User talk:Droliver

Unspecified source for Image:Cohesive gel.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Cohesive gel.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Re your comments on my talk page and elsewhere
Please stop injecting invective and commentary about other editors into discussions on my talk page and the article's talk page. When you do this, it appears to me like you are trying to paralyse the article and side-track the discussion into another quagmire. I personally don't care which version of the article we start with as long as we move forward soon. And I won't allow either side to paralyse it in their own preferred version. As far as other editors and their personal business goes, you're hardly one to talk. For a long time, googling "Breast implant" has brought up the Wikipedia article in one of the top spots. I'd say that gives you a career-orientated and financial conflict of interest. Soon we are going to start editing this article in one form or another. Sarah 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is self serving column that advertises for Dr. Oliver, a plastic surgeon who markets himself on the internet, and is shameless. How dare you edit out the name of Janet Frarnquet from the site for Breast Reconstruction.  She gave her life fighting for a change in national legislature that mandated breast reconstruction insurance coverage for all.  I was present at Sloan Kettering when she was honored by Senators, and the law was announced.  You are not the Wikipedia montior for plastic surgery.  Stop acting like one.  You should feel ashamed of yourself

use of surgical images
Dr Oliver,

We are 2 junior doctors from the UK, that have created a free revision website for medical students (www.revise4finals.co.uk). We are keen to include as many educational images of clinical signs and pathological specimins. We noticed that you have uploaded a few images to wikipedia, and were wondering if you would be happy for us to use these images for educational purposes on our website? Any other clinical images you have would be most welcome!

You can contact us either through our website or at contact @ revise4finals. co. uk

Many thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.130.66 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Breast implant talk...
I asked that question about being too small for implants. I'm wondering...when you say smaller implants will work better, HOW small do you mean? I'm about 5'0 tall, I'd say, no less than that, no taller than 5'1, and I was thinking about maybe going up to a C or D cup. (I'm a 36 A right now.) Not sure which. Is that possible for someone of my size? I'm not fat, either--I weigh around 100 lbs. or so. Thanks for whatever answers you can give me--post them on my talk page so I can see em. =) --67.185.26.89 05:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)(ip addresses suck!)


 * This website is a self serving advertisement for Dr. Oliver —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

License tagging for Image:Ualbook.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ualbook.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 03:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the PMED you sent
Hey Oliver, the pub med you sent mentions "unspecified rheumatism". Wtf is that? Joint problems? Pain? Auto-immune? How could there be a rise in this when it's "unspecified" (how did they measuer)? Not that it's in the conclusions anyway, sounds more like a side note. Otherwise, it's a good paper and since it's an extension of an earlier paper, even better. Cheers Dikke poes 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion on editing
Dear Dr. Oliver,

Our expertise is surgery. What do you think of making contributions to something else in wikipedia? Earlier today, I made a comment about the John Edwards (running for president).

There seems to be a fight going on there about Mrs. Edwards' cancer. John Edwards said (and I paraphrase) that the cancer is "completely treatable" and likened it to diabetes (probably because both are not curable, but treatable).

Some argue that Edwards is being deceptive and putting too much of a spin. There was a mention that being misleading is potentially harmful to the public because someone else with breast cancer might misunderstand and think that her prognosis is good. They even wanted to put grim prognosis numbers. Some others thought that "original research" and "soapboxing" is not permitted in wikipedia and they wanted to put just the info from the glossy Edwards press reports.

I take a neutral stance in between.

The problem I see is that is it potentially bad to write about this type of comment? Some doctors in wikipedia stick to medicine but others do not. I don't want to get into a fight between a bunch of Democrats and Republicans.

