Talk:Permanent makeup/Archive 1

User Tatt bratt has provided misleading information and routinely erases information that exposes her agenda with SPCP. She goes out of her way to manipulate information and distort the truth regarding the FDA and the laws regarding Permanent Makeup. She is a schill from SPCP who is under inverstigation and has a pending slander lawsuit against her and sveral other memebers for lies thaey have Blogged about other people in the past

''Response to above comments by 76.189.163.253 on January 29, 2008 - There is no agenda other than relating information provided by impartial and reliable sources. Direct links to the FDA site do not "distort truths" - furthermore, user 76.189.163.253 has maliciously diverted links to personally endorsed private companies and even has gone as far as having changed information on a procedural photo someone else has posted. Over the course of the Permanent Makeup page's history, user 76.189.163.253 has been warned many times for improper editing, linking areas to her personal web pages and other acts of vandalism and this should no longer be tolerated.''Tatt bratt (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above had to be cut and pasted back in because it was deleted. I have no lawsuit against me, I have slandered no one and I have no idea as to your reference of me being a "schill" for anyone. I only present open and honest information about this profession with proper links to non-biased professional organizations that are not owned by individuals or companies. Tatt bratt (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tatt Bratt will not allow anyone to post anything other than what she perceives to be Truth. Her agenda is very one sided and she is not at all open to what this forum was designed for, which is to shrare information regarding Permanent Makeup. She has gone in on numerous times and erased posting from others just becasue she doesn't agree with what the posting states. She is not as open minded as she states and has gone on a very slanderous mission to discredit one company and owner in general with out allowing the full disclosure of the facts as to what really happenned and how it was handled. Tatt Bratt is very misguided and believes she is the spokesperson for the entire industry and that only her opinion matters. Little does she know that her own comments are some going to be used against her in a court of law - Just ask Liza Simms about the slander lawsuit she lost - Your next


 * The IP above has been blocked for one year for legal threats.    Acroterion  (talk)  01:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

''In response to post by IP above who is now blocked, I do not have an "agenda" - I have not slandered anyone, I have not discredited a company. Her statement as to allowing full disclosure of the facts as to "what really happened" is a mystery in itself in that I have no clue as to what she is referring to as there is no reference to anything of its kind here on Permanent Makeup Wikipedia page''.Tatt bratt (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tatt bratt has provided misleading information regarding an Australian court decision. This could be viewed as contempt of court, I urge caution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.250.91 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI,I have not made any "attempt" to hide an Australian Court Decision. I was forced to revert to previous versions because so much was altered. If you read below you will see that I advised IP address 59.167.171.5 start her own section on the Australian regulations TWICE. I have since edited part of the existing wording and created a separate section "Regulations/Oversight and added it to this section.Tatt bratt (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)''

''Please state where the information I have provided is misleading. There is no contempt of court - I am not under the jurisdiction of any Australian court. Do they do "permanent" hair color in Australia? Does that not fade? Do they do "permanent waves" in Australia? Does the hair curls not relax? The poor technician was unfortunately subjected to erroneous judgment by an official. It happens in the courts all the time. Why would this go unchallenged? It is ridiculous. Tatt bratt (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)''

DO NOT REMOVE TATT_BRATT'S POSTS WHEN YOU POST YOUR OWN -  VANDALISM WILL NOT BE TOLERATED - THIS AREA IS FOR DISCUSSION AND IF ALL PARTIES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EXPRESS OPINIONS AND BACK UP WITH FACTUAL INFORMATION, YOUR ARE INTERFERING WITH WIKIPEDIA EDITORIAL RIGHTS

I see you have removed Rejuvi information (upon further inspection I see you still link to them - it is still self-serving and inappropriate as previously stated, removal is a medical procedure so companies like Rejuvi should not be promoted - now if you would appropriately present your regulations this nonsense can stop. There are other things that need to go back into this article but I find it impossible to do so because you continue to make inappropriate changes such as the "SPSC" thing below.Tatt bratt (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Further information regarding your changes to the page: Most appropriately called Cosmetic Tattooing[1], other names include dermapigmentation, micropigmentation, and permanent cosmetics which is the term commonly preferred by members of the largely US dominated association SPSC[2] While you state it is most approriately called cosmetic tattooing, your link should only be used when describing that isolated legislation. The ONLY reason it should be called cosmetic tattooing is because it IS simply that - tattooing. That does not mean you can misspell the acronym SPCP and come to your own conclusions about the study. The study had participants worldwide form both members and non-members AND it is the ONLY study of its kind so unless you can cite others, the name Permament Makeup needs to stay as is since cosmetic tattooing has been proven to only be of limited use worldwide. Read for once instead of automatically reverting to your vandalizing and prejudicial edits. Maybe you should create your own page for cosmetic tattooing in your part of Australia since what you write is contrary to every other part of the world. Tatt bratt (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop posting informational links to a private company's removal products (Rejuvi). In most areas of the world, removal is only done by doctors. Tatt bratt (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have invited you to add to the existing page about your isolated regulations, however you cannot turn an entire page to your own personal beliefs and additionally with self-serving links to private companies.

Why not, at the end of this section ''Most commonly called permanent cosmetics, other names include dermapigmentation, micropigmentation, and cosmetic tattooing.[1] These procedures are regulated in many countries and states, some of them requiring a registered professional, such as an esthetician, dermatologist or plastic surgeon to perform it. In the United States and other countries, the inks used in permanent makeup and the pigments in these inks are subject to FDA regulation as cosmetics and color additives.'' PUT IN....In Australia...blah, blah, blah, and then put a link to the ACTUAL regulations - not some article about someone being forced to make changes.

