User talk:Pascal.Tesson/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Whoops, Ships stuff

Whoops, I forgot to do that in my haste. My apologies.

Sharkface217 03:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Still, I thank for for pointing out my error.

As I honestly would have missed that without your help, I'm proud to award you this:

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		To Pascal.Tesson, for his diligence in helping others make Wikipedia a better place. Thanks for the help with the ships stuff. Sharkface217 04:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Templates

I've noticed that you have changed my templates to subst. Should I start using those instead? -WarthogDemon 03:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD Jaksa Cvitanic

Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaksa Cvitanic? The subject of the article is a mathematics professor, and it is not clear whether he is notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Chickos

Isn't it obvious why this place is notable? For starters it is participating in the research project for IVF-cooked chips. Secondly, it has been mentioned in a large publication. Thirdly, it has had a significant effect on Wollongong and its surrounding regions. Although this may not be explained in much depth, I plan to expand the article with time. Which makes it a case of your opinion on "notable" vs. somebody else's opinion on "notable", as some of the Wiki criteria for notability appear to have been satisfied. --Chickos 11:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!

— Saxifrage

Yep, it ended at (59/2/1) three days ago. It got four more supports before it was closed and archived, even. Yeah, being able to delete vanity and advertising articles at CAT:CSD is satisfying, but is it ever a lot of work. Thanks again! — Saxifrage ✎ 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Euler

The Euler page will be on the main page this saturday. Any last-minute tuning would be appreciated, and it might be a good idea to keep a close lookout for vandals that day. Thank you! Borisblue 10:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Spamstar

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to Pascal.Tesson for diligence in fighting spam on Wikipedia

--A. B. 18:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your revert

I like to know why to reverted my minor edit. Please reply here FactsOnly 12:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You requested it to stay as "Criteria" and not how I proposed it. I have no problems with this minor difficulty, and will not argue with you about it. All I like to know is why; for what reasons do you have to to reject my edit? Thank you. And I requested you reply at your talk page. FactsOnly 12:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your most recent talk:

As I stated at the top of my user talk page, "Note: Please post recent talks on top; otherwise it may be deleted, though it is more likely I will move it to the top."

"I also see that you think that any message of yours which does not get a reply within an hour gives you the right to revert anything you like. "

What are you saying? I do not have a "right" to revert when someone else does?

"Rather than tag random articles as unsourced for instance, you could take a few seconds and try to find relevant sources."

Yes, I could. Alternatively, as it states in WP:V, they suggest I tag it. You really ought to read it before telling me what I should do. Advices are nice and I listen to those, demands however are a different story.

"Of course, since you seem to add these tags at the rate of one per minute, that does not seem to be your priority."

And my last comment is: I don't like your tone. If you wish to get along with other users of Wikipedia, your not really following WP:CIVIL, but then again, you don't have to. Thank you. FactsOnly 12:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Most recent

"I think it's important that people reply on your talk page. Maybe this will give you a better sense of how many people you have actually bothered about the very same issue."

And what issue would that be when you don't say.

And if you are bothered, why aren't you being considerate and seeing how I feel? FactsOnly 12:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

For adding sources to the House of Anansi Press‎. FactsOnly 13:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please reply here

I don't really have a real Talk section for Pascal.Tesson. Sorry.

"I would like to ask that you do not go tagging every film out there with a notability tag. That would just be unproductive."

Given that you have asked so nicely, I have thought about your request and could not yet come to a conclusion. I will only tagged those that deserves to be tagged, not "every film out there." After we have discussed politely and have come to a mutual understanding, I hope to have no further conflicts with you. Good wishes. —SolelyFacts 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I just thought it would be a helpful reminder since you added so many unref tags to articles without doing research. I think you would find the templates Template:Sofixit and Template:Solookitup rather helpful. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 21:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear a hint of criticism, and if it continues, it's going to get very difficult. I am trying very hard to talk with you.

