Talk:Douglas Ousterhout

Removing deletion prod tag

Per the tag statement - you may remove this tag if you "object to its deletion for any reason" - the lede clearly denotes the subject is well-known and pioneer in facial surgery. A quick search found three books [1] , A lecture he did for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons [2] and this bio info:

"I am, and have been, on the boards of many plastic surgical societies, including being President of the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons (1994-1995), and on the editorial board of four different plastic surgery journals. I am on the Advisory Committee for "Recommended Guidelines for Transgender Care", AEGIS.

I hold staff memberships at several hospitals, including Davies Medical Center, Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, California Pacific Medical Center, and the University of California, San Francisco, where I am a Clinical Professor of Plastic Surgery, participating especially with a panel of experts at the Center for Craniofacial Anomalies. I have operated in many countries outside the United States.

Throughout my career, I have presented dozens of major scientific papers, both nationally and internationally. I have published scores of scientific papers. My medical textbook, Aesthetic Contouring of the Craniofacial Skeleton, was published in 1991."

I see little to contradict this information and assert that a deletion before improving the article with regular editing is quite premature. Benjiboi 07:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

adding advert and coi tags

Added advert and coi tags to article using Friendly. Reason behind this is edits have been made to this page by Mira Coluccio who is Douglas K. Ousterhout's office manager and business partner. Also involves talking about a former patient opening other legal issues which could be taken by the patient. Using Wikipedia to disclose patient information by a doctor or employee/business partner of that doctor could become a legal matter. Janemillert 06:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article to remove the peacock words and other inappropriately commercial material, provided a starter set of references and removed the tags. If you still feel the article fails to meet appropriate standards, it'd be helpful if we could identify and discuss the remaining shortcomings you feel should be addressed before you simply reapply the tags. Msnicki (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have placed the speedy deletion tag on this page for the following reason this page is being used to promote a comerical interest for this doctor by his through the direction of Mira Coluccio.

--- WP:OUTING material deleted. ---

So now that we have deterimed that you are spaming your own link under the direction of the offices of Dr. Ousterhout and your company through back linking.

Another fact that proves this very clearly is that you removed the link for Trinity Rose of http://www.facialfeminizationsurgery.net/facialfeminizationsurgery.html which makes this a neuatal article since it advises people of the negative aspects of having this surgery.

This is another attempt to use wikipedia as a advertiser for this doctor.

James, Andrea (Andrea James) A.K.A. joketress sells a video promoting Dr. Ousterhout this in many venues with the consent of Dr. Ousterhout as can be seen in the video all over the web. She also promotes his book. Dr. Ousterhout also sponsors her events. Use of this link as a ref is 100% spam written all over it

Also under publications you list Ousterhout, MD, DDS, Douglas K. (1995). "Feminization of the Transsexual". http://www.drbecky.com/dko.html. Retrieved Oct 23 2010. for Dr. Becky is 100% spam, it is the same information that Dr. Ousterhouts office uses for their brochure. So pretty much you are using wikipedia to spam Dr. Ousterhouts office brochure.

Then you list the site again under Ref. 4. ^ Allison, MD, Becky. "Make Me Pretty". http://www.drbecky.com/pretty.html. Retrieved Oct 23 2010. 

Lynne Conway is a person friend of Dr. Ousterhouts and if you want I could post some photos of this fact.

This page has been nothing more than a spamming point for the offices of this doctor who employs or sponsors former patients of his. First by Mira Coluccio who is the office manager now by you a former patient who seems to be vested with a comerical interest from the added and removed items.

Please stop using wikipedia as place spam this doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janemillert (talk • contribs) 11:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is also the third time I have added the advert and coi tags they have been removed by Msnicki twice now.

Also adding http://www.facialfeminizationsurgery.net/facialfeminizationsurgery.html since it is the only thing that adds something neuatal to this article.

--- WP:OUTING material deleted.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janemillert (talk • contribs) 12:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC) 

You're engaging in vandalism here and on several other pages I've contributed to. It's obvious you're angry but your response is inappropriate. You'll find another warning on your talk page. Users are anonymous here on WP unless they choose to identify themselves. It is indeed considered inappropriate to self-promote or promote people or products with whom you have a connection. An example is the cut and paste of all a Gary J. Alter's medical society memberships and every paper he's written, copied verbatim from his site onto the page you created for him. But it is still allowable (as it has to be since editors are anonymous) for those with a connection to contribute to an article. The test is, what did they write and is it properly cited. As it happens, I do know both Dr. Ousterhoust and Mira but have not spoken to either in roughly 10 years. I think that's enough distance. In any event, the editing I've done has been to delete the peacock words and other obvious puffery. Msnicki (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverting several edits by User:Toddst1

