud of our contributions to this or any article we work on, and YES, I will even agree that I prefer some aspects of my (or some other editor's) original text to other edits (mostly yours), but NOT because I have a personal vindetta against you (or anyone else). In fact, it's not personal at all. I subscribe to Wikipedia's TOS and TOU, that states in part that content (encyclopedic) MUST be correct and verifiable if possible. At the very least, it must be correct. Some of your content is misleading (which I've covered in part).

If you look back to our original discussion(s) when you came in (after me), you will see that I addressed the areas of the article I'm interested in, hence the first parts, and yes, I've also written some other parts of the article as well. You keep insisting that I am collaterally erasing other people's work, and this is simply not true. In fact, in many cases, I've RESTORED their work at your doing. Why? because it's persisted longer, and doesn't deserve to be removed because you want to make changes, one word at a time. By the way, you can also easily see, from the history, that my work is my own unique effort, NOT cut and pasted from anywhere, except maybe the "history" section, which was properly cited/redirected.

The part you've insisted that stay, and also claimed you are not responsible for, "availability and legality", is fine BUT, it is impssible to keep up with the current legal and/or availability status in any country, AND have that information be valid.
Consider this: Some of the statistical information in this article is nearly 20 years old, but I have left it in place because I have not been (nor have I tried to recently) able to find newer information http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.1992.tb15494.x/abstract;jsessionid=6706A6D96928E75A84090080123CC0B4.d03t02?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+2nd+Apr+from+10-12+BST+for+monthly+maintenance. Can you see the difference here? It'd be great if that statistical information would be updated, especially over the "availability and legality" section because as stated, it is irrelevant to the descriptive quality of the subject article. It's our job to "Define" vasectomy, not tell someone where to get one. Men considering vasectomy in their respective country(ies) will probably know what to do (both from a legal AND availability standpoint), but they might however, enjoy the information here regarding the procedure, and outcome(s), don't you think? For a long time, I've considered removing the whole section, but some may find it interesting to know that it is (or was) illegal in some countries.

Let's go back to your suggestion that "azoospermia" fits better than the word sterile. Good one. But again, if you read the definition (which I did for the first time, thank you), it still does not fit. Why? Because it ALSO suggests a genetic or pre-disposition to a disease. But yes, it could be used. Would I use it? No. Most people won't know that word, unless they've been introduced to it for reasons that probably include med school! So, to place it there would be ONLY to serve one's ego. That's not my interest. I'd rather someone get good, understandable information.

I really don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, step on toes, or be completely stubborn about what stays or goes, but the fact really is, that you ~ and virtually ONLY you, have made edits to this article since we "met" all those months ago. That means I could make your argument (reverse our positions) and I could actually support it.

You mentioned listed un-cited content. Yes ~ this is going to happen especially when newer information comes to light, or that information is considered mostly correct by virtue of its persistance here and most other places in reference. Content WILL be difficult to "cite" when it is relatively new or controversial, and your concerns about this are not limited to just content that I've written. It is, after all, the "collaborative" effort you are talking about.
If you see fit to remove it, most editors are not going to complain.

In closing, It goes both ways. ALL content you've changed WAS someone's work regardless of who's, because again, it wasn't your original contribution to begin with. And all those other editors you are talking about who I've damaged according to you?, It's a very short list (as relates to edits to their work, in the context of this argument), and, I'm sure they can speak for themselves if it is a problem.
Before you came along, this article was maintained by a small handful of individuals, including me. That unique and original work put in, persisted for quite a while before you popped-in. In my opinion that persistance speaks volumes over anyone's chronic whittling-away at that content. Anyone can see what I am talking about, which I'm glad for that.
If you (or anyone) can make changes to the article, I just wish those changes were real improvements, OR more importantly, some good new and important information.
Tell you what, how about we 'edit' from here? ..see where it goes? ..up to you.

Once again, best wishes.. Dijcks (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


Many of your recent edits to this article have been very good, Dijcks, and I am pleased to compliment you for them. Best wishes.. Giancoli (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


VasClip technique, and how, or whether to continue to include it in the article.. VASCLIP or VMBC, LLC appears to be out of business.

Although currently, the VASCLIP product and the method for use is still included in the "techniques" or Variations section of the article, I've NOT been able to find reliable company information or reach the company for referrals regarding use or availability of same.

Furthermore, the posted telephone numbers at the website and the website itself are no longer in use. The website has been taken over by a generic "place holder" page, at the hands of its new owner. The company, VMBC, LLC appears to have its home offices in Minnesota, USA, but the telephone numbers are no longer in service. Here is a link to the Businessweek site which includes company information.. http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=2263398 Here is a link to the VASCLIP website.. http://www.vasclip.com

Anyone searching might notice that the latest entries regarding VasClip stop around year 2004. There's not much after that, and most (if not all) physicians seem to have kicked its use to the "curb".

In actual practice, the additional expense was a problem with many insurance companies, and the failure rate after the use in practice, seems to have killed this product off..

Also, I cannot find financial or other information in any directory(ies) that would indicate the company is still in existence, and/or functioning under a new name or alter-ego. Therefore, I think it might be wise at some point in the near future to make mentions of "VasClip" having been in use at some point, but remove it from prominent use as relates to options in/when having a vasectomy performed.