Best regards, Frank (Doc United States) Here's the link  My part is near or at the bottom called "A Response from a Physician"Doc United States 22:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your insightful comment. I saw that you wrote on Hiram Polk. I added a few minor details. We may have experienced similar torture, maybe different years. I don't want to ask! Oh, I am NOT Frank Miller.Doc United States 00:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The user who called himself "Doc United States" has been identified through checkuser as one of numerous sock puppets of User:Dereks1x, who apparently created this false identity as a doctor to gain advantage in an editing dispute. The account has been indefinitely blocked, and I'm striking out his comment above as it was done in evasion of Dereks1x's block and is a fraudulent identity. Tvoz | talk 23:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks
Droliver: thanks for your note - see my comment on Talk:John Edwards. I think what we have now works - a little more than your drier text, but less than what we had - what the Edwardses say about her specific case - such as their plans to handle it and how she is feeling and the fact that her cancer is incurable but will be treated - is fair to be included in an article about him, but speculation by people not connected to her specific case doesn't belong there. I just added back a little bit about what they said about the impact of her illness on them and the campaign. I also want to bring this to your attention. Tvoz | talk 09:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Maxwell_Clr.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Maxwell_Clr.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 22:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

megustaria saber encuantas formas puede benir el oro platino y cuanto es lo que puede yegar apesar el platino sies un mtal que se prensa osi es un material que seda en piedra en arena y como se defini grasias

Hi Rob
Thanks for your note. Good to be around, wish I had more time though. Hope things are well -- Samir 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Micromastia
Hello. Being that you are a physician and I am not, perhaps you could enlighten me as to what I posted under the discussion page of Micromastia. If Micromastia is a real medical term for a real disease and not a term created to make small breasts sound like one, please let me know. I did check a number of sources before I wrote what I did and they all confirmed that while Poland syndrome and hypoplasia are real diseases, Micromastia is not.


 * There is room in the article for the opinions of plastic surgeons and others regarding the psychological and social problems of "micromastia" but there is no room for inaccurate descriptions of a term which is really a Latin or Greek word that just means "small breasts" and has no real medical basis.


 * For example, you have put in the benefits of breast enlargement surgery and not mentioned any drawbacks. Would you really only tell a patient this?  Frankly, you should worry about lawsuits if that is really the case :).


 * Your viewpoint is important to wikipedia to help make the article balanced. Perhaps, before you edited it, it was biased against surgery but rather than make it neutral, you instead made it highly pro breast enlargement.


 * There is a vast difference between a word that is created to cover a observation and one for a disease. The article must make clear that Micromastia is a word that means "small breasts" and not a description of a disease or a medical condition, except perhaps a psychological one.


 * Again, since I am not a medical expert, please let me know if I am wrong and where I can find some sources to support your claims.


 * I look forward to hearing from you and to a balanced and correct article in the near future. Thank you.  Fanra 08:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've posted on the discussion page my reply. I hope we can manage to work together despite our different view points and create a good article.  I feel that if it contains both our viewpoints and explains that people disagree, that will serve the reader best and they are free to make up their own mind on the issues.  Thank you.  Fanra 20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've placed a totally disputed tag on the article. I was going to write here a long explanation of my objections but I felt that I should take some time to think over how I am going to say it so as to avoid any hint of personal attack.  I will say that removing any mention of controversy is contrary to Wikipedia's goal of presenting all sides of an issue, see: Neutral point of view.  While it is valid for you to quote sources that say the controversy is wrong, it is hiding your head in the sand to pretend one does not exist.  Fanra 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You wrote to me, "that word is really a grab bag of pathologies for hypoplasia." The problem is that the very sources you use for the word pretty much makes it clear that it is not.  Micromastia, according to the first source, means "small breasts".  "Micromastia (ie, small breasts)"  and the second source says the same thing, except adding, "abnormal": "micromastia (mi·cro·mas·tia)  (mi”kro-mas´te-ə)  abnormal smallness of the mamma."

They do not say, "hypoplasia breasts". Again, as I've said before, breasts can be fully developed and still be "micromastia", just because they are small.

Micromastia does not mean anything is wrong with them. The reason I asked for a "Request for Comment" was because I feel that there is no way you will admit that it is not the same as hypoplasia. While Micromastia can include hypoplasia, the word also includes perfectly normal breasts that just happen to be small.

Why isn't it a synonym for hypoplasia? Because a woman can have small breasts and not have hypoplasia. Hypoplasia means that some part of the body did not develop fully. A woman can have fully developed breasts that just happen to be small. I am 5' 6" in height. You could say I suffer from "Microcorpus", after all, compared to the average American, I do "suffer" from "small body". That would be just as "medical" and as meaningful. My height is "abnormal" since it is below the norm.