I have promised many I would watch-dog this section and I intend to remain vigilant so it is not turned into your own personal forum.Tatt bratt (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoever you are, feel free to repost your comments WITHOUT removing mine or I will continue to revert. There is no choice.Tatt bratt (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

When responding to these comments, kindly sign them so they are not misconstrued as MY COMMENTS. Tatt bratt (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be very much interested in hearing what the ACCC says about the fact that once tattoo ink of any kind is placed into the dermis of the skin, it remains there permanently, even though it fades away over time. If you do a punch biopsy of the skin, and study it microscopically, you will see the pigment molecules remain even if faded. Yes, it is a cosmetic tattoo, but it is NOT semi-permanent as your ACCC seems to think. And while I agree cosmetic tattooing is the most appropriate term, being a tattoo artist, it is NOT the most commonly accepted term worldwide - permanent cosmetics/permanent makeup is most accepted so the Wiki page should stay that way.

Furthermore, the fading that occurs does not happen in only 3-5 year. It can lighten as early as one year or stay forever. My eyeliner is 20 years old and never touched up. Tell your ACCC that! Ask them what will happen when someone following that rationale has cosmetic tattooing and assumes it will disappear and doesn't? Court judgments were made because technicians do not receive proper training to educate their clientele (or legislatiors) properly. It is interesting that worldwide, this is not an issue - only there. Deceptive practices? Likely. Tatt bratt (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel you wish to put something about your isolated regulations, start a new section to it - DO NOT change the entire purpose and meaning of the Permanent Makeup description. Then I can properly explain why the regulations are faulty and are not consistent.Tatt bratt (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Additional comments regarding Australia. Kathleen Ciampi, Executive Director of the SPCP, has responded that there are 14 members from Australia in this organization showing it is not biased only toward the US. It is a fair estimation to conclude that if these members did not adhere to the standards of this organization, they would not remain members. There is no reason to turn this section into something that even professional in that location disagree with. I have ask for intervention by Editorial Advisors. Tatt bratt (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Discussion regarding unnamed editor December 30th IP adress 59.167.171.5 This continual change to very SELECT policies in one particular area should NOT replace previously posted information. This considerable disruption to this page is not to be continued. The whole world goes against this very bad regulation and is not consistent with logic and scientific evidence of how tattooing heals and ages in the skin.Tatt bratt (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Additionally, the term permanent cosmetics and permanent makeup rated very high in the Industry Profile study that was used in this piece. They are an INTERNATIONAL group and the results were obtained from prmanent cosmetic professionals worldwide. Furthermore, the links removed by whoever you are (please name yourself) were very relevant to this page and should remain.Tatt bratt (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Further comments - the link to the article that this unnamed editor removes is inportant to the history of permanent makeup. It demonstrates how George Burnett tattooed cosmetically back in the 1930's. It should stay.Tatt bratt (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Further comments - the link to the article the paragraph below questions - "Revolting Bodies" that this unnamed editor removes is important to the history of permanent makeup. It demonstrates how George Burnett tattooed cosmetically back in the 1930's. It should stay.Tatt bratt (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatt bratt (talk • contribs)

The frequent attempts to remove regulatory information regarding the use of the word "Permanent" to describe cosmetic tattooing are inappropriate and deceptive. It is important that the public are informed about action taken by regulatory authorities worldwide to protect their interests in this area. The previous links to the page titled "Revolting Bodies" has little relevance to the article and the title of the page may be misleading to the uninformed reader that it relates to contemporary cosmetic tattoo procedures in any way. The previous links to the About.com page contains no additional information of any genuine benefit and appears to be little more than a testimonial page for a practitioner. Links to private or business website pages may be appropriate in instances where the information on the webpage is unbiased, relevant and if the information is of significant value, particularly if the information would not otherwise be available elsewhere. The misinformed comments about Australian regulations and requirements and actions have been removed from discussion, cosmetic tattooing is not required to be described as semi-permanent in Australia. THIS PARAGRAPH IS UNSIGNED and not contributed by Tatt bratt.

Tatt - bratt comments: Furthermore, soon, a TRUE semi-permanent tattoo ink under the Freedom 2 name will be available for use in the industry, so how will this be able to be differentiated? Tatt bratt (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A. More information for December 29th - Under the history section there was reference to a "Mollie Forster" as making the statement that the article referenced stated as belonging to George Burchett. Having studied this further, it was necessary to make this important change. It is also important those choosing to make further changes discuss them here first. Tatt bratt (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

B. New post, December 29th - After another discussion with editorial advisory, it became apparent to me that this page needed to be reverted back to much of its original content (that was reverted back by Editor Ciaconna in November) so that photos could be replaced and proper links to articles and reference material could be restored. These links are not self-serving - they do not point to anyone's personal websites and should remain part of this section. I will scan the recently submitted content to be sure I have not accidentally removed important information and will replace that accordingly.Tatt bratt (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the second paragraph that Dasante keeps altering: Most commonly called permanent cosmetics, other names include dermapigmentation, micropigmentation, and cosmetic tattooing.  The Society of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals conducts studies that I have pulled this information from. (Vision 2006) The terms are accurate - permanent cosmetics is used most often in the industry and "medical" micropigmentation is only used in the state of OK - "micropigmentation" is the word used by others (while its use is dwindlng rapidly) in the industry. This is why her addition of "medical" is inappropriate in that tattooing is not classified as a medical procedures. Tatt bratt 12:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding linking from micropigmentation: Absolutely NOT - permanent makeup should not be linked to micropigmentation or vice versa. Micropigmentation is a made up name by the medical community so as not to recognize permanent makeup or permanent cosmetics as tattooing. Every day professionals are dropping this completely misleading and outdated term. Tatt bratt 15:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit War
Further edit warring by any party will result in full protection of the article for a week, at whatever Wrong Version exists at the time.  Acroterion  (talk)  04:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)