I look forward to any input that any editors to the page might have.. Thank you.. Dijcks (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Giancoli,

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. This is my goal for the article "Vasectomy". I hope all contributors here can agree to that. The best chance we have, Collectively, is to pay attention to how the Featured Article or "GA" articles (especially the medical-based articles) are written and formatted and work to get the information posted in a similar outline/fashion.

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dijcks (talkcontribs)

April 09, 2011 ~~ Giancoli , please focus on the mutual desire of editors to create Neutral, good and accurate articles. Please read the Wikipedia article on Neutrality/Reliability/Vandalism. (link below)

Giancoli,


PLEASE try 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.

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.

I feel that you are making most of the edits/changes in good-faith, but there are some guidelines to how articles should be written. You might consider reading it (or at least section 1 and 1.1) .. [[3]].

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, within the cited articles themselves. Maybe you should click on those links and check it out? This part of the article is referring to the success rates of the actual surgery, as relates to patient health/comfort and successful outcome. It has NOTHING to do with long-term outcomes relating to PVPS. I did, however make a concession and changed it to "Numerous" studies.... and so forth.

If you are willing, we can go to "Third Party" or "Mediation" within Wikipedia in regard to some of these issues. I am willing.


Another concern: It's Subtle, but as an editor here, I'm also concerned that some of your contributions are biased due to your own PVPS experiences. Neutrality (as well as Accuracy) is very important, and there is no place for PVPS "slant" (several editorial comments in re) in this article. It is important to leave the emotional component of your own PVPS issues out of the article. A low percentage of patients have PVPS otherwise nobody would have the procedure done. The point here is that this is no place to incrementally position the article in a way that suggests that all men will have Post Vasectomy Pain Syndrome, UNLESS you can provide statistical proof in the way of Expert data (like all articles here). Without references to qualified Secondary or Tertiary sources, it's not good to add this slant. Like I said, it's subtle, but I can't help pointing it out, as you have shown an interest due to your own unique vasectomy experience.

Finally, When you "correct" someone with wrong, uncited information it's frustrating. When you correct someone with good, reliable information, it's much easier to accept.. I hope you will focus on the latter. --Dijcks (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not about right and/or wrong. It's about where the information needs to go. There are citations, and sources riddled throughout the article that any editor can peruse to make a decision or opinion regarding the WP:3O in question. Dijcks HotTub Pool 23:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested for protection

Dijcks, Giancoli: I wish to inform you both that I have requested full protection for this article for as long as an Administrator is willing to apply. I don't doubt for a second that you are both editing in good faith, and I certainly mean to neither ignore nor belittle your attempted discussion of the article here on it's talk page. However, neither of you have ceased directly editing the page yourselves in favor of discussion - so I am forced to conclude the discussion is so far insufficient. I shall respond here with the duration of protection (or that my request was declined) as soon as I become aware of it.

Please contact me if I can be of any help to either of you. Regards, A F K When Needed 16:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


Request for Protection was Declined Note Admin Comment Below:
Declined - I'm going to trust that you'll both take a deep breath and calm down here.
Might I suggest an article content request for comment? - Philippe 22:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


Moderation Process?
AFK,
Currently the correct processes that need to take place, are happening (according to Wikipedia dispute processes), as relates to certain edits in the article. I am not sure how much you've looked in to the history of the article, but you will see that a good amount of continued edits/information has been added to the article by me over time.
There are, however a few areas of dispute, that currently seem to be following the process leading to moderation/third party, again, the next step in the process I believe.
The history of edits in the article speak for themselves, as everything I have added, or protected is verifiable and in plain view.
Please message me if you have need of further details. I'm not really sure how you fit in to this process currently. Also, your request for protection seems a bit ahead of itself given that the article itself continues to evolve in a positive way, except for the few areas in dispute, no?
Thank you,Dijcks (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi.
The point of discussion is to replace edit-warring; not to excuse it. Currently it has encouraged 0/2 users to cease editing the article (or even blatantly reverting each other); that is a failed attempt at discussion. As I've said; I'm sure you've both been editing with the best of intentions, however this is disruptive and needs to stop.
"I'm not really sure how you fit in to this process currently." — That's how wikis work; people see something wrong, they try to fix it.
Why do I think there's a problem? Let's look at just the edits from today, shall we?
A) ::::One Two Three
B) OneTwo
C) Today the article has only been changed six times! That is far from productive editing; it is - particularly in the context of this - blatant edit-warring.
The best of intentions can lead to the worst of actions. I'm aware you both mean well but this is doing more harm than good to the project. A F K When ::::Needed 17:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


I don't agree, and really am concerned as to what brought you to this particular article in the first place. Looking past that, you might take a look at the edits that took place in February 2011 by user:giancoli, nearly ALL of which are taking away of a comma, adding a comma, or adding a word in place of another word, etc.. :::::This is fine I guess, but I've stepped in when content is not correct. And compromised when it makes sense to give a bit as well.
Your interaction at this juncture is a POC in of itself, but let's address your remarks as to the links to the edits. Each edit is/was protecting accurate content, or compromise to changes, which is the core of Wikipedia's goal moving forward, so, they were beautiful examples of how articles evolve and ultimately get better. But, yes, there are some reversions as well.. ..important ones.
I hope your request is denied, because I don't see, at this point how it would be productive to the future of the article.
Sincerely, Dijcks (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


New sources and how to incorporate them

Hi Editors, I've got couple of sources you way want to incorporate. Please use the {{cite pmid|123456789}} and {{cite doi|1234567890.blarg}} when you cite the references, and consider going back and cleaning up all the others, too!