Check this out: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/dwarfism.html

Now if you wish to claim that Micromastia is something like dwarfism, with hypoplasia or Poland's syndrome as two possible causes of it, we can go that route. But note that Medline Plus says, "Dwarfism itself is not a disease." Note that they also have a real definition of it, "under 4’ 10” as an adult." Reading the Wikipedia article on Dwarfism can also be a help here. There they make clear that what dwarfism is and is not.

In my last edit to the page, I took into account your position and changed my edit to reflect some of your points. I did remove some items that you placed in that didn't have sources but I also removed some of my own that could be seen as biased and I did leave in some of your description. I was attempting to try to accommodate your feelings that it should be more neutral.

I have found that your latest edit totally removes everything I put in and pretends that there is no controversy. This is a disregard for any other viewpoint than your own.

The other reason I asked for "Request for Comment" was that after I politely asked that you not remove my sourced information, you did exactly that. At this point, I feel that since instead of putting in other views to refute my posting, you just totally removed it, that we can't reach any kind of agreement. I would be very happy if you could prove me wrong on this and that we can "agree to disagree" and have the article reflect this, but it seemed to me that you were just throwing out anything I put in because it wouldn't be in an article for Plastic Surgery Monthly.

On the talk page, you mentioned Dorlands Medical Dictionary, there it says, "micromastia (mi·cro·mas·tia) (mi”kro-mas´te-ə)  abnormal smallness of the mamma." Such a definition is pretty vague. Since the majority of persons height is in their legs, do I have "microscelous (mi·cros·ce·lous) (mi-kros´kə-ləs) [micro- + Gr. skelos leg]  having short lower limbs." since I am 5'6" in height? After all, since the norm of height for adult males in the USA is about 5'11", I do have abnormal smallness of the legs, right?

You wrote to me, "You're really equating micromastia with the unique American history surrounding cosmetic breast augmentation which is a different animal and really touched on more in the article on implants, and that is linked to in the micromastia entry. Wikipedia is nominally a world-view treatment of these things, which makes the particular American political hang-up over breasts out of place when you're dryly trying to present a non-partisan presentation of a medical descriptor."

Let me answer this. First, while Wikipedia is supposed to be a world-view on issues, America is part of the world. Issues affecting the United States should be covered. Of course, the views of other nations should also be mentioned. I did have the following in the article before I decided it was not appropriate, "There is a possibility that it might be considered a culture-bound syndrome for Western cultures"

While you feel that I am "trying to present a non-partisan presentation of a medical descriptor." I feel that you are trying to present a non-partisan presentation of a cultural descriptor by claiming it is a medical disorder.

Again, Micromastia is a word for a subjective opinion on the size of a women's breasts. It does not describe a medical disorder. Anymore than saying that Barbra Streisand "suffers from the medical disorder Macrorhino" or Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman suffer from microscelous.

Also, note that "microscelous" does not have an article in Wikipedia. Why? Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that is Wiktionary's job. There is no reason at all to have an article on Micromastia if we are only going to say it means "abnormal smallness of breast". The only reason for an article at all is to mention that it is a controversial word with social and political importance in the USA and other Western nations. Fanra 10:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How about we just add a micropriaposis article to balance it out? : ) Dikke poes 20:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Implantplacement.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Implantplacement.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Implantplacement.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Implantplacement.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. bluemask (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Ousterhout
Ummm, aren't I supposed to get a prodwarning for the above article, being the author? Just saying ... - A l is o n  ☺ 01:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tags per WP:AfD - If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. In this case I think notability is not the issue but reliable sources might be, in any case the answer is constructive editing to make the article better. Benjiboi 10:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What would motivate you to remove Janet Franquet's name from the Breast Reconstruction page on Wikipedia. This woman had breast cancer and fought her insurance company, to force them to cover breast reconstruction. Her efforts led to federal legislation that mandated insurance coverage for breast reconstruction for all in this country. She is a national hero and died during this fight. The law WAS named after her. The least you can do is to honor her memory —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Wikimania in Atlanta!
Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Saledynamicduo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Saledynamicduo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of WP contributions for self advertising
"Even more ironic, is that last week I authored a section about surgical treatment of liver metastasis in the colon cancer entry on Wikipedia. Small world, eh?" from your blog. Sunday, July 29, 2007 This is followed by what appears to be a reproduction of the logo for the German Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC) (I came here as a follow up of the discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Todd_Wider. DGG (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