• We need to do research before adding tags when it is plainly obvious? (Don't need to answer this, will likely lead to very difficult conversation)
• Can explain the difference between Template:Sofixit and Template:Solookitup, and the useful tags? (Much more important and productive)

Again, I ask you to please reply here, or I will have to ignore the next note on my page by you. —SolelyFacts 21:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

f=ilm notability=

I just thought it would be a helpful reminder since you added so many unref tags to articles without doing research. I think you would find the templates Template:Sofixit and Template:Solookitup rather helpful. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 21:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I will reply here as this is where I started the discussion and it just makes more sense to have it here in context. I am most certainly not denying you the right to tag articles with unreferenced tags. All I am saying (and I'm not the first one to tell you) is that it is much more productive to improve an article than to tag it. Of course, I tag articles quite often when I don't want to bother researching the topic or when I feel that I'm not in a good position to do so. But more often than not, I try to remove tags by adressing the concerns. In many cases, references are just one Google search away or in the dictionary in the bookshelf right behind me. The idea behind tags is not one of peer-review: it's supposed to indicate what you feel the article needs and that you can't provide at the moment. And please, stop editing your talk page to remove things posted that you don't like. It's considered disrespectful of other editors and while your user page is all yours, your user talk page is considered as a public space which everyone has a right to maintain as how they find most convenient. Pascal.Tesson 21:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Stubbornness has gotta you nowhere. Your reasoning was well-crafted and I would have listened and extremely likely to accept, if only you had cooperated (by considering any of my requests), and not added in snotty remarks. Perhaps another day you will grow wiser, professor. Goodbye. —SolelyFacts 22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Book notability bogus guideline in the book naming conventions guideline

Saw your note (belatedly) on my Talk page. I weighed in rather forcefully on the topic at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books) in the relevant subsection. Not sure it will have much effect. I elected to play the "Bad Cop" role, leaving you or others an opportunity play "Good Cop". It will probably take both approaches to get any traction against the entrenched deletionists responsible for that so-called guideline. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

About the talk page of Rfayette

Hi. I have a small favour to ask. Since you have already gave him some advice on a talk page, could you give me your opinion on how Rrfayette (talk · contribs) is currently handling his talk page? It involves deleting comments critical of his edits and setting rules to talk to him. I have given up trying to reason him and would appreciate some neutral advice. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 22:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The subject comes up again and again on AN/I and people are quite split on the subject. Basially the consensus is that if a user deletes talkmessages to him, he has read them and can be held accountable accourdingly. WP:TALK#User_talk_pages sugests to move on or to go to dispute resulution. But it is no use edit-waring over those. On the other hand if such matters go to ArbCom they usually reflect very badly on the user who selectivly deletes warnings ect. Agathoclea 23:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Halo gun

That specific article cannot find the afd for the moment but it's mentioned here.

--Charlesknight 18:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

seems I was wrong about that AFD - oh well it all gets flushed in the end! --Charlesknight 19:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Julie Green

This was a non-notable biography as per the criteria set out in WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 21:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It looked on the edit history for the article as if you had created it, that's why I let you know that it had been speedily deleted. Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the diff that shows that you created a redirect from Joel Green. I see following that article's history that you did not originate this article, so you don't need to know about the deletion. Sorry for my mistake! (aeropagitica) 21:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Church of Sonic

Stop trying to delete the Church of Sonic page!!! It's my faith, and you can't do this its not fair!

User Dakuma

Please retract the "sockpuppet" charge from my account, I have no idea how or why you came to this conclusion but can assure you that you are 100% incorrect in your assumption, thanks.

I do not believe you are a soccerpuppet. I reverted. —SolelyFacts

RfC

Thanks for the heads up. Should I add any additional stuff to the body of it, to the bit where I'd sign, or should I just pass them to you and let you add them? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on other RfC's I've seen, it looks like other user comments just go along with the endorsement. I'll add my comments some time today. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks for your opinion about me, I will work hard to demonstrate I can be as useful as administrator as editor. ReyBrujo 23:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Nofollow

Thanks for the invitation to discuss. Am happy to talk with you first. Since I was also a research mathematician (nonlinear PDEs at Cambridge) it shouldn't be too tough to understand each other but please give me a little time before I "go first". This week is just really busy at work. Incidentally I will put the general argument but I personally am not a "fundamentalist" about it (much more an adamant democrat)... personally I would be fairly happy if "wikipedia space" had nofollow disabled. User talk space is much more marginal (but arguable). User:BozMo|BozMo]] talk 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay here goes. For the moment please treat this as a personal communication to you (Note: see below this is widened).