The most recent systemic review and update I could find is from a Canadian journal, so I don't know how impacterriffic they are, but there is useful info.

The Cochrane dudes have a review of occlusion techniques and scalpel vs no-scalpel technique.

Noting your edit-warring over some vs numerous studies supporting no-scalpel techniques please keep in mind Wikipedia:MEDRS. Given that it's the Cochrane boffos, you can simply remove the 'studies' wording. "The "No-Scalpel" method, along with vas occlusion by cauterization with fascial interposition, provides the safest, most reliable procedure outcome.<ref>{{cite doi|10.1002/14651858.CD004112.pub3}}</ref> Rknight (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


..funny you would say that, since your suggested syntax is the way I originally [4] inserted it into the article and it's so well-known that I could have added several more citations. This was also a matter of debate with the other editor given his PVPS bias/experience. I supported fully the facts but he insisted that it it not be so "definitive" even in the face of tons of data. There are more examples of similar such edits over time but these stand out.
Regarding citations.. I am having trouble with my Citation "tool" and therefore, currently there are a few that need work.
Although I've been around for a couple years, I will fully accept that I also have a lot to learn.
Thank you for taking a look over here.. Dijcks HotTub Pool 13:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


Third opinion

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on inclusion of the word "Sometimes" in the article's lead):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Vasectomy and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

In accordance with Wikipedia:Lead, the lead section of an article should both introduce the article and summarize its most important aspects. In the words of that guideline, it "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article". In other words, read who go no further than the lead should walk away with a basic understanding of the contents of the article in total. The following are recommended lengths for leads of articles, relative to the size of the article in general: For an article of fewer than 15,000 characters, one or two paragraphs; for an article of 15,000–30,000 characters, two or three paragraphs; for an article of more than 30,000 characters, three or four paragraphs. There will, of course be variation mandated by topics. But clearly this article's lead is much briefer than is recommended, and while it does provide an introduction to the subject, it is not an overview of the article.

As of this writing, the lead of this article tells me that "During the procedure, the vasa deferentia of a man are severed, and then tied/sealed in a manner which prevents sperm from entering into the seminal stream (ejaculate)." The question here is whether if I read the lead only my understand of vasectomy would be accurate. If there are forms of vasectomy, traditional or otherwise, which do not follow that procedure, the lead needs to make that clear, even if only by so little as adding a statement that there are alternative procedures which do not follow that model. Whether the word "sometimes" is best to reflect that variation is, of course, related to the rest of the text selected and to the relative frequency of these variations. If the "traditional" method does follow this process and it is still by far the more prevalent, "sometimes" raises questions of undue weight. Other language, such as "traditionally" or "generally", may be more appropriate.

In a nutshell, my opinion is that the lead overall needs to be considerably expanded to include a concise summary of the contents which follow, and that this does include noting variations in the procedure other than the one described. I cannot render an opinion on the use of the word "sometimes" without seeing it in that context. Altering what exists simply to read something like "During the procedure, the vasa deferentia of a man are severed, and then sometimes tied/sealed in a manner which prevents sperm from entering into the seminal stream (ejaculate)." would not serve the larger need of improving coverage in the lead and might not be appropriate, if "sometimes" remains the norm.—Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


Thank you very much for taking a look Moonriddengirl, and offering your opinion.
A very important element in the lead is/are the words, "tied/sealed in a manner..". Those words are the key syntax indicating that there is more than one method (as opposed to the conventional methods) of successfully completing the procedure. The problem with including the syntax "sometimes tied/sealed" is that it would cause confusion to a new reader because it suggests that the vas deferens may not need to be tied/sealed at all! This, of course is not the truth.
In short:
The simple fact is, at least one side of the vas is ALWAYS tied or sealed else we'd have a lot of unexpected babies running around!
Open-Ended Vasectomy:
The word "sometimes" comes from the other editor's knowledge of "open-ended" vasectomy techniques where only ONE side of the vas is sealed. But, the other end (prostatic end), HAS to be sealed or there would be recanalizations, or other spontaneous regeneration/connection of the vas tubes. I simply did not want to cause this sort of confusion in the lead, having fully described this method later in the article.
Also, "open-ended" vasectomies have not come in to mainstream use.
I am going to incorporate a bit more in to the lead as you've suggested, and I may be able to settle the other editor's desire to display information that covers his interest in this aspect of the article.
I want to say again, Thank You for your kind time and opinion given, Dijcks HotTub Pool 14:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


Expanding the lead may take care of it, then. But I would suggest that the "open-ended" vasectomy description could also use with clarification. I have no familiar with vasectomies beyond what this article tells me, and while I can understand the intent of the language now it is pointed out to me, it did not occur to me on first reading that "The testicular end of the vas deferens is not sealed, which allows continued streaming of sperm into the scrotum" means that the prostatic end is sealed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


I understand. I've redone the lead, and believe it addresses several (if not all aspects) of the original debate while using your advice to incorporate briefly all elements of the article. At the very least, it should be a good starting-block to work from as other editors come in to help. One thing though.. ..I've always worried about making leads to medical articles too long, given the complexity of most medical subject matter, in other words, the lead ultimately starts to become an article! lol.
Anyways, I've worked on it, and so let's see.. As always, Thank you! Dijcks HotTub Pool 16:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Response

It is clear that User: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) 21:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