MCOTW
JFW | T@lk  11:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DDY1cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:DDY1cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Janet's Law
I am Janet Franquet's identical twin sister (an appropriate factoid) Joyce. Although you may feel that including her name in the law is not significant, I assure you, she sacrificed much to get this law passed. This was due to the actions of ignorant health insurance agency who claimed that a breast had no viable function. You may feel that the stories behind a law due not matter, but it is the action of the one individual that needs to be told to enlighten you as to why there had to be a law in the first place. September 27, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjoyce (talk • contribs) 03:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's some confusion you have re. this issue and as to what exactly wikipedia is or should be. I have no personal issue with your sister or her memory, but instead I'm trying to keep this discussion (on an area I care a great deal about) "on the tracks" of how this would be presented in a textbook or peer-reviewed article. My redacting mention of your sister is that in the context of breast reconstruction as a topic, she is not an important part of the narrative. Getting off onto American-centric minutae about one of the many stories of similar nature that were percolating re. this doesn't really serve an article well, particularly on a topic that is a medical articel rather then a sociological one. In addition, from an international perspective (which is Wikipedia's goal) it is completely irrelevent that some relatively anonymous American was used as an anecdote in the American legislative debate. The relevent fact is that the law re. mandatory coverage exists in the US in a similar way that other countries have such coverage, rather then Janet's role in that. Droliver 22:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I find your continued manipulation of the breast reconstruction site in regards to Janet's Law, and proper attribution, extremely inappropriate and unethical. I can't quite understand why you are persisting in this exercise. The law was named for her sister. A federal law was named for the woman, and that was well documented in the press at the time, as I have repeatedly noted before. It seems that that is not minutae. Your response is to attempt to remove the entry about me, which would seem to be mean spirited. There must be some personal animousity that you harbor and I find it a shame. Tmwmd 06:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)tmwmd 12/1/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmwmd (talk • contribs) 05:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Saledynamicduo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Saledynamicduo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Salegrayhulk.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Salegrayhulk.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Secondaryrhinoplasy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Secondaryrhinoplasy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Appendixcancer.gif
Hello, and thank you for uploading Image:Appendixcancer.gif. Could you please upload the original JPEG copy of this image? You've modified and re-saved it in the GIF format, which is not designed for photos, and the photo shows visible degradation because of this. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DallasRhinoplasty.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DallasRhinoplasty.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dallasrhino2nd.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dallasrhino2nd.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Polk00.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Polk00.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Appendix
How can you tell if an appendix is inflambed before operating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.94.187 (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

appendicitis
I just had a question for you; I saw the picture on here of the appendix you removed. I recently had my appendix removed, after being in a car accident. I got in an car accident on October 9th, 2006. After that, I had been experiencing a lot of pain in the lower right hand quadrant of my back. I assumed it was from the car accident, until I started feeling feverish. A friend of mine told me it sounded like I had a kidney infection or something, so I went to the Emergency Room of a Naval Hospital (which wasn't a good idea). They diagnosed me, after speaking with me for 30 minutes, with a bladder infection and sent me home with antibiotics. The next morning, I woke up vomiting and went back. They ran tests all day. I had a high fever with chills, lots and lots of vomiting, and ached all over. They did a cat-scan, and an ultrasound, a pelvic exam. I was there from 7:30am and at 4:30pm a surgeon came into my room and told me that he wanted to do exploratory surgery. I wasn't too excited about hearing that, but went through with it. When I woke up, the doctor told me that my appendix was actually up and behind my colon. So here is my question; I really believe that the only reason my appendix was found in such an odd area is because of the car accident, but my husband believes otherwise. Have you ever seen or heard of an appendix being positioned in such a place? I read about its positioning, and its usually either on one side or another (the left side being rare). If you could email me at; sara.wert@navy.mil

