User talk:Bondi1975

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Infertility do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gat and Goren

I thought I should let you know that I started a discussion about your edits at Talk:Benign_prostatic_hyperplasia#Gat_and_Goren.--Taylornate (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your work appears a little promotional. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph you deleted was not my writing. I corrected it a bit and from some reason you erased it completely. The information is based on pear reviewed articles that are quoted here, that are also wide spread all over the web. The facts were also covered extensively by the conservative media, like "Sky News" which is high-quality reliable source. http://news.sky.com/story/877151/prostate-treatment-gives-patients-new-hope No reason to hide it from the eye of the public. I think it should be restored. Bondi1975 (talk · contribs · email) 11:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y.Gat &M. Goren (Gornish) are mentioned in pubmed 15 times Here is one of them: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18811916 Bondi1975 (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Gat-Goren method" is not mentioned in pubmed. Even though the authors have published stuff. I can find no review articles on the topic. Let me know if you have some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Its mentioned - it is the method which all the article is about: "selective occlusion of impaired venous drainage in the male reproductive system" named after the to doctors that invented it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18811916 That method was covered all around the world, including a chapter in a text book by shpringer. Whatch page 451 http://www.pirion.co.il/images/pdf/Chapter_in_the_Texr-Book-Andrology_for_the_Clinician_.pdf There is also a third party editorial commentary about it: http://www.pirion.co.il/images/pdf/Editorial%20Commentary%20on%20BPH%20article%20%20ANDROLOGIA.pdf This method is based on all academic levels. Unlike other data on Wikipedia. It is not clear why you insist to erase it. Please revert back. Bondi1975 (talk · contribs · email) 10:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply below. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Bondi1975. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. [[Your edits to date are all about male reproductive health and are promotional for the Gat Goren clinic. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Bondi1975. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are benefit financially from editing WP, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with the clinic? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, with please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. You can reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog, I understand your care for the integrity of the users and I truly support it. I have no connection what so ever with the clinic. I contributed to wikipedia for 7 years and wrote many definitions, and did anourmes amount of editings on dozens of categories, (first, without a user, but I'm sure that you can check my IP). Nevertheless, I'm very proud about Israeli achievements and would like people from all around the world to know about breakthroughs like this. This method is a big a true story. Is that a conflict of interest?

Moreover - please check and see that I ***did not*** write the paragraph about the method that Dr James complaind about. I have nothing to do with the data of what "Dr james" deleated and accused me with "conflict of interest". The only thing I did is to add the name of the procedure to the existing paragraph which I did not create and to correct 2 words - from past to present. From some reason - immediately after that, "Dr James" erased the all data completely. Why?

The interest of Wikipedia is in info which is true and well backed up academically, plus - a thing which worth to know about. well, both exists here: It is very well known in the medical field, It got peer reviewed articles and was published all over the world in the most prestiges news papers and websites, like Sky News: http://news.sky.com/story/877151/prostate-treatment-gives-patients-new-hope. If you look it up on google you will find dozens of blogs dedicated to it. The prime minister of Israel himself performed it: http://www.mhmc-international.org/tag/netanyahu/. Is it not enough to be mentioned? Or perhaps the problem is because it is an Israeli achievement? I think you should consider to revert it back Bondi1975 (talk • contribs • email) 9:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying clearly that you have no relationship with the clinic. Will you please also clarlfy that you do not know either of the doctors? (I am going to ignore "Or perhaps the problem is because it is an Israeli achievement?" and if you continue in that vein this conversation will end immediately) Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog, for your question I do not know the two doctors personaly, only by seeing them on TV or articles. The same for Woody Allen - which I wrote and edited alot about in wikipedia. About your quote: What I said was not meant to be in a vein way but seriously. There are many people that delete Jewish and Israeli content from Wikipedia and there is no point in denying that. This issue is an important story for the press and that gives me the idea to approach them in the next few days. Bondi1975 (talk • contribs • email) 21:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so first you wave "anti-semitic" flag and now you are threatening to go to the press. You are making this way harder than it needs to be. Basically you don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works with regard to content about health and instead of focusing on that and letting me help you, you are being dramatic. . If you decide you want to simply work on content, let me know. You can leave a note here. Until then, I have better ways to spend my time. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog, you misinterpret me. I didn't accuse you in anything. You have nothing to do with that. I'm talking about people that deleting material like this, and yes, I'm suspicious about them.

I'm not threatening anyone. I think that this story can be important. But I agree we should focus on the text itself and yes - I'm ready to learn and to see how I can improve my way of writing and editing, so it will be more professional. Please your advise. Thank you so much Bondi1975 (talk • contribs • email) 21:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please indent your comments so that comments are threaded. this is a Wikipedia basic protocol. I didn't say you accused me. I said you made accusations, which you did. So just stop the drama, OK and we can work, OK? (if you want to know why I am getting hung up on this, please read WP:AGF which is a pillar of Wikipedia, and for very good reason, which I can explain if you like. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK Jytdog, no drama anymore from me:) I'm ready to learn Bondi1975 (talk • contribs • email) 22:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great. :) So - you have made it clear that you have no relationship with the clinics or the doctors. You have said that you are an advocate for Israel (please do read WP:ADVOCACY which is a very useful essay that explains what happens when people come to Wikipedia who bring a strong "pro" or "anti" point of view and the problems with that. Please also do read WP:PROMO which is policy. Based on your editing history you also have a clear focus on male reproductive health and that makes your account kind of a WP:SPA so please do read that too, and keep that in mind. All that said, because you have said you have no relationships with the doctors and clinic I will remove the "COI" template from this page, and open a new section in which we can discuss editing here. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing here

OK, so here is some general guidance about editing here.