My plan at this point is to continue to work on the article, and not spend time debating over what may never come to an end. That's NOT what I came to Wikipedia to do. There's been an Opinion Rendered by a seasoned user in Wiki-medicine as well as an Administrator who I hold in high regard and who has taken the time to make suggestions. I plan to follow that advice given by virtue of that admin's greater knowledge about Wikipedia policy.
I can only hope that other editors (hopefully with some expert background) will come in to help improve it further, since this particular article is very high on the list of viewed articles at Wikipedia.
Irrelevant Fluff:
You are making arguments here (and providing links) to/about edits made to another article (PVPS) which is only causing further confusion in and to the debate here. If there is a problem with an edit there, make the corrections. That's what Wikipedia is, a collaborative effort.
And In closing:
I will reiterate ( which I am forced to do ) that ALL of my contributions, messages, etc., are available to be seen in the history (including messages to you and/or others here). They will show that I do not bully anyone, and that I've been civil, polite and have tried to compromise when possible. That said, when I feel strongly about an issue, I will do my best to support it. I do NOT perceive my contributions to be of more value than anyone else's, but I can say with pure and clear confidence, that they represent my own time-consuming efforts.
Even with this CONSTANT debate, I've moved forward to add substantially more content to this article. Dijcks HotTub Pool 22:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


I think you just like to argue. Look at this ridiculous behavior: I corrected a spelling mistake at this diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vasectomy&diff=423934226&oldid=423933435), the only change for that edit, and you reverted my edit with this diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vasectomy&diff=423937378&oldid=423935824) to reintroduce the spelling mistake. Basically you are just being ridiculous and, yes, a bully. In light of this, I am restoring the spelling fix. Please be aware of the Three_revert_rule#The_three-revert_rule. Giancoli (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


Might be wise to note that affect is a verb and effect is a noun in the edit summary! Rknight (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


Agreed. However, he has an unreasonable habit of reverting my edits, even edits that clearly improve the article, and that with any other editor could be reasonable marked m for minor. He makes a big deal out of all my edits, no matter what size, reverting most of them, and making bullying responses, filled with false claims about the quality of my edits, on my talk page and here. The edit summary was "spelling fix". I would assume that a reasonable editor should look in a dictionary at least before reverting an edit with that edit summary. In general if he doesn't improve his behavior to become more collaborative (not just claiming to be so, but actually being so), I will have no recourse but to seek assistance to restore my right to make edits. At this point, he has lost my trust, because he claims to be collaborative but continues to revert all my edits. Giancoli (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


I need also to remind of WP:CIVIL. I can see that the conversation has become heated, but it is against policy to refer to another editor as "ridiculous" and "a bully." Our purpose here is to create the best article on this subject that we can, and differences need to be set aside. There are proper procedures for dealing with contributors with whom we disagree (WP:DR sets out many of these), but our behavioral policies are important to keeping the project working smoothly. Dijcks, please try not to "undo" good faith edits without explanation; this is also encouraged by WP:CIVIL, under "Avoiding incivility". It might be helpful to remember that, while sometimes difficult to work with, the opposite pull of strong opinions can help create a more complete and neutral article. As I gather that you're both very interested in the development of this article, I hope you will be able to put aside past differences to move forward collaboratively. Truce is not always easy, but worthwhile. We can't have a battlefield here. :)
Back to our purpose, as a person largely unfamiliar with vasectomies, I find the lead much clearer now. Thank you. I do understand the desire not to make it an article within an article, but I think that this successfully skirts that line. If there are other issues with which a third opinion might help, I'm happy to do what I can, but I would ask you to focus on issues with the text and be specific. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