Thank you for taking the time to read this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.84.201 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Manual Dexterity
Hey, I noticed on your userpage that you are a plastic surgeon. I was just wondering, in general, how do surgeons train their hands and develop their manual dexterity? Are there special exercises or techniques to develop a steady hand? thanks. Acceptable (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mask of the sun.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Mask of the sun.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Masksun.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Masksun.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mask_of_the_sun.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mask_of_the_sun.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? PhilKnight (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:BA20.jpg
Image:BA20.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Breasts.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi
oh hi there you are an epic faggot

MDS
I agree with you about most of those plastic surgeons; I have long wanted to do something similar:they and dermatologists seem to be the ones who advertise. Mearns, though, is Head of the Plastic Surgery Dept or Service at the teaching hospital for Harvard Med School--such positions are almost the equiv. of head of an academic dept. at that med school and carry almost certain notability -- such have been sustained for all major teaching hospitals. I deprodded that one. DGG (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey y'all!
We're going to be having our first Mississippi meetup next month, and I would love it if you'd like to come out! A few of us will be staying overnight, so if you feel up to it, we could have a meet and greet that night and then breakfast the next morning and talk about Wikipedia and everyone's areas of expertise. Let's show 'em how it's done Southern-style! Mike H. Fierce! 22:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What gives?
Why did you PROD this behind my back? I thought the policies state that you must contact the maker of the page when you do this sort of thing, and I received no message from you. Please reply on my talk page. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don&#39;t mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Cardiology task force
-- Addbot (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

footwound.jpg
how does it look now? 68.0.119.139 (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Appendixcancer.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Appendixcancer.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 02:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Rivkin
The AfD notice you placed on the article takes me to the first discussion (which I somehow missed on the talk page when I made corrections a couple of days ago), and I didn't see in your history or the AfD list an entry for this AfD discussion. It appears that you are doing these AfDs manually, which would be a lot of work, but I don't know if this is just how the bot difs look. Flowanda | Talk 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd try to fix it, but I don't want to muck up anything, so I thought I'd check with you first. Flowanda | Talk 21:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
I'm surprised that I haven't come across you before. You deserve a barnstar. Best wishes, Axl  ¤  [Talk]  21:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion sorting
Thanks for your efforts to oppose vanispamcruftisments from the cosmetic surgery industry. Whenever you list a medicine-related (construed very broadly) article for deletion, please feel free to add it to the list at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine. The instructions are on the page and are quite simple. There are sections to list both prods and full AfDs, and just about anything else that relates to deletion. This page is watched by some people that don't follow the doctor's mess very closely. Thanks again for your work, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me some guidance here: You have posted before/after pics and I seek the same opportunity.
Dr. Oliver I am a little confused you state emphatically elsewhere: "As a plastic surgeon and wiki contributor, it gets under my skin when people try to use wikipedia as part of a marketing campaign." Yet you post links to your personal blog on your user page and ask Wikipedia visitors to go there and you also post "before and after pictures of breat augmentation" here: and list yourself as author. Can you explain why this only applies to you and not to me. I would gladly post my pictures in the exact manner in which you posted yours. Would this meet with your satisfaction? You have been highly critical of my contributions and I have a hard time understanding why it is unacceptable for me but permitted for you. Can you provide some guidance. I would comply if I had role model who led by example or could clearly spell out the guidelines which seem to be interpreted differently by each user Otto Placik (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First, Droliver is clearly not a single purpose account because the user contributions show lots of useful edits that are nothing to do with promotion of a person or concept. Second, the User:Droliver page shows several items and the very modest text "Please check out my blog, Plastic Surgery 101" is entirely appropriate. There is no attempt to use the Wikipedia page as a promotion (a modest link such as this is acceptable on one's user page – there is no way one could look at that page and think it was an advert). Third, while I haven't checked them all, images like File:Breasts.jpg have no links to anything, and no suggestion that they are associated with a plastic surgeon. A reader would need to go to a fair bit of trouble to start from the Breast implant article and end up seeing a promotion for a particular doctor. Finally, it takes some time getting used to how Wikipedia works; I would recommend spending at least a month doing some minor editing in a different field of interest. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have some minor editing plans in mind. Otto Placik (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Oliver I have a question and would appreciate your advice
Viewing that I have recieved alot of criticism for posting photographs, I am reluctant to proceed without a little more supervision and guidance as to proper Wiki etiquette. I would like to add an article regarding a medical topic. Before I post this, I would greatly appreciate your review and assistance in making any comments so that it would present a NPOV. Would you be willing to review the article? Also where would be the best location to place this for your review without actually posting it? Should I email it to you? Thank you Otto Placik (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Non notable in your field
Wikipedia's requirements for notability for medical doctors are not so outrageous that they require your personal opinion on the doctor's notability. Simply failing any of the existing criteria will do for deleting the doctor's article, or noting that no sources existed on-line and a presumption of non-notability for a surgeon practicing for only 3 years, even I would have bought, in the one case.

