User talk:Sarah

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Sarah Ewart/Archive9. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sorry

I am sorry that i "abused" FisherQueen, but she bothers me and i dont really like her. I will stop and please forgive me!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackwen (talk • contribs).

Australia Zoo

Do you even visit Australia Zoo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.245.220 (talk • contribs) 16:22, December 1, 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Block on 69.119.119.178

Thanks for taking action to block 69.119.119.178, who appears to be an incorrigible vandal. I reverted this person's vandal-edits on the Alexz Johnson article - one of several articles vandalized in the last day or two.

Is there any way of blocking this user for longer than 2 months? We can be sure that as soon as any ban expires, it will be business as usual for this vandal. People who do this sort of thing have no right to "contribute" to Wikipedia, and they spoil things for those of us who are trying to maintain the articles.

Thanks again!

User:JD_Fan

Extension of Block on 69.119.119.178

Thanks for the quick action on extending the block - much appreciated! Let's hope that 69.119.119.178 grows out of it. He obviously put a lot of thought into what he was doing - hopefully, he can channel that elsewhere in the future.

User:JD_Fan

Your question about WP:Office

I agree with you, Sarah. And I know that. I did not believe that when Tyrenius told me, because when I asked him about it, he hedged. Now if you look at Samir's removal of my comment on the talk page (that the "inappropriateness" was debatable, since the statement in question was a very dry recital of a court decision) you will see he removed it for WP:Office. Tyrenius told me that removal was a "WP:Offce" decision. Samir, when removing my comment on the talk page, deleted my comment with the comment of "WP:Office". Nobody with one ounce of common sense could take my comment on the talk page as uncivil. It in no way violated any Wikipedia rule. I also believe that Tyrenius did not tell me the truth about WP:Office on this article - as you yourself pointed out. I am asking your help as an admin to get to the bottom of this, and ask you also why it was acceptable for Samir to remove my c omment on the talk page. I also ask that you look at the article and tell me what you think of the references and claims made.Jance 05:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not talk with Tyrenius, because he will not tell me what happened. He knows what happened, and so do I.Jance 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, you are ok. Thank you for showing me that there are some people who read these things. At this point, I won't pursue it anymore - it is not that big of a deal. I just wanted someone to understand what was going on. And yes, the article is awful, and the references do not meet any standard for a credible paper. Wiki or otherwise. And this has been typical of this editor - and not just in that article. I will now go back to my (real) work and another article that I am tinkering with. At least there, I have helped add some points on that are useful to an article. That is not possible when there is a WP:Own of an article . I am getting accustomed to the WP:TLA (three letter acronym). Thanks again. And please do look into the article itself, when you have a chance. It's a bad example for any publication. Jance 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement in question: [1]. I was advised in August by e-mail from Tyrenius that office action was sought and that the page history had been erased. Jance's statements, placed at the top of the talk page in capital letters about how this was a "FLUFF PIECE" and a puff piece were clearly not in the spirit of that. -- Samir धर्म 07:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, (1) I agree that the article needs signficant work in terms of wording and references (2) My understanding was that the article was sent to Brad for office consideration (by David Gerard) and that the consensus reached was that any questionable edits to the article or talk page should be immediately removed. Tyrenius would have the details. I thought Jance's wording in her descriptors of the article was inappropriate, and removed it. The article needs improvement, but there are better ways of saying that then capital letters "FLUFF PIECE" on the top of the talk page -- Samir धर्म 07:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So WP:PEACOCK in all caps and "puff piece" written by other editors at the top of the talk page were also removed? Just curious, Samir. Jance 09:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I think the summary would be that Office was consulted, a decision was made to remove questionable edits on the spot (on administrator's best judgment), but that Danny did not place the article under WP:OFFICE protection. I judged Jance's comment to be inappropriate with respect to that and removed it. Thanks again for your levelheadedness in dealing with this -- Samir धर्म 07:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt if "Office" ever saw the article. I guess Samir objected because it was in caps. There is no other reason. Tyrenius told me that the earlier citing of a court decision was WP:Office, as did Samir in his comment. Neither are true. And it was a bad call, that is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines on WP:BIo. So Samir removed my statement that there was some disagreement with that position, as an edit to be immediately removed without discussion. Wow.