1. Declaration of Interest(a): I own quite a few websites (most notably http://fixedreference.org/2006-Wikipedia-CD-Selection/) , all broadly educational without adverts but Wikpedia has links to many of them. About 50% of the links from wikipedia were added by other people. No wikipedia link I added to any of my websites has ever been contested, altered or removed by any other editor (except altered where pages have been split, and the first edit when I was a Newbie nearly three years ago). Most of my websites link to (b).
2. Declaration of Interest(b): I work for an orphan charity which derives 80% of its income from donations over the internet resulting from google-listing. We make a saving of about $1m a year compared to pre-internet days since this allows us to grow without cold direct mail, and the internet fundraising costs are about 1% of funds raised (versus 40% for mail). I estimate about 4% of the total link weight for the charity derives from open edit sites. The bulk of the link weight derives from individual supporters websites (individual supporters include people like Stephen Hawking and quite a few academics... I was one once) and company websites (we have a few important site-wide links from companies which support us). The second biggest source of link-weight is news-sites like the BBC. We could live without the open edit sites, but I would have to agree it is an interest. However this also means I have a strong professional interest in how websites work and search engines work (and I am a post-doc mathematician with a personal web space getting 10 million IP visitors a year so I have the opportunity to experiment).
3. Declaration of Interest(c): Fraud on the internet is a big head-ache for the charity, as for many people. There are fake copies of our websites around, with fake links to them from blogs, and community sites and people send spam emails pretending to be from us to try to get credit card details. These waste lots of our time. Fake employment offers (the Western Union scam) is also a big issue. Therefore, the good-functioning of the internet at large is a major interest. We are big enough with enough resources to mean I don't think we get hidden under scams: but I suspect at the smaller end of the charity world this happens, and I guess the same is true of the commercial world.
4. Background and personal knowledge. Under my real name (andrew cates) I spend a lot of time reverting spam on wikis, adding to blacklists etc (see for example http://esw.w3.org/topic/LocalBadContent?action=info ). I also have tried running a small spam bot (http://catesfamily.org.uk/BZWISC-technical.html), been involved in constructing tarpits for spammers been involved in discussions on kiting, on nofollow, on IP bans, on the predecessor to nofollow (using http://www.google.com/url? which used to wash links for google) and on wikipedia watch 125 pages for vandalism spam and POV. On this subject I go back about three years. I am afraid I got bored with the Wikispam discussions on WP and elsewhere because of the transitory nature of participants: it is rather dull trying to re-explain things lots of times.

So what do I think:

1. Role of Wikipedia: ultimately it is up to the community which builds wikipedia to decide whether wikipedia's role is very narrow (to build an ivory tower encyclopedia: the "I'm alright Jack" approach) or slightly broader (to help with the well-being of the internet, to allow better delivery of WP and other content to the world, but also to improve the general educational status of the world. My own view is that WP's ability to do good is greatly enhanced if we accept that it is part of the online community and not an enclave. I do not think WP should change its nature as an online encyclopedia and community (and emphatically I do not think it should try to be a directory) but a default link is not "nofollow" or the internet wouldn't work. I regard links on Wikipedia as significantly influential in preventing internet fraud: not just directly to legitimate sites but indirectly to news and information sites which link to legitimate sites. The more we fragment the "good" internet the weaker it will be. I believe my view on this has wide support including from Jimbo Wales (see this).
2. Influence of Wikipedia: Wikipedia's attractiveness to spammers is commensurate with the importance of the useful role which it plays on the web. The useful role derives in large part from the fact that although it is spammed and open edit it is on average much better than the web as a whole in terms of integrity of content and links. Google now say they take account of link age in valuing links and the established permenant links to genuine news sources, genuine sites etc. are an important part of maintaining the integrity of Google (which is how most people navigate). If a community on the scale of wikipedia has to draw up the drawbridge then the wolves really are at the gate.
3. Nofollow is not just about pagerank. Wikipedia is influential in part because it tends to have accurate anchor text and because the immediate context of the link matters. It is also incredibly important for functions like Google's "similar pages" (which tries to deliver websites which are listed together with the page you are looking at). Pages like Public Domain Resources used to mean you could track sideways between one public domain resource and another via google's similar page button: it used to give you anything from that list with a common word in the title. That's now broken (cheers...). I used to use that one personally: who knows how many zillions of people have been inconvenienced without even knowing why.
4. Nofollow doesn't have a huge impact on spam. Some spammers have western type return on effort criteria. Others do not: they live in China with a tiny income and are happy with an incredibly low success rate. If you get a link in Wikipedia it appears in all the mirror sites and many of these (such as answers.com, encyclopedia.worldvillage.com www.algebra.com ) do not use nofollow. The unsophisticated spammer doesn't know about nofollow. The sophisticated spammer knows he gets a return. You may put off a few in the middle and ones who won't accept a miserly pay-back. Also links on Wikipedia generate direct traffic (even us checking if they are genuine). People would spam even for that (some SEO companies even do contracts on a pay per extra visitor basis).
5. A better solution for spam would also be valuable for other WP issues (vandalism for example). On the pages I watch (mainly country pages) 75% of the reversions I do are "hello mum skjbfh ve" or abusive and spam is about 20%.
6. I do not buy spam is getting worse. It used to be horrible, front page etc. The key parameter for me is how long it lasts on average. I used to routinely find spam months old on Wikipedia. Now a day is about average. Okay, I know it is hard work and people are really cross about it, and there are more pages spammed a day. But it isn't growing faster than our ability to deal with it. How much does it really matter if spammers gain some advantage sometimes (should we accept a much greater loss to the web as a whole to avoid this)? Easy to get cross about spam and resent any gain people make from being evil but when it isn't killing the patient it isn't that bad.
7. Philosophy: Nofollow is a self declaration of poor quality. I think WP in general is above average quality for the web.