Thank you, Moonriddengirl, for your reasoned response and this helpful information. As I see you are an administrator, you may be able to assist us by serving as a moderator of sorts. If I encounter continued issues with Dijcks's behavior, for example reversion of reasonable contributions, including spelling and grammar fixes, or refusal to cite or remove uncited claims, I hope to be able to bring it to your attention for a third-party opinion. Best wishes. Giancoli (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I am happy to try to help mediate interpersonal conflicts as well, but just as with text will be best able to help wtih specific issues. Hopefully, there will be no need. Sometimes, forward progress can in itself go a long way towards easing tensions. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Thanks very much for your willingness to help us out. For a particular issue right now, from this diff, you can see that he introduced the idea that PVPS can include abdominal pain. Possibly it can but he has no citation for this, so I flagged it with this diff. He subsequently removed my flag with this diff. The first reference that he added, which I note is a duplicate of a reference that already exists in the reference list, doesn't mention abdominal pain at all and focuses instead on testicular pain. The second reference "reference 6" that he cites in the edit summary and which he added, shouldn't even be in the article, as it is about general pelvic pain and not about pvps at all, providing no link at all between pvps and abdominal pain. In his response above, he seems to imply that it would be fine for me to remove these claims. However, I would not want to do so without a third opinion. Also, I would like your opinion on removal of "reference 6". The article is in French so, unless Dijcks can read French, there is nothing to rely on beyond the abstract. In the abstract there is no link between PVPS and "Pain in the testicles, groin or pelvic area(s) upon ejaculation" which is the context in which he has cited it. Looking forward to your third opinion. Giancoli (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Moonriddengirl, now I have another issue. See this most recent diff by Dijcks. There are several problems with the edit in this diff. First of all, his edit summary is "Pure example of WP:CTDAPE and WP:DIS (asking for a citation for a common knowledge word "traditional") ~ Added new information regarding Vas Irrigation, etc..". This is a highly combative edit summary that is not assuming good faith. The diff to which he is responding is merely a flag of his use of the term "traditional vasectomy" which is not in the entire PubMed database, and which I had never heard used until he introduced it. There is a large variety of vasectomy methods that have existed for many years. In response, he cites an article that has nothing to do with "traditional vasectomy": http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004112.html. This article, for which I have read the full text, is merely a comparison between scalpel and no-scalpel (basically using a hook instead of a scalpel) variants of vasectomy. Within this dichotomy, there are many variants of scalpel vasectomy and no-scalpel vasectomy: for example there could be a no-scalpel open-ended vasectomy. The article is ONLY about the comparison between scalpel and no-scalpel. It says nothing about "traditional vasectomy" which is a term not used anywhere in PubMed. Moreover, he uses the same citation comparing scalpel vs. no-scalpel, which he has repeated a second time in the reference list (see the doi of the reference), to claim "Given the aforementioned data, the "No-Scalpel" method, along with vas occlusion by cauterization with fascial interposition, provides the safest, most reliable procedure outcome." This is false: the study compares only scalpel vs. no-scalpel. It says nothing about vas occlusion, cauterization, or fascial interposition. Given his combative edit summaries, I do not feel comfortable correcting these false claims without a third opinion. And even if I did, without a third opinion, he would simply revert them as he has done with all my recent edits. I do note that he has reverted two of my edits today already, nearing the three revert rule, however, I wish not to press this unless necessary, but rather only to improve the article. Best wishes. Giancoli (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Although I've vowed to be done with the constant banter, I feel compelled to point out relevant facts as relates to the above:
Affect vs. Effect:
  • As to the words "affect" or "effect" (by the way this is an issue of grammar, not spelling). At one point (while I was writing that section), I had the syntax different wherein the word "effect" was correct. Later, I moved the sentences around, rearranged syntax and overlooked the change. So yes my revert "trigger finger" did get fired prematurely. That said, I would point out that everyone makes a mistake now and then. Also, since it was my original text to begin with, and since I am dealing with (a week's worth of distraction) what has been a clear case of WP:CTDAPE and WP:DIS, (maybe I could be forgiven this error).
OBSERVE:
One would HAVE to read through everything ~ going back to last year when this individual came in, in the first place. Already at that point I had premenitions of WP:CTDAPE, and one only need to look through the history of incremental edits over time, to the article. To my dismay, I think most folks (including administrators) can make an argument for doing something else other than read through all this but this is the only way an admin would see what is going on. Therefore I feel I will never truly be able to get support based on WP:CTDAPE, or simply some support for the comparative efforts here. It's just become so much, and all I wanted 2 years ago, was to improve this article. In one of Giancoli's messages, he attempted to push me to another website to write/contribute, again WP:CTDAPE, to which I replied that he would not push me away from Wikipedia.
Even in light of this continued pressure, no one can say I haven't been civil or understanding or even cordial (albeit I do push for what I believe/know) with Giancoli. I have NEVER insulted him, in fact I've tried to nurture a combined constructive effort, (again, one must read the messages and article talk pages to know for sure). But as prior-stated, I WILL defend my efforts, and I WILL defend the integrity of Wikipedia, where I am able to.
Recently this edit by Giancoli in another pursuit of constant disruption made this WP:DIS (again with the long term underlying WP:CTDAPE intent) edit where he is promoting this disruptive behavior [[5]], asking for proof that the word "traditional" be verified as an acceptable use for the procedure "Traditional Vasectomy".
Moreover, Giancoli would distract those who are willing to help with a claim of me causing him reciprocal stress at PVPS. As far at that reference/citation, there IS data supporting those facts, albeit to a lesser extent, for example pain upon ejaculation, which IS Pelvic/Abdominal in nature, and documented. One must read the entire article.
This article "vasectomy" is in the top 5,000 Most Read articles at Wikipedia. I simply will not be crucified for my original efforts, and defending of those effort against an individual that over time has done nothing but resist any attempt at True Collaboration, and more importantly the bettering of the article. (somebody please look at the history?????)
Consider that in nearly EVERY message to Giancoli, I've offered and nearly Begged to work hand in hand to improve this article. He clearly wants to be a Wikignome with heavy feet (consider all of his edits herein, especially in January/February 2011), and this is needed but then Please Don't Stop The Efforts Of Those Who Are Willing To Contribute To The Bulk Of The Article? I could go on, but this is now a book..
Finally I would just ask that someone consider looking deeper at the overall history of both the contributions here AND the copious amounts of exchanges between us and it will be most clear what is going on. I've recently considered Administrator Intervention on the grounds of WP:CTDAPE, but I've not been able to concisely put it together, but if someone would really dig in, it becomes clear .. Dijcks HotTub Pool 01:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Dijcks, you are clearly in violation of the good faith rule, and your claims are unwarranted; my edits have been of high quality and being a Wikignome is a good thing. From your comments and edits, one can understand that I have good reason to feel bullied. You are responding to a request that I made to Moonriddengirl when the comment was not addressed to you. Why not wait to allow Moonriddengirl to look at the evidence and give a third opinion without undue pressure or intimidation? Giancoli (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Moonriddengirl, please take a look at this diff. User:Dijcks again inserts his point-of-view claim that "It is widely accepted that the "No-Scalpel" method, along with vas occlusion by cauterization with fascial interposition, provides the safest, most reliable procedure outcome.", reverting a third edit of mine today, and this time he claims that he has five citations. But this is all nonsense. He has repeated one of the citations three times in the reference list and he cites the same reference three times: Labrecque et al. This reference does not support what Dijcks claims: what it says is "Current evidence supports no-scalpel vasectomy as the safest surgical approach to isolate the vas when performing vasectomy. Adding FI increases effectiveness beyond ligation and excision alone. Occlusive effectiveness appears to be further improved by combining FI with cautery. Methodologically sound prospective controlled studies should be conducted to evaluate specific occlusion techniques further." The ONLY place safety is evaluated in this study is with respect to the no-scalpel method for opening the scrotum. FI and cautery are evaluated only for effectiveness, not safety, and there is a claim that more study is needed. The other two references he cites are 1) the reference that I explained earlier only deals with scalpel vs. no-scalpel Cochrane, and 2) a study that deals only with success with respect to azoospermia Sokal et al, and not with safety at all. In light of this misinformation and repeated reversions of my edits, as well as his insistence on placing unsupported POV claims in the text, for the sake of the integrity of the article, I feel it necessary to lodge a complaint and to formally request assistance to resolve the matter. Best wishes, Giancoli (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Giancoli, you've become so blinded by stubborn rage. I've never insulted your efforts. I have, however reverted any misinformation that those efforts caused. Also, I do NOT claim to be infallible. I made a mistake in reverting your edit in re: "Effect"/"Affect". Also, there is evidence of fact regarding PVPS regarding your complaint regarding the areas of pain, but since I cannot find it, feel free to take it out.. When I find it, I will revisit that aspect of PVPS.
The aforementioned aside: That does not relieve you of what is turning out to be a personal vendetta instead of focusing on the original intent here. I've maintained decorum and simply state the facts, AND at the same time, I'm willing to face a mistake or 2. It's bound to happen with the amount of content I'm adding. Dijcks HotTub Pool 01:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Dijcks, I would like to believe that you will be more collaborative, but you have made similar claims many times in the past. Many of your discussion posts are nominally about collaboration, but your edits are highly combative and not collaborative, often insisting on inserting unsourced and misleading claims, consistently reverting numerous good-quality edits, and preferring to launch a tirade of personal attacks than to listen to reasonable concerns. You repeatedly fall back into these same combative patterns of behavior when the pressure is off. I believe that it is important now to have third-party intervention to resolve this dispute in a more enduring fashion. Giancoli (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Giancoli, I really wonder if anyone will have the fortitude to get through all this ridiculous stuff. Why not save them time and see the next section here in "talk", where I've CITED EVERY ISSUE you seem to have. I've either Cited my work Or Given in, counter to what you have continually claimed is my unwillingness to be collaborative (what you mean really is my unwillingness to go away)..
  • You have a problem regarding the statement of fact regarding the safest most reliable method. See the next section.
  • You have a problem with the word "traditional" See the next section
  • You have a problem with the PVPS text. I've already told you to remove it, if you like.
What else do you have for me? I'm open to fixing it, and/or proving you wrong on those points as well. Don't take that as being "combative", but more me being willing to support ANY statement or edit that I've made, AND a willingness to make changes where I'm wrong.
Also, you KEEP saying I'm combative.
Why don't you show me ONE place in the text where I've been "combative"? I can't write in a combative fashion in the articles, so help me understand your idea of combativeness?
Where have I not compromised when it made sense?
  • Did I call YOU a bully? No.
  • Did I insult you, ever? No.
  • When/where/what are you referring to as personal attacks? ..there are none. You simply do not want me (in particular) touching your edits.
For the 100th time (it feels like), every step of the way, I've actually posted support for what I've done, and posted reasons why I'd done things, AND showed willingness to collaborate.