Relevant court decisions can be used as primary sources in a bio. This was not a focus, nor a slanted desription - it was 2 sentences at the most, very dryly written to avoid any such predictable accusation. But Oliver complained about it, probably threatening lawsuit (not understanding that there was no libel there - and clearly Tyrenius didn't understand it, or evidently read the WP:Bio) That is probably why it was not further protected. At least, now I have confirmation that it was never a WP:Office, but instead was left up to Tyrenius to make the call. And it was a bad call. In fact, it was not pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines. It seems that relevant, properly documented primary sources are acceptable for Wikipedia for bios - as long as those bios are not MDs? And now one cannot call an article a fluff or puff piece? Jance 09:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please ask Samir to just drop it - and that includes bickering back and forth complaining. I well know his sentiments.. He did as I would have expected him to do. I don't have any desire to get into an utterly stupid quarrel with him, when he can use his admin authority as a club. I will just stay away from anything Oliver writes, and leave you all to read the trash.Jance 10:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, a number of court documents were made available for admin. review which resulted in the subsequent treatment of that entry. Droliver 15:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, there was no appeal of the court decision at issue. The plaintiff dismissed her case for other reasons, and court documents on that could only show that there was a voluntary dismissal by plaintiff--a trial judge ruled, based on a recent panel report that there was no systemic problem from silicone implants, that she would be unable to prove harm from the use of silicone implants. Didn't have anything to do with whether or not silicone implants were used against her wishes.. It does not change anything about the case and the court holding. This is what is so ridiculous here. The case holding was not appealed. Therre is no further court decision on the matter before the court. None. Oliver could not have produced any, because there are none. The court also had a ruling on discovery about impairment, and admitted treatment but I never even tried to include that in the article precisesly because it was too inflammatory and not as relevant.Jance 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Breast Implants and Systemic Diseases

Sarah, I see how busy you are so I'm sorry to bother you. Droliver finally agreed to the very short addition of complications to the breast implant article, so I re-inserted the information about complications that someone else had suggested we put back in the article.

The next part of the article that needs serious and immmediate fixing is the section on systemic diseases, which is the most one-sided pro-implant possible summary of the issue. It has a chart of policy statements from different countries. In case you are not familiar with how those work, let me explain. Most countries in the world allow medical implants to be sold unless there is research evidence proving that they are unsafe. No research is needed to prove that they are safe. That may seem crazy but it is actually true. I can send you a book chapter on the topic if you'd like a confirmation.

At the same time, the article as written neglects to mention recent research indicating statistically significant increases in autoimmune symptoms for women after getting implants, and the medically reported reduction of those symptoms when breast implants were removed.

We had a carefully crafted compromise summary of research on systemic diseases which was in the wiki article for months, until droliver reverted it and Samir locked it in. Since Samir unlocked it, I haven't touched it, but I just proposed in the discussion section that we go back to that previous, NPOV version. Several other public health and women's health experts had supported that version, and droliver was the only one who opposed it. Can you help? Drzuckerman 07:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That is both an innacurate description of the topic as well as events prior with this specific topic on wikipedia. What can be more accurate then referring to the on the record descriptions of the major comprehensive expert panel reviews on this topic (a number of which dr. zuckerman was present testifying against their ultimate conclusions)? All I'm asking for is the tone of this to reflect international consenus rather then the original reinterpretation of them by a well-known anti-implant activist. I have been completely willing for the accuracy of the international systemic reviews done on this to be verified, in fact they're summarized within the text with links attached. This is a topic that is fairly easy to summarize but will overwhelm the entry if a rehearing/rearguing of this (which was just redone in the USA & Canada in 2005-6) is insisted upon.

Droliver 14:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oliver is concerned with painting an overly-rosy portrait of breast implants, and omitting the history or the risks that are proven. He also has argued against inclusion of pertinent FDA recommendations. For example, he had argued against including a single sentence, stating that the FDA recommended MRIS to dectect rupture (these ruptures are usually silent, MRIs are the best tool to detect them, and mammograms can and do cause rupture esp to aging implants.) And, of course, we do not know what the long term effects of rupture are, nor do we know how often implants rupture, beyond 10 years and that is questionable.

Whether or not Dr. Zuckerman testified for or against FDA approval is irrelevant to this discussion. I wish Dr. Oliver would drop his continual implications that Dr. Zuckerman is asking for more than what she is, in the article. HE does not discuss individual excerpts or why he disagrees with a specific. Instead, he makes sweeping generalizations calling Dr. Zuckerman political. I could call Dr. Oliver political, based on his personal websites and the obvious slant and lobbying he has on it. And what is the point? Of course they both have their opinions. Dr. Oliver earns his living by putting implants in women. He is not biased? To continually accuse a person of bias and politics (ignoring the specifics of what is proposed for inclusion or exclusion) violates WP:CIVIL but nobody calls him on it. Jance 19:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jance

