This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doc United States (talk | contribs) at 22:19, 1 April 2007 (Your opinion on editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:19, 1 April 2007 by Doc United States (talk | contribs) (Your opinion on editing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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!)
License tagging for Image:Ualbook.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ualbook.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, 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:
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 Misplaced Pages: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)