Many of your recent edits to this article have been very good, Dijcks, and I am pleased to compliment you for them. Best wishes.. Giancoli (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Remember writing this? ..to which I wrote a "thank you" and a call to action. It's all there in the history..
SEE THE NEXT SECTION, in particular anyone seeking to mediate WP:3O as it should cover what I believe is/are Giancoli's "current" problem(s)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ::::::::Dijcks (talkcontribs) 04:06, 14 ::::::::April 2011 (UTC)


Page protected

I hesitated to do this before, but it has become clear to me that the current situation with this article is not sustainable. I have fully protected the article for two weeks. I strongly suggest that the parties investigate opening a Request for comment or take advantage of Moonriddengirl's excellent skills. - Philippe 03:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Isn't that what we are in the process of? The article is in no eminent danger of vandalism, and the disputes are being posted for WP:3O Dijcks HotTub Pool 04:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Philippe,
I know I'm just a user, but I've provided a mountain of support regarding the disputes going on here. With all due respect, there is an administrator, "Moonriddengirl" who has already dug in to this issue, and didn't see fit to protect the page. I mean no disrespect, because clearly we are not equals here, but it seems that it could have been left for her to at least get through the recent issues for an opinion? I wish you would reconsider and allow a bit of time for her to get through the details left this evening? Dijcks HotTub Pool 04:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi. I'm here to read over now, to see if I can help, but I need to make it clear that I'm not here in my administrative capacity. I'm just here as a "third opinion", which as I noted above carries "no special powers or authority." I believe that we can work through this without that. :) I'm inclined to think given how heated the conversation currently is that locking the article is probably a good step at the moment while we iron out a few issues, if we can, and hopefully bring down the frustration levels. I'm sure that Philippe will unprotect the article if we reach a point where contributors feel that constructive, policy-compliant progress can be made. That said, I'm off to read the considerable text added here since I last saw the page. I suspect I'll know quite a bit more about vasectomies by the time I finish it than I did when I arrived yesterday. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Note about protection
As much as I am excited to have someone step in and help, there was nothing going on in the article that warranted protection. I perused the appropriate pages regarding page protection, and there is Zero evidence in ANY category that would have warranted or prompted protection. (take a look at the article "scar". There is similar debate there, and the page remains open) In short, there are 2 people here acting like children fighting over a toy in the playground, but the playground is fully in tact. I've been forced to defend (same as being sued ~ I have no choice but defend) else the article would be substantially further along. I've lost hope in the promise of "open bold editing" and "openness" that Wikipedia promotes.
There is NO threat of vandalism and there have been scarcely 3-4 quasi-edit reversions over the past week (maybe longer). The debate is where it's supposed to be, hence the talk pages. ..and then later for him Phillipe to come in and protect? ..frustrating, demeaning and against Wikipedia policy IMHO from what I can see. Dijcks HotTub Pool 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Vandalism is not the only reason to protect an article for a while. Edit warring—including "slow" edit warring, of the sort seen here—is a perfectly acceptable reason to impose full protection.
Your goal needs to be resolving the dispute. That means proposing language that you can both live with, not yelling past each other on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