Mainspace versus the rest.

1. Most of the above applies to namespace, although a lot of important pages are now nofollowed because they are portals and these are not counted as namespace.
2. "Wikipedia:" space which is important (see above example on public domain resources) and should never have been included as "nofollow".
3. Current events is possibly important. Nofollow stops Google finding news quickly via WP but actually WP beating main news sources is exceptional.
4. User space and talk space. (here I am expressing a view which I find weaker than other points above: in particular personally I completely agree nofollow should be enabled on ALL talk pages but I want to keep the argument together). Since <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" /> was added to the /w/ pages (what links here etc.) the total transfer of pagerank from the main wikipedia to the user and talk pages is not great (perhaps 1% per page from the "talk" button; with generally hundreds of other links on each page), and there is transfer back. The visible page rank on talk and user pages derives largely from the couple of million pages of unique content on those pages. The talk pages probably now give more link weight to the main wikipedia than the other way round. So in this instance you are dealing with a community owned asset which is not really a problem for the encyclopedia (spam on talk and user pages does not affect encyclopedia integrity it just annoys the community: we are not struggling with too much user space and generally users are invited to play in their own space). So if it does not threaten the encyclopedia itself at least we should acknowledge that the community ought to be able to decide whether to nofollow it or not. On the basis that this is a community and not a parasite of the encyclopedia you could argue that the user pages (but not the talk pages) should really belong to the users and they should be free to decide. A bit of trivial spam on a users own page is no different to their page at myspace or geocities and the user themselves can be responsible for maintenance (but I am personally indebt to zillions of people who have reverted my user page).

As you know the community discussion at meta Meta nofollow includes some of my reasons. I also broadly agree with Jimbo's opinion on nofollow, and think there is some established consensus.

--BozMo talk 10:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Quite convincing to be honest. If you don't mind, I'd like to point people on the spam project to it. Now I'm not saying that I'm completely swayed by the argument but it certainly did weaken my beliefs in favor of nofollow. As always, there is a question of cost/benefit associated to the whole thing. If we do have nofollow everywhere there is undeniably a positive effect on the amount of spamfighting we will have to do. I agree this wouldn't be a huge impact but it's not negligible either. The cost is that we don't participate in making the web a better place. Ok, but then again, I don't think you can so easily discount the fact that it's not our primary objective in this project.

Your case for the other namespaces (and you said as much) is weaker. Vandal and spam fighters tend to be rather unwilling to put much effort into these and I'm afraid that the end result of dropping nofollow in user space in particular would be more spamfighting in places where it's harder (because users will complain that, hey, it's their user page after all) and a general downgrade of the quality of external links we provide. Similarly, we often encourage benign spammers to propose their external link on talk pages first (where they are often quickly rejected as junk) but then even that would be useless.