I have removed the Trinity reference as I believe it falls into the category of potentially libelous material. It makes claims of possible malpractice that, if true, should be taken up in court, not fought out here on WP. Also, I disagree with simply repasting the conflict of interest, advertising and other tags. The puffery and peacock words are gone. I took them out myself. I have no connection with Ousterhout. I haven't even talked to him or anyone on his staff in perhaps 10 years. Finally, I disagree with removing the sentence describing what he does; the patient accounts make it clear both what he does and that he often does it in a single day of surgery. I do concede it's worth citing his book in support of the statement that he developed the procedures in the 1990s. Msnicki (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness how many doctors are there that do FFS

So if you are not a spammer only for this doctor you will not mind taking leaving this list in talk of every doctor in the world that provides this surgery. As you can see I very NPOV I have posted the list for doctors throught the world doing FFS [redacted —chaos5023 (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinity1rose (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how many surgeons do the same procedures Ousterhout does. There could be hundreds and many of them could be better. But even if I did know, it would not matter here on WP. We can't use our personal knowledge even if we have some. If you think these other surgeons are notable, you are free to create pages and see if they clear the hurdle for everyone else as notable. For the most part, I don't know these other people. I have no opinion on their notability and will not be offering one.

More to the point, there is absolutely nothing in the article that makes any comment on what other surgeons exist or what they do. So what is your point? Msnicki (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly not a spammer, and I strenuously object to splattering that enormous list all over this talk page. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What about this: As has been stated before 2. James, Andrea (Sep 15 2005). "My surgical journal". http://web.archive.org/web/20060505223455/www.tsroadmap.com/physical/face/ousterhout1.html. Retrieved Oct 23 2010. is by no means a NPOV link she sells a video selling video she made with the express concent of Dr. Ousterhouts office. She is sponered by Dr. Ousterhouts office. I am a publisher also and guess what there is a contract to do things like this for any admins taking a look at this please let me know if you would like the links to video in question. Making money from a person and selling videos about him is not a Npov referance to use and would fall into spam tag being placed on this article. Trinity1rose (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

That relationship certainly does not make the reference automatically spam. What it does make it is not an independent reference for purposes of establishing notability, but notability is a separate matter from content disputes. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The patient links are not being offered to establish his notability or even the quality of whatever he does. The links are offered merely to confirm that the description of what he does is correct, nothing more. Msnicki (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If none of the references are actually establishing notability, you might want to look into that. WP:BIO and WP:N would be the relevant places to start. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your point. What I mean is that, in this case, I've taken the notability somewhat for granted by the fact that the article, however badly written for however long, has apparently either never been recommended for deletion or has in fact survived it. When I added the links, it was simply to document certain statements as correct. But if you're asking me for my own (close to irrelevant) personal opinion of Ousterhout's notability, I think he is, based on the documented set of procedures for FFS which he developed and which (apparently, judging by Trinity's remarks) are now offered by numerous other surgeons. Other opinions welcome. Msnicki (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not asking for your opinion, no, and the article's continued existence doesn't demonstrate notability. What does demonstrate notability is multiple independent reliable sources discussing the article topic, though in Dr. Ousterhout's case, if he originated one or more recognized surgical procedures, a single reliable source may suffice if it verifies that he did so (per WP:BIO). —chaos5023 (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's a fair question. The procedures are documented in a book in which he was the editor and a contributor and which I've cited as the reference. Three chapters, a total of roughly 60 pages, are his or shared with another author and describe the procedures, complete with pictures and diagrams. The book contains chapters by a total of 35 authors, all of them MDs, PhDs, DDSs or some combination. I have a copy of the book in my hands. They're expensive but available. It looks to me like he did the work creating several recognized procedures, he did it in the 1990s and with 34 other authors on the book, that the documentation is reliable. What are your thoughts? Msnicki (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that will suffice to satisfy WP:BIO's requirements for a "significant contribution" notability qualification, because it's a primary source (he wrote it himself). Essentially, the logic goes, if somebody's contribution was that significant, then somebody else will have bothered to write about it at some point. It's that independent coverage that we're most concerned with for purposes of establishing notability. If there are any news stories discussing the procedures in question, medical journal articles citing the book, or similar sources to draw from, that'd be what we're looking for. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

With 34 other authors and a respected scientific publisher, Little, Brown and Company, I disagree with your characterization of it as self-published. If he didn't do what it says he did, wouldn't one of those 34 other authors or one of the editors at Little Brown have noticed? And he certainly does appear to be doing what he describes in the book if we compare it to the online patient accounts. Beyond that, I doubt there's more I have to offer. I enjoy helping to make a better article but I don't have a lot of stake in this. I've offered my opinion and my reasons. But if the consensus is that whole article should go, I will respect that. I don't come here to argue, especially over notability. I come here to write and I'm way more interested simply in getting facts right and properly citing them. I hope I do some good occasionally. That's all. Msnicki (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't characterize it as self-published. It isn't. What I said is "he wrote it himself", which makes it a primary source, and so generally irrelevant to notability. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I'm trying to give you an idea of what would be necessary to ensure that the work you've put into this article isn't lost to deletion. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for mischaracterizing your remarks. It was not my intent. I try not to worry about my work getting deleted. Sometimes it happens. Maybe there's something else I can do that will seem more useful. I will try to move on to something else where I know enough to know what basic facts are true and where to find the documents to confirm them. Other people enjoy arguments about what to delete next more than I do. Peace. Msnicki (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your lack of distress over the matter is admirable, really. As someone whose personal Wikipedia area of focus is a hobby that's extremely difficult to source articles on, protecting articles against deletion weighs heavily on my mind, but there's no reason anybody has to share my anxiety there. —chaos5023 (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering where wp link for rules for the ref and links?