The comments made about me on this page by User:Jance have no evidence to substantiate them. They are a violation of WP:AGF and amount to personal attacks. I corresponded with OFFICE over matters she has referred to and my actions were based on that correspondence. She needs also to study WP:BIO. Tyrenius 22:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have studied WP:Bio, and I know that relevant primary sources that are court case decisions are allowed. The evidence about OFFICE is the absence of evidence - which is what Sarah suggested. I have asked to see a decision of WP:Office and there was none - except most recently, where it was stated that the admin (Tyrenius) was told that he should use his discretion to remove anything he believed was inappropriate. Commenting on this is not WP:AGF or any other such nonsense. I think the use of WP:TLA (three letter acronym) is sometimes used as a club. I think that is inappropriate. Thank you!Jance 23:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sympatico dynamic IP's

If this is as easy as unplugging the modem - then I'll reset it to 12 hours. Thx for the info --Trödel 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

NP - I saw the edit on Raul's page and thought if I don't take immediate action, who will :) --Trödel 01:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandal on implant page

After saying in the discussion page that it would be OK to include common complications on the implant page, droliver deleted it all without any explanation except to say that info is not necessary.

I understand you are busy, but please tell droliver that is not appropriate. Several health experts agreed with me, droliver is all alone on the other side, but he acts like this is his article. Perhaps a word from you would be enough -- otherwise, he just keeps doing what he is doing. I will ask Samir and Dr Ruben for help too but you've been the most helpful so far.

Compared to other medical articles in wiki, the breast implant article seems more like an instruction manual for plastic surgeons and perhaps a sales pitch for patients. I am patiently trying to make small changes, based on peer-reviewed research, in the face of droliver's repeated reverts and vandalism. I hope you can help. Drzuckerman 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC) RfA thanks!

Thank you so much, Sarah Ewart, for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown1023 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

privacy attack

Please delete the page with my (real) name: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kokswijk and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usertalk:Kokswijk. There was no evidence proved at all, but somebody is cheating me. Google is linking my name to that page and this is privacy attacking, even when i sign with my old profile, that is find by the search engine. i think you can understand the impact :-( The reason of my question to delete this page, is that the search engine of Google found my real name in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kokswijk , still after I closed down my user profile. That results in privacy identification, as when you look for my name, you find this irrelevant past accusing page. I closed my user profile (with my real name), due to somebody who was cheating me with identity theft or so. As long as my user name is somewhere in Wikipedia pages, I have that problem.

So please delete that page. Thanks!

My recent RfA

Thank you for considering my RfA. It was a very humbling yet surprisingly gratifying experience. I am grateful for all the constructive comments that will undoubtedly make me a better contributer, and hopefully a stronger candidate in the future. Grika 14:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page semiprotection

It's been 10 days, do you think it likely you could unprotect safely now? -- nae'blis 15:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mobile ebooks

Sarah, there are some google ads in the mobile books website to help us cover the expenses since we do not ask for donations and rank in 1000s of dollars. Is that why the links I am putting are being taken out? All the 5000 mobile books are available for free. If Wikipedia does not want to help it is ok. Thanks :) Johnmizzi 22:19, 18 December 2006 (GMT+1)

Retirement

I've retired from Wikipedia. Thanks for being such a kind editor. Regards,--Tennislover 22:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 51	18 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen	Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss"	News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yrgh

Could you block Yrgh - he has created numerous AFD tags on soap opera related articles, deleted other user's comments and acted in bad faith. PMA 11:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

G. Patrick Maxwell

I am not going to revert this article again. However, I wish you or someone would take a look. It is continually reverted to a version that makes broad claims with unreliable references. I have heard repeatedly that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for personal POV pushing. Several other editors have complained about this article, but not one has stopped the reversions. I will not revert or change it, again, since it will only be reverted back by DrOliver. Undoubtedly, if I changed it again, I would be called "uncivil." Thanks.Jance 19:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster et al.

Sorry about all that. --JGGardiner 22:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks. Well I am at least sorry that I didn’t live up to my usual sense of decency. Like I said at the article, I really think a lot of “trolls” here really just think the system is unfair and can turn around once they see that it really isn’t. But there were times when I responded to his comments politely when I should have been more critical about his comments. I know that admins. are supposed to have thick skins but at times I actually wondered if I was validating his bad behaviour at the expense of your feelings. I’m sure that you’re tough enough to handle it but that probably should have been your decision and not mine. In the end, the only one who should feel bad is Ottawaman but I will have to think about how I’d handle another user like him in the future. Thanks again. --JGGardiner 10:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the update. It is sad really because he obviously cares about the subject. I have to wonder if there is something more that Wikipedia can do to educate users or if some people are just too intransigent. In any event, I’d expect a quiet Christmas; it looks like Santa already brought us what we wanted. =)

Block?