You are right: by disabling nofollow, we are helping the pagerank of good sources and that's a valuable service to the world. I think I disagree though on the importance of that service and I strongly disagree that the same would be true on other namespaces as the amount of peer review that goes on there is much, much weaker. Pascal.Tesson 01:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and also for taking the time to think it through. I am ok to draw people's attention to this "position statement" but I think at some point we need a proper public debate for which I hope this kind of dialogue is preparation rather than substitute. I think. I hesitate because I actually think there are enough people around whose honest "declaration of interest" would reveal a degree of partiality which should disqualify them from voting. In a way as a wikipedian I am a bit shocked to hear myself say that... One other thing you said which gave me a pang of guilt was "Your case for the other namespaces (and you said as much) is weaker. Vandal and spam fighters tend to be rather unwilling to put much effort into these". Of course, I have only been watching namespace pages...--BozMo talk 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Rosetta Stone as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 16:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

Dear Pascal, (sorry to litter your talk page, I would have emailed this to you but you don't have a Wikipedia email set up)

I have noticed you around a few computer science related articles in the past and you are clearly a respected expert in the area. Maybe you would be interested in Citizendium if you have not already looked at it. It is a project which is starting off with all of Wikipedia's articles but aims to have a community shaped to be more suited to actually writing and treating experts like... experts. As a past administrator, I have seen the disrespect some serious contributors have to put up with from even the "respected" Wikipedians - I know of several different cases where people who are obviously experts were ridiculed, harassed and eventually left because they could not take it any more, and in some cases they burst out with harsh words which only got them banned.

Larry Sanger, the creator of Citizendium was actually the original "Editor in Chief" of Wikipedia and (though this is disputed by Jimbo Wales) claims to have come up with the idea for Wikipedia in the first place. He has long left the project years ago and is now trying to correct Wikipedia's faults (while the Wikipedia community as it is just tends to ignore any real problems apart from maybe internal politics). In Citizendium he tries to combine public participation (anyone can still edit, but under a real name) with expert guidance - experts are judged on their real credentials.

The project is not yet open to the general public but almost anyone can register for the pilot project which is well under way and is beginning to take shape. I have heard that there are already over 110 Ph.D.-level editors as well as other real experts. And that's all without any major push for contributors yet. (And the best part there are no vandals in sight and no nastiness to be seen!)

It is developing in a positive way and the community is beginning to shape up, now with already hundreds of re-worked articles. Currently we are in the process of organizing discipline-specific editorial groups devoted to organizing Citizendium's work. We hope you will join us soon in the Computers Workgroup which has not had too much development yet (all these workgroups are only a few days old after all!), but I am sure it will start up.

In the meanwhile, if you'd like to sign up to join the pilot project I think you would be valued as an editor for computer-science related topics, especially with your past Wikipedia experience. Expert editors require a link to a CV or proof of credentials, but if you do not want to be an editor, you can still join as an author without having to cite any credentials (there is more info about the difference between these on the Citizendium website). You can sign up for the pilot here: http://www.citizendium.org/cfa.html.

Thanks for your time!--Konst.able^Talk 12:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Montortal Entry

You may have noticed that I have changed your entry for Montortal (L'Alcudia Spain). Your original entry was completely uninformed and wherever you got your questionable information I dread to think. Montortal was, is and has never ever been a slum full of transients or marginal people. Have you ever been to Montortal I hasten to ask? I have, I am here every day because I live here. Whilst your user pages seem to border on the policing of other users questionable information and wiki entries I would ask that perhaps you should clean your own house first before starting with other peoples. Yours, William Wallace. (A resident of Montortal)

XPLANE deletion review

Pascal, Would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Merranvo

Could someone block him? I'd give him warnings but I can't edit the talk page... -WarthogDemon 06:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. He just was. ^_^; -WarthogDemon 06:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Breast Implants