When some people get into disagreements with other editors about content, they get angry and start fighting and making accusations. This is kind of normal on many chat boards on the internet, but Wikipedia is nothing like that.

I am sorry about this, but if you really want to get involved, it turns out that Wikipedia is a pretty complex place. Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that over the years, Wikipedia has developed lots of policies and guidelines (PAG) to help provide a "body of law" as it were, that form a foundation for rational discussion. Without that foundation, this place would be both a garbage dump of random content and a wild west - a truly ugly place. But with the foundation, there is guidance for generating excellent content and there are ways to rationally work things out - if, and only if, all the parties involved accept that foundation and work within it. One of the hardest things for many people to understand, is that not only does this foundation exists, but that it takes time and effort to learn its letter and spirit. (The spirit really matters, because too often people fall prey to what we call "wikilawyering") where they grab some snipped of a PAG and try to use that as a cudgel. That is not what we are about here) The more I have learned about how things are set up here - not just the letter of PAG and the various drama boards and administrative tools, but their spirit - the more impressed I have become at how, well ... beautiful this place is. It takes time to learn both the spirit and the letter of PAG, and to really get aligned with Wikipedia's mission to crowdsource a reliable, NPOV source of information for the public (as "reliable" and "NPOV" are defined in PAG!). People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which is really destructive. WP:ADVOCACY is one of our biggest bedevilments. Anyway, I do hope you slow down and learn.

PAG are described and discussed in a whole forest of documents within Wikipedia that are "behind the scenes" in a different "namespace", in which the documents start with "Wikipedia:" or in shorthand, "WP:" (for example, our policy on edit warring is here: WP:EDITWAR not here EDITWAR). You won't find these documents by using the simple search box above, which searches only in "main space" where the actual articles are. However if you search with the prefix, (for example if you search for "WP:EDITWAR") you will find policies and guidelines. Likewise if you do an advanced search with "wikipedia" or "help" selected you can also find things in "Wikipedia space". The link in the welcome message above the "Five Pillars" points you to our most important policies and I recommend that you read them all, if you have not already and if you intend to stick around! They guide everything that happens here.

With all that in mind, here are some things that I suggest you read beyond what I suggested above (I know, I know, things to read... but like I said, Wikipedia can be complicated!):

WP:OR - no original research is allowed -instead...
WP:VERIFY - everything must be based on reliable sources (as we define them - see WP:RS for general content and WP:MEDRS for health-related content)
WP:MEDRS - this is our guideline for sourcing health-relating content in Wikipedia. This is probably the key thing you will need to mind
WP:NPOV - this does not mean what most people think it means. it means that you read the most recent and best reliable sources you can find, and figure out what the mainstream view is, and that is what gets the most WP:WEIGHT.
WP:MEDMOS - this our manual of style, for how we write about health-related things. We are very careful not to discuss pre-clinical findings, as well as initial clinical results, as though they are applicable to medicine. We are very conservative in that regard!

WP:CONSENSUS - Wikipedia has plenty of policies and guidelines, as I mentioned, but really at the end of the day this place is ... a democracy? an anarchy? something hard to define. But we figure things out by talking to one another. CONSENSUS is the bedrock on which everything else rests. So please talk - please never edit war (see warning above). If you make a change to an article and someone else reverts it, the right thing to do is to follow WP:BRD (please do read that) - but briefly, when you are reverted, open a discussion on the article's Talk page. Ask the reason under policy and guidelines why your change was reverted -- and really ask, and really listen to the answer, and go read whatever links you are pointed to. Think about it, and if there is something you don't understand, ask more questions. Please only start to actually argue once you understand the basis for the objection. If you and the other party or parties still disagree, there are many ways to resolve disputes (see WP:DR) - it never needs to become emotional - because we do have this whole "body of law" and procedures to resolve disputes.

So about the content that you were disagreeing with Doc James about, the key PAG there is MEDRS (linked above). We really rely on review articles (like from PUBMED) and practice guidelines to tell us what the mainstream views are and what we should give WEIGHT to. Your disagreement with him is really about sources and WEIGHT. Doc James is a very experienced editor and is the leader of WikiProject Medicine, which is a group of editors here who work hard to make sure that our content about health is excellent. I suggest that you go back and read what he wrote about the content, with all of the above in mind. If there is something you don't understand about what he wrote, I suggest you ask him what he meant, and really listen to the answer. I hope that all makes sense to you. If you have questions about any of this, please feel free to ask me too! Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]