I see. I didn't see that in WP:PP which is all I have to go on, hence, Wikipedia's policy. I've offered that someone actually show me where there is an edit-war at all. There was one event regarding the words "effect" and "affect" which I've owned up to as an error. The rest of the edits are a Constant Increasing of article content. If users cannot count on Wikipedia policy as written (in order to anticipate what might happen), then all we can do is try our best. Much Respect, Dijcks HotTub Pool 01:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


Response to several sections

Behavioral concerns

I've read through every edit to the talk page since mine of yesterday.

I can see that the relationship between the two of you is quite fraught. Progress on this article is going to remain impaired as long as personal conflicts get in the way of productive conversation. Both of you have crossed the line of civility, although in talk page conversation here, at least, the major personal attacks I see are one-sided. But incivility can also take place in edit summary, and you are each lodging accusations about behaviors and motivations of the other. I realize that this is likely the result of lengthy conflict and frustrations that have reached the boiling point. But article talk pages and edit summaries are not the place to resolve differences of that sort. They are for working on articles. And however things have reached the state, the state is not helpful to Wikipedia.

The best way to break through this issue, really, is for you both just to stop. Let bygones be bygones. You're clearly both intelligent, well-read people who are knowledgeable about this subject. Even if you come from different perspectives, you should be able to work together for the improvement of the article and the benefit of our readers. As policy requires, focus the conversation on the article, not on each others' motivations and behaviors. Keep your edit summaries brief, polite and impersonal; if you feel compelled to call out another editor by name in edit summary, you should stop. If you feel like the other person has slipped in civility, try to ignore it at least until truce has a chance to have impact. De-escalation is possible, but it requires effort from both of you. And I'm very much afraid that if you do not both put in the effort, this will end with one or both of you sanctioned. No one can predict where the community will fall in evaluating behavioral concerns. Even if you are absolutely convinced that everything is the other guy's fault, there's no guarantee that the community will not find you also, or even primarily, to blame.

If, after giving a truce a good go, one of you feels that the other is entrenched in incivility, the matter needs to be resolved somewhere else. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution doesn't just discuss article disputes; it also discusses behavioral concerns. But giving truce a go will require some time and patience. If you want to persuade the community that you aren't the problem, you're going to need to be able to point to a clear line where you stopped contributing to the problem and the other guy failed to. Hypersensitivity or prematurity will not reflect well on you in doing this.

I hope we won't need to discuss behavioral issues anymore (because I hope that they won't continue), but I would request that, if we do, these be separated out from content questions, as I'm doing here. It only muddies the waters. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to your suggestions of "truce". I have, more than once, extended a hand of "truce"/"collaboration", (and willing to again) , but you would have to read further back to get a better picture. If you've stopped at only the recent messages, that is, only the messages posted since you arrived on-scene, you will NOT be able to fully verify this fact. I really don't know where to go from here, but I've stated several times, "let's move on and improve the article". Dijcks HotTub Pool 15:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that you're willing to let bygones be bygones. Hopefully, this will be a successful strategy. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Content concerns

The primary content concerns that I see with respect to this article deal with the use of the phrase "traditional vasectomy" and the question of how to present current findings on the safest method of vasectomy.

  1. Traditional Vasectomy
    I think we should be able to resolve the first fairly easily. :) I've found reference to the phrase in many sources. For one explicit example, according to 2003’s ‘’Urology Secrets’’, “A traditional vasectomy is performed through either one or two incisions using standard surgical instruments.” (Resnick, Martin I.; Andrew C. Novick (2003). Urology Secrets. Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 234. ISBN 9781560535102. Retrieved 14 April 2011. ) This is just one of the 64 book results for the term ([6]) and about the same number of results in Google News ([7]). There are 41 hits in Google scholar ([8]) I get thousands of hits on the term in Google. In some of these cases, the terms may be coincidentally partnered, but as my first quote shows, not all. We ought to be able to find a reference in there to resolve concerns.
  2. is the safest/widely accepted that
    Honestly, I think both of these approaches have issues. "Given the aforementioned data, the "No-Scalpel" method is the safest way of opening the scrotum to perform a vasectomy" is a statement of fact; it goes beyond the source, which in more typical careful scientific language says "The no-scalpel approach to the vas resulted in less bleeding, hematoma, infection, and pain as well as a shorter operation time than the traditional incision technique" but does not, at least in abstract, make such a firm, unbending conclusion. The language of the NIH is far more typical to scientific writing, as it includes the possibility of factors unconsidered or undiscovered: “Current evidence supports no-scalpel vasectomy as the safest surgical approach to isolate the vas when performing vasectomy.”[9]. I'm not crazy about "widely accepted" under the circumstances, though, because we haven't seen any sourced dissent. We can't say universally accepted because we can't prove that there is no dissent, but it may be better to follow the lead of the NIH in crafting a third approach. I'm not sure why we need quite so many references, some of which do seem redundant?