I cannot thank you enough for your observation on the talk page. Please stick around and be another set of eyes for awhile. We have had a problem with Droliver for months. He is a plastic surgeon who has seen nothing wrong with pushing an agenda (breast implants are the hottest thing since sliced bread and are without risk). It has been infuriating to see the slight of hand or pen, as it were, in shading the article. The issue of rupture is possibly the biggest concern still with the US FDA (regulatory body that recently approved implants with a number of conditions), and for women considering implants. Device failure rates are generally not linear with time, and to determine a reasonable curve requires sufficient data over a sufficient length of time. But he deleted all discussion on this issue, and grossly misstated the study he cited! It drives me crazy! Oh, and my background is in mathematics and electrical eningeering, before law. Jance 08:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Pascal. We could well use your help in the next few days. Jance 08:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pascal, if you wish to get up to speed on breast implants

Pascal, if you wish to immerse yourself in the history of this topic I'd suggest this[1] primer which discuss the history of this issue in the US. Included in the "locked" article is a table with references to every systemic review (a comprehensive review of published literature ordered by governmental body) in print on this (except the 2005 Health Canada panel, which is linked to elsewhere). What you have going on wikipedia is an attempt by those who dismiss the consensus world view on this topic and are intent on editing this in a way which does not accurately reflect how this topic is actually treated in the medical literature in order to continue the political battles they've recently "lost" (in their political world view)as the US & Canada with recent endorsments by the FDA & Health Canada respectively. I have tried a number of times to actually get some input re. addressing what they object to in a mainstream presentation which quickly devolves into furious pointed & inflamatory editingDroliver 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont' think that will fly, Oliver. We are not trying to continue any battle, but to ensure that the mainstream view is accurately described. Like the article on Maxwell, you wish to turn the BI article into a puff piece, or marketing promo. That is not what this article is about. It is intellectually dishonest to misquote studies you cite, and to omit key information that does not suit your purpose. Several of us are now discussing a paragraph on Rupture, and what to add, and seem to be coming to consensus. You might try participating with an understanding that you will also have to cooperate. We will not allow you to paint us as the fringe lunatics you would like to do. It won't work, and some day you will figure th at out.Jance 08:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest, Shading and deliberate misrepresentation

Pascal, please read the talk page. None of us have any desire to ignore the "consensus". Droliver's comments are totally absurd - talk about inflammatory. So far, a board-certified plastic surgeon (I won't say "another" and I do not refer to Oliver) has weighed in, an epidemiologist, and I. However, as you know, there are ways of shading the mainstream or consensus view to one's advantage. There is also the outright misrepresenting and misstating studies one cites for sources. Droliver has repeatedly misquoted the very studies he cites. There is NO long term data on rate of rupture, or on its effects. This is why the FDA has approved silicone implants only with requirements and restrictions. Droliver omitted all of that.

If you really want to learn about this, you need to read the other version that is not locked. These accurately reference the studies, explain them and the limitations, and discuss the FDA approval of implants with the conditions and why. One of Oliver's buddies locked the article in Oliver's version. Oliver created the table, and selectively summarized the studies. Oliver has refused to work with anyone that disagrees with his version of reality. Which, brings me to Oliver's conflict of interest here. He doesn't want ANYTHING negative written about that on which he makes a living. As my rheumatologist dryly pointed out today, "some plastic surgeons will operate on a turnip." She also pointed out that we don't KNOW what happens with rupture, long term. She is right - of course, she is a board-certified rheumatologist with years and years of experience. She knows the limitations of the studies. So does the FDA, which is why it has recommended follow-up with MRIs to detect silent rupture, and required manufacturers to tell women that implants are not a lifetime device. Oliver omitted all of that.Jance 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

One methadology flaw in DrOliver's cited study

From Dr. Zuckerman: "Here's a new example. The Heden et al article that Dr Oliver says is the best study of rupture excluded any women whose implants had broken in the first ten years of use. The authors state on page 307 "Women who had ruptured implants removed before the 9.5-13.2 year post-implantation period covered by our study would not be included in the study, so the rupture prevalance may underestimate the actual rupture rate."

That is a methodological flaw which certainly does cause an underestimate -- and the researchers should have mentioned how many women fell into that category of having removed their implants. A comparable comparison would be: let's do a study on the impact of smoking on lung cancer. Let's study 100 people who started smoking in 1960. Then let's just look at those that are still alive and see how many have lung cancer. Since anyone who died of lung cancer is excluded from the study, and since most people diagnosed with lung cancer die within a year, it would certainly underestimate the link between smoking and cancer."