[2] maybe could do with a block similar to the other block-evading IP's. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

After the latest bit of lovely trolling at ANI, I think that rangeblock, if you can get it to work, is appropriate. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ottawaman

Sarah, would it be a good idea to compile a WP:ABUSE report concerning Ottawaman's abuse of the site?? Just a suggestion. You've done well dealing with it so far.... keep the good work up! --SunStar Net^talk 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the block on Neutralizer - I was just getting someone in #-admins. He was Ottawaman, as you thought :) Do you want to rollback his edits to Essjay's talk page, or just leave them? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Two userpages need to be blanked and replaced with {{sockpuppetproven|Neutralizer|[[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman]] and [[Special:Contributions/{{subst:PAGENAME}}|their edits]]}} - [3] [4]. Also, it may not be a bad idea to protect Neutralizer's talk page, as well. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have adminprotected your user talk on accident? Luna Santin 12:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Orangutan

I'm offended by your message on my talk page. Every move I have made has been matched by User:Merbabu, and yet I have been threatened twice on my talk page about this, and the only comment on his talk page puts most of the blame on me. Furthermore, you ask me to consider discussing these issues, when the article talk page, and even the talk page you posted on, show considerable evidence of my discussion. Instead of people making threats, perhaps a third party calmly going the discussion might help. Frankly, I'm feeling a little abused.--Prosfilaes 10:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yours was the third warning about edit warring I got on this one article; you don't think that's a little excessive?--Prosfilaes 11:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ottawaman

I've set up a new page at User:SunStar Net/Ottawaman. Feel free to use this as you want. Hope this helps! --SunStar Net^talk 11:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Community Ban on Ottawaman/Canuckster/Neutralizer/[whoever it is now]

I have formally inplemented the community ban on the above user(s?). I also added an entry on WP:BU under the heading "Neutralizer." Feel free to fix up the entry as needed, as I only know the ending part of the saga. Thanks! --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster's latest and hopefully last sock claims that he's finished so hopefully that is the case. Please realize this isn't typical North American behavior. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have closed Ottawaman's suspected sock page, and is now in the archives. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all re: my comment on WP:ANI. It's the least I could do. You endured a lot of personal attacks and harassment for being willing to stick your neck out for the community. I do hope this "agreement" holds, but this guy was so persistent and ideological that I suspect he might just lay low for awhile before reappearing; but let's keep our fingers crossed in any case. - Finnegans wake 02:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Would you mind please looking at BI talkpage, and say something about civility? Is WP:CIVIL not intended for all? Dr. Oliver has continuously insulted Dr. Zuckerman (and me, but that goes without saying). Not one admin has said a word to him. Is there a reason for this tolerance of rudeness on his part? The sarcasm, condescension and violation of WP:AGF are blatant. Are the WP:TLA selectively enforced? Thank you for your help. If nobody says anything, the abuse (and it is abuse) will continue, as it has for months. Jance 21:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I also changed my mind about reversion of the G. Patrick Maxwell article. Most of what DrOliver had written was either unsourced with links that did not work, or commercial links (old marketing catalog of a company with whom this guy had a contract.). If you disagree, please let me know. I read the Wiki guidelines, and they say that such deletion is permitted at any time, although it cautioned to give the author time to find a source. Dr.Oliver has had months but has provided no additional sources. However, nobody else has seemed to care enough to outlast DrOliver's reversions. How can someone be said to be "known for" something with no consensus, and with the only source being an old marketing catalog? (Maxwell & this company had contracts, also). Thank you. I do have a problem with Dr. Oliver's writing, most of which is (1) badly written and (2) POV and (3) poorly sourced or misquoted. Thank you. I do expect Dr.Oliver to promptly revert this, without correcting any sources.Jance 22:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For your help on 'can we help you' a different version was seen on the wall of a religious retreat office today - next to their list of psychiatrists and psychologists... it seems very relevant for wikipedia - SatuSuro 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC) as for the warning - if you trawled gnangs and is talk since we met each other in real life some months ago - we'd probably be off in willy on weles country by now :) SatuSuro 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I would ask for mediation on the intransigent if possible please, it is predictable I suppose that it would return SatuSuro 23:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Never before 5pm a long way off over here! SatuSuro 00:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

More misunderstandings than could be put under the bar at widgiemooltha on a hot sunny afternoon - all my fault SatuSuro 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC) will email

Moving names

Yeah - after I moved it I was wondering what I could do to move it so that there is no trace of the original username. I am still thinking about that one... --Trödel 18:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

G. Patrick Maxwell

You and Samir have both commented on the lack of sources on this article. I have changed it to a sourced version, that is quite flattering of this surgeon (nothing negative). I have also listed specific objections to unsourced material (let alone poorly sourced). I have explained this in detail. DrOliver continually reverts it to "his" version, without making any attempt to even correct broken links. Is there any way to do anything with this? Or is it 'anything goes' with what Dr. Oliver writes? I have asked for any one of you to request civility of Oliver (the very same thing you asked of me and others) and properly sourced material. Should I just give up on Wikipedia? What else can one do? I don't understand it. I really dont. Why is Dr Oliver given a pass on what clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines and rules? I would appreciate some assistance.Jance 00:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Darwinek wishes you a Merry Christmas!

