Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/G. Patrick Maxwell (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Personal attacks violate WIkopedia standard of civility

Will anyone help put a stop to such personal attacks? This violates every Wikopedia standard of civility. If those standards are no longer applicable and this is a free for all, then I will conduct this debate accordingly. We can start with honesty of the writer of the Maxwell article.MollyBloom 07:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I challenge Rob to quote some independent source that suggests Maxwell is a "prominent international figure". I have repeatedly asked him to cite references, which he has refused to do. Rob wrote a puff piece about his mentor, plain and simple.

Molly I provided you with pop-culture references outside medicine that identify him as one of the highest regarded surgeons (which you dismissed), there's a bibiography which includes many of the important papers in the development of aesthetic & breast reconstruction surgery, links featuring him as the keynote speaker at meetings around the world are available, awards that he's won are (partially) listed., etc. You're being disingenuous as there is no way to satisfy your demandsDroliver 04:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
"links featuring him as the keynote speaker at meetings around the world are available" -- Did I miss them, Rob? WHy don't you point these links out.

Here is an example of a 'world renowned' doctor that warrants inclusion in Wikopedia, NOT Maxwell: Dr. Michael E. DeBakey is a notable physician, with an excellent Wikopedia entry. The Maxwell article is NOT.

Another example, Dr. Jenny, at whose mention Rob bristles. Dr. Jenny is known for the "Jenny valve" in saline implants. Is there such a "Maxwell valve"? MollyBloom 08:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not the only one making this complaint, Rob. Look above. If you can so easily provide references, then why don't you do it? Pop-culture hardly qualifies - I can cite you pop-culture articles on several different plastic surgeons. Would you like them? And what novel new concept did Maxwell originate? You make a lot of assertions in your article, but you do not substantiate them. All I am asking is that you do so. When I did (or GassyGuy above) you refused to do so.MollyBloom 05:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Molly I gave you pop-culture references because you're demanding references & accolades that only exist in pop-culture. There is no professional society award for "international acclaim" or "one of America's top surgeons". (That's reflected in his awards and his demand as an invited speaker.) Three large media resources with international circulation citing him in that context to flesh out his professional resume and awards is what I can do for you. As far as novel concepts to him would be the development of textured tissue expanders (which revolutionized implant based breast reconstruction), the concept of bio-dimensional approaches to implant selection, the latissimus free flap, development of the early versions of anatomic implant styles.
DId he develop all of those things, Rob? That is not the way it sounded in the article. It sounded like he participated, at best. If he was, as one suggested, the first on the article then you could say he was 'instrumental' in the development or 'led the development" or something like that.MollyBloom 06:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is all referenced within the entryDroliver 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

NO it was not. I still have reference tags that you refused to edit. I have only asked you to substantiate the claims you make. And you continually insist you have, when it is obvious that you have not. In the article, you said "world renowned expert" not "one of America's top surgeons". Although, given what I have read about him, I surely would not consider him a top surgeon, even in my state, let alone the country. I would justifiably be afraid to go to him. MollyBloom 06:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if all you said were true, Rob, you completely ignored my comment here about personal attacks. Because you do not like my observations is not cause for insults.

Comment Midgley wrote that there are not many plastic surgeons. I would like to see him substantiate this. In fact, there are many plastic surgeons. I would like someone to explain why Maxwell is somehow more notable than many many others. Further, I would like someone to explain why outright insults such as Midgley's below are acceptable in Wikopedia. These attacks are inexcusable, and patently untrue. MollyBloom 04:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr Michael_E._DeBakey is clearly notable. Let's look at his article and compare it to the one which Molly wants to remove all uncited details from and delete. Count the papers listed: zero. Count the citations to footnotes: zero. Count the claims of first doing something (eg endarterectomy) which are backed up in the manner that Molly requires for them to be permitted to remain in this article rather than being evidence of lying and POV by the authors: zero. That is a string of zeroes, and yet the article is a better article than this one, better written, better to read, showing less indication of having been fought over, and there is no need for more detailed referencing. if you want more detail, look at one of the references. The article in short is very much of the nature of this one, before Molly got at it along with others who demand that each word come with a footnote. A good example Molly, it shows up a double standard very very well. I recommend everyone involved looks at it and considers this. Midgley 00:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see about claims. Here are some for DeBakey. I'd say these say alot about this doctor. And there are references. In 1953, DeBakey performed the first successful endarterectomy. In 1963, DeBakey was the first to successfully implant an artificial heart. In 1965, Time Magazine featured Dr. DeBakey on its cover for his pioneering work and innovations in cardiovascular surgery and the artificial heart. In 1969, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. During the same year, the Baylor College of Medicine separated from Baylor University under his direction. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan awarded him the National Medal of Science. Russian President Boris Yeltsin called DeBakey