Oh, and as Dr. Z points out, this does not look at rupture past 10 years. Another, larger study (that still underestimates the rupture rate) has significantly different results than this one. However, Dr. Oliver misstated both studies to be lower than what either stated. Unfortunately, Samir has locked Oliver's version so qualified professionals cannot edit it. And, Samir has abandoned any attempt at mediation, complaining about new users. Jance 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Pascal. Your respectful response on this issue deserves another. Dr. Zuckerman,and others such as Dr. Melmed, are pretty new to Wikipedia. I have a little, although not a lot, more experience with it. I could not email you so here it is. I have re-signed onto Wikipeida with a new name after canceling my first account which I had for a few months. (no, not a sockpuppet). All the relevant parties know exactly who I am, as I have freely disclosed it. I have gotten into it with Oliver and his 'clique' before. I am not innocent about being banned, myself (I put up an altogether too vocal an argument that was not appreciated). I wanted to tell you this, to be completely honest, since you rightfully criticized Oliver for having a history of intransigence. If you were to wade through all the history, you would see that I at least attempted to negotiate, to no avail. I decided at one point to give up Wikipedia altogether, because of just this kind of problem. I do have a personal interest in this subject, since I was a woman who had (20 year old) silicone implants that ruptured--and were probably ruptured for 5 years before I realized it. I will spare you the details, but I was definitively diagnosed with mulitple autoimmune diseases, and by the time of explant, I had developed hives and had gone into anaphylactic shock. I was totally disabled. I well understand formal logic, and that it could be a coincidence that all my labs have returned to (and remained) normal, and my health has so dramatically improved since explant. GIven the circumstances, it is unlikely. Of course, we do not know whether this is common or not, since there are no studies of the long term effects of rupture (amazing, given that implants are touted as the 'most studied device in the world'.) And, yes, I also am an attorney (not a favorite of doctors) but do not have the conflict of interest that Oliver has here. I receive no monetary benefit whether implants are banned or not. My life before law was indeed math and elect. engineering, as I already mentioned. I do not drink, smoke or live an unhealthy lifestyle, so do not fit into the stereotype by which some plastic surgeons discount women who get too uppity. All I and Dr. Zuckerman have been asking is for Samir, or someone who allegedly "clin-med" reviewed this article, to actually read it, and look at the sources cited. Also, to compare the dismissed version with Oliver's version, section by section. I do not think that was asking for too much from one who was willing to lock down the version in one (not even the latest) version. Jance 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I gave up Windows a number of years ago. I contribute using a Mac, and Safari or Firefox, depending on which I click first. Mac is better designed, in both hardware and software, IMHO. Jance! (I will log in)

Signing in

I thought I added ":Jance:" but should have signed in, you are right. WHere did I edit another's comments? Ah, perhaps that is where I did not sign in, and was editing my own comment? I'm sorry. Jance (I still need to sign in) but it is I.

Your suggestions

I fully understand your position, and think you showed courage to say what you did. I thank you for that. I have not had any luck with WP:MED, but will try again. I don't know that WP:MEd credentials are verified, either, though... My concern was that it appeared that whoever 'wiki-clin" reviewed the article didn't. My suspicion is Oliver asked a couple of friends to review it and they deferred to his "expertise." That is unwise, given his history. I do not believe that most doctors (even on Wiki) would deliberately condone clearly incorrect statements. As to the editors who have clearly identified themselves - Dr. Zuckermand and Dr. Melmed can easily be googled and their credentials verified. Both have long been involved in the issues of breast implants. Dr. Zuckerman is an epidemiologist and Dr. Melmed is a plastic surgeon with 27 years of experience and a wealth of knowledge in this area. Unforutnately, he is also not familiar with Wiki, but I hope he can take the time to figure out how to get around the Wiki language. I do not know the other editors who have recently posted - I hope that they will clarify who they are and what their background is, in a way that can be verified. Although I am not sure this is required of others Wiki editors. All that said, I welcome the opportunity to go through this with other objective Wiki-Med editors, and hope someone will. What is now 'locked' reminds me of one particular US political pundit who is notorious for littering her books with sources, most of which do not support her claims. There is an American saying for that: "Baffle them with Bulls**t." Jance 06:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Deleting the Casemoe Article.... We found it but no one here knew how to get rid of it. Signed Casemoe Holdings Employees