But, your personal opinion should not be used as a reason for notability or not. The articles should stand on their own through verifiable sources or not, according to wikipedia's criteria for deletion.

Another possibility is that you could change the standards to include the noted voice of authority (yours or another's) in their field, by requesting input from the community for changing the criteria. By which I mean, specifically and independently establishing your authority on wikipedia.

Until then, please nominate and discuss articles for deletion based upon existing criteria. Of course, I can't stop you, but I will point out to the community what they should already know: your opinion is not a criterion for deletion. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The point was simply that he was non-notable and the "in my field" does back that up. It is no less valid than if he had simply said "non-notable surgeon." Rich Farmbrough, 22:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Not really, as Dr. Oliver makes clear on my talk page, what I assume he means, that he is personally deciding their lack of notability, bringing it to the attention of other wikipedian's, and arguing for deletion from his position as a member of the field, is what he means. "As someone who participates in and keeps up to date with the literature in my fairly narrow area I think I'm on solid ground bringing some attention to really dodgy wikipedia entries. I take pride in trying to prevent some of the sprawl that is threatening to turn wikipedia into a less reputable source."


 * It's not about your pride in preventing sprawl that is threatening to turn wikipedia into a less reputable source. What wikipedia needs is well-written articles. All the petty articles and their petty deletions are are not going to make wikipedia a less or more reputable source. Sourcing and rewriting existing articles, removing plagiarisms, and adding good articles on missing topics will do that. All the time spent discussing those articles could easily have been spent rewriting them to credible and sourced stubs, adding new properly sourced articles, removing plagiarisms, all sorts of positive additions.


 * When borderline notable articles are nominated for deletion based on the goal of an editor like you and that other editor who is antagonistic to academics, a lot of editing time is spent discussing, relisting, rediscussing. You don't offer straight-forward reasons for deletion from the list, you don't outline your AfD in a neutral way, your biases are the clear reason for deletion, and nominations of this sort simply create a battle-line between deletionists and inclusionists. Why not just specify precisely how we, as wikipedia editors, can see that this doctor in your field is not notable, leave your personal expertise out of it, and go forward with a straight, clean AfD? This time could have been spent writing an encyclopedia, instead of debating your expertise in your field, for which we need neutral, reliable sources, which you have not provided. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted in Troy, Alabama
Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian in Alabama. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Troy University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

I know Alabama is a big state, but if you happen to live near Troy and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from Troy who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Medicine
Hi I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders. Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Inamdata.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Inamdata.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate
Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
 * Publish an article to the journal.
 * Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
 * Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
 * Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
 * Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
 * Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
 * Join the editorial board.
 * Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
 * Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
 * Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
 * Technical work like template designing for the journal.
 * Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to . If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at.
 * Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

 D ip ta ns hu Talk 13:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Submuscular breast augmentation preop.jpg


The file File:Submuscular breast augmentation preop.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Submuscular breast augmentation postop.jpg


The file File:Submuscular breast augmentation postop.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Original implant.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Original implant.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)