Hi Sarah! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. - Darwinek 10:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Xmas & New Year

Sarah I wish you a happy Xmas and New Year to you and your family. Your help is much appreciated since I am a newie at Wiki :) Enjoy the Aussie Xmas and New Year barbies!! Johnmizzi 16:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Christmas and a wet New Year

Hi Sarah, Happy Christmas and here's hoping for a wet 2007!!! This is my first year on wikipedia (although I've been reading for years) in fact it might only be 6 months so far. But I've learnt a lot, had a lot of fun and found an amazing outlet for - um - actually, for what i don't really know - but it's doing me good somehow, I think. Thanks for your help on the odd occasions, and being such a good example. keep up the good work. Merbabu 13:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, merry christmas Sarah, and I hope the new year is happier than Dec. 2006 for you :) By the way, Adelaide appears to have inherited Melbourne's weather - 14^{o</supC, raining and windy - so I hope you guys get ours in return (I didn't bother to check Melbourne's weather report, so meh). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 10:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)}

Merry (White?) Christmas Sarah. The forecast for Melbourne was cold - cold enough for enough snow that I went cross country skiing up at Lake Mountain! Wierd but true. All the best. Ben Aveling 13:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Droliver

Thanks, Sarah. I am not sure how to code 'diffs'. I know how to do a footnote of a page, generally. I think I have provided the quotes, but maybe not. They were on the BI talk page. What astonishes me is that nobody, to my knowledge, has ever asked DrOliver to stop (except for Dr Z and me). And he simply ignores us. He calls her "political" and a "3rd party" (what exactly is a "3rd party"? Of course, it implies an outsider, or someone trying to 'but in'.) He has portrayed me as "anti-science", on par with the "anti-vaccinationists", which I must admit is a first for me. I grew up in a family of scientists, and I undoubtedly have more formal education in math and physics (if not biology) than does DrOliver. It is true that I am also an attorney, and can write a sentence. Not that any of that matters on Wikipedia.

I understand about being busy. I am not an admin, but I see how time-consuming Wikipedia is. And now that my health has improved, I actually am working again.

The sub-page was abandoned, and should probably be deleted. It was created when Droliver and I were arguing about content before Dr. Z came aboard. David (the MD) suggested that we leave the 'online' version and edit a "working page". The problem is that nobody but DOliver and I cared about what happened on the page. DOliver resisted (as he still does) any change that is not exactly what he wants. This has nothing to do with accuracy, or 'mainstream' information. It does have everything to do with wanting to cherry pick only the information that is "positive" about breast implants. For example, he called the FDA (US) recommendation (for follow-up MRI to detect rupture) a carrot for the "anti-implant activists" and did not want to even mention it. For the most "studied device in the world", there are still no studies of the long-term effects of rupture, or the rate of rupture of the older-style implants, or of the new implants beyond 10 years (only one or two small studies that approach 10 years). I have had a few bad experiences here - with Oliver, the insistence of some to keep an attack page of a lawyer (which is still there only under a different name) and acceptance of a puff piece on a plastic surgeon that was badly written and unsourced. Jance 18:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the RfC. I have scanned the RfCs since, and I wonder if the majority of those who jump in a fray were also in high school cliques. I too am sorry for the multiple edits, but I can be rather "anal" about my mistakes.Jance 22:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of a sarcastic and insulting (accusing DrZ as making generalizations etc):

So let me get this straight. Just because a 3rd party who has actively lobbied around the world on this declares all widely-accepted research and reviews on this to be either compromised or innacurate, thus it is so.

[5] (I still dont know how to do a "diff" although I will try to find out... Dr. Z hs not declared this, and why is she a "3rd party"? He has also called her "Diane" (which is not her name and he knows it), although he goes by "Dr.Oliver". Personally, I think that "Dr" on Wiki is rather pretentious on anyone's part, but this use by DrOliver of an incorrect name is deliberate (as she has corrected him more than once and if he knows her work this well, he probably knows her name). . Jance 01:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)