Talk:Oocyte cryopreservation

I feel that the edits made by editor ynagashima are not in keeping with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy, outlined here: WP:COI

I recommend that the editor remove the external links to private businesses as well as the specifics of the studies conducted by those private businesses. Besides being self-referential, the results appear to be neither published nor peer-reviewed.

Other procedural inconsistencies and issues appear to be present, though these concerns are secondary to the main issue, which is that the entire edit appears to be created by an employee of the clinic(s) in question and is therefore in violation of Wikipedia’s policies. Entries that are made for the purpose of self-promotion or even those that are created to inform, but are still self-serving only do a disservice to the Wikipedia community and culture.

I urge ynagashima to remove both the edits and the links in this article and in other articles where the edits appear to have been made for the purpose of promotion.

I am contacting the editor directly in keeping with conflict resolution policy as outlined in Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Thank you Leriredufils 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed conflict-of-interest material/links/references

There was no response from ynagashima, and I have removed the promotional material for and the external links to the private companies with whom he/she is associated. I have noticed that this user has added links to one of those companies in two other articles of related content. Those links have since been removed by other editors.

In this article, ynagashima also added content about the ASRM's October, 2007 opinion, referencing it with an article written by the company with whom he/she works. I did not remove the mention of the ASRM opinion, but I replaced the self-referential link with the actual ASRM article in the journal Fertility Sterility and added a link to the abstract.

It appears as though this user's account exists solely for promotion, as every contribution he/she has made has included a direct link or references to the private clinics with whom he/she is associated.

Leriredufils 22:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

small change

Two articles published in Fertility and Sterility, recent reports indicate pregnancy rates comparable to those for cryopreserved embryos and even fresh embryos by either slow-freeze or vitrification methods.

should actually read

Two articles published in Fertility and Sterility, recent reports indicate pregnancy rates comparable to those for cryopreserved oocytes and even fresh oocytes by either slow-freeze or vitrification methods.

Embryos are quite different than eggs/ oocytes.

Davisesq212 (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Claudia Davis Davisesq212 at aol dot com

The picture, while interesting, is misleading for oocyte cryoprotection. ICSI is not the standard route of fertilization, it's a step past IVF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3300:59F:81BA:7865:3BA2:510 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)