Wondering which links are being used to establishing notability?

--Trinity1rose (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You want WP:ELINK and WP:CITE, and I imagine also WP:SPAM, though I advise you to be more cautious in throwing that accusation around. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I also advise you against immediately pursuing deletion of this article should you find that its notability is insufficiently established, because your demonstrably heavy personal interest would not weigh well in the process if you were to initiate it. If Dr. Ousterhout is not notable, you should probably leave the matter for less involved editors to resolve. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering if Msnicki is posting a site on the article that is her own site with her full legal name personal info. Would that be condered spamming?? Then she hides the fact with WP:OUTING after people start posting that it is her site. I read WP:OUTING http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information and it said Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. She posts her own FFS story for every one to see with a link here on Wikipedia with all her personal infornation there then if some says it is spam for doing so she and provides the link she has it removed using the WP:OUTING Would that be condered hiding spam?? She has done this from a admin talk page.

I know if I was to post a link to mine own site I would be a called spammer? --Trinity1rose (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it's possible for you to achieve given your described history with this person, but one of the principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith, and aggressively nitpicking all of a person's actions so as to interpret them in the most negative possible light is a violation of this principle even if you cannot, in practical terms, assume good faith because of personal history. (Though that in itself may be a strong hint that it'd be a good idea to recuse yourself from a discussion entirely.) Anyway, having posted a link that you, because of your independent personal knowledge, understand to contain Msnicki's personal information is not at all the same thing as posting that information itself to Wikipedia, and the owner of the Wikipedia account has not identified herself as the subject of that web site, which means your repeated outings of her (rather poor form in any context and by any standard, I have to say) remain completely inappropriate and subject to sanction. Posting a link to one's own site does not automatically make one a spammer, but it certainly doesn't help. You should understand that it's very clear by now that you have an axe to grind with Msnicki, and relentlessly searching for a policy under which to indict her is not helping your credibility. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, I have had no "personal history" and no contact or communication whatsoever with Trinity either here on Wikipedia or in real life until today. I don't know who she is and I have no interest to find out. I would like to be judged by the quality of my contributions and if anyone has suggestions for how I can improve, I promise to listen. Msnicki (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Noted. She sure seems to believe she has personal history with you, though, so I was speaking to that. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone has already posted db-spam tag, coi tag, advert tags on the article as shown in the history of and edits to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Ousterhout&oldid=392794022

But the problem is Msnicki has been undoing those edits all day or doing reverts to them all day. --Trinity1rose (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Someone"? Do you have any personal connection with Janemillert that you'd like to disclose before that train of thought proceeds any further? —chaos5023 (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Chaos5023 I am asking questions thats all about how those this work and how does that work if you think targets at someone can we provide this whole article to a admin board for help and let a group of admins to decide the out come. I am sure there is a board like that one WP that is not related to computers or programing that look this all over. Or am I out of line to request information about a article related to admins that look over maters like this. --Trinity1rose (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you absolutely are within your rights to call administrators' attention to any issues you please. WP:AN and WP:AN/I would be the most effective tools for the purpose, I believe. I look forward eagerly to the results. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Noting here for anyone curious about the abrupt termination of this discussion that Trinity1rose was blocked as a sockpuppet of Janemillert. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The patient accounts

I hadn't intended or anticipated that my citations of a few patient accounts to support the description of what Ousterhout does would to be so controversial. On reflection, I realize I could have been more helpful by offering a comment here to explain the selections I made. Belatedly, I would like to correct that.

1. I listed the Conway reference first because it's simply the most reliable: It's on a University of Michigan server and it's authored by an independently notable individual with credentials to establish her own reliability.
2. I chose the James reference next because James appears to have posted the first photographs to web of any of Ousterhout's work. (The archive.org snapshot is dated Feb 29, 2000 but notice the 1998 copyright on the page.)
3. The Hamilton reference had previously been listed (not by me) as an external link. I used it instead as a third reference because it appears to be the first account published to the web with photographs of patient who's had all of the procedures done at once. The text on the page is intended to humorous, however, and as such, I regard it as less useful for encyclopedic purposes.
4. The Allison reference is also a first person patient account that archive.org first captured in early 2000. It's distinguished by the fact that the author is also a doctor.

I have attempted to make good choices but I am imperfect and accept suggestions for improvement. Msnicki (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)