The content question at the other article seems to have resolved, but for the record I agree that we should avoid using the term "abdominal" unless a source uses that term as well. Greater specificity can help avoid that. :) With respect to the smaller question of footnote 6 ([10]), it does seem to include information about “post-vasectomy testis and epididymis pain”; without checking its current position, I don't know how it's being used. And I've been working on this for quite some time already. :) Can somebody explain specifically what objections are to its current use? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The citations originally were either 1 or 2 "conclusions" from PubMed, and/or Cochrane (which holds a lot of medical clout) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vasectomy&oldid=422335520, but over a period of days, the constant attacking and banter forced me (in the middle of trying to continue the article), to find other references.
This edit [[11]]is about where this particular argument started, AND it's important to note that this method has been used, tested, and persists in many texts as the method in combination as being the most reliable but ONLY from a standpoint of procedure success, and NOT long term success (which remains to be seen).
Here is a cut/paste from one of the original edits prior to dispute..
The "No-Scalpel" method, along with vas occlusion by cauterization with fascial interposition, currently provides the safest, most reliable procedure outcome. [1] [2]
What happened at the other article (by the way there were NO "french" inclusions of text or citations), was that when I was reseraching PVPS, I was taken to a link/citation within the PUBMED database that went on to discuss variants of genital/pelvic pain(s). There is evidence however that PVPS does include pain upon ejaculation and/or physical exertion and this IS in the pelvic region.
Nevertheless, the link/citation was a mistake on my part, BUT, herein lies the problem.. ANY other editor would simply make the changes, and put the reasons in the edit history. With this individual, I'm attacked for nearly every effort.
As "the problem" is not a content concern, I don't think it can be helpfully addressed in this section. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I have just noticed, Djicks, that you interspersed your comments with mine above, here. WP:TPOC explains why such interruptions are undesirable and how to do them properly if you must, but this case rather demonstrates the issue. I have not yet even read those words because I did not see them until now, and your response to me, unsigned, made it look as though those were my words, which can undoubtedly cause confusion to others attempting to attribute opinions to contributors. I've moved your comment below mine for that reason. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I've done exactly, but it was not meant to cause any distraction. There was a note that you asked me to move, but maybe I somehow improperly moved it? Sorry! Dijcks HotTub Pool 18:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the content that you stated, "would you mind moving your contend to the appropriate sections", which I moved to the Page Protected Section..

Note about protection

As much as I am excited to have someone step in and help, there was nothing going on in the article that warranted protection. I perused the appropriate pages regarding page protection, and there is Zero evidence in ANY category that would have warranted or prompted protection. (take a look at the article "scar". There is similar debate there, and the page remains open) In short, there are 2 people here acting like children fighting over a toy in the playground, but the playground is fully in tact. I've been forced to defend (same as being sued ~ I have no choice but defend) else the article would be substantially further along. I've lost hope in the promise of "open bold editing" and "openness" that Wikipedia promotes.
There is NO threat of vandalism and there have been scarcely 3-4 quasi-edit reversions over the past week (maybe longer). The debate is where it's supposed to be, hence the talk pages. ..and then later for him Phillipe to come in and protect? ..frustrating, demeaning and against Wikipedia policy IMHO from what I can see. Dijcks HotTub Pool 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I would really appreciate it if you could help keep this conversation focused. The issue in the first part of your paragraph deals with behavior, not content, and it would be helpful to keep it in the proper section. The section on protection has nothing to do with the content of the article at all and relates to Phillipe's note, above. If we are to move forward, we really need to tighten the focus. Would you mind moving your content to the appropriate sections? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this what you were referring to? If I somehow messed up, I apologize. Dijcks HotTub Pool 18:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, no; it was this edit. :) I ended one paragraph with "I'm not sure why we need quite so many references, some of which do seem redundant?" and started my next with "The content question at the other article seems to have resolved." When you answered my question, you inserted your answer into the middle of my post. Because there was no signature at the end of my question paragraph or after your response, this can create great confusion to others reading the material, who may believe that I am the sole author of all content down to my signature. Such interjected responses are called "Interruptions" on Wikipedia; these are generally discouraged, but there are steps for how to do it when you must at WP:TPO. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't intentional. I must have overlooked signing it. I'm sorry though, and will not do that again. I will also peruse WP:TPO. Dijcks HotTub Pool 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OFFER of Truce..

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 (where success is defined as a successful operation) 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)

  1. ^ Labrecque, M; Dufresne, C; Barone, MA; St-Hilaire, K (2004). "Vasectomy surgical techniques: a systematic review". BMC medicine. 2: 21. PMC 428590Freely accessible. PMID 15157272. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-2-21. 
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference pmid.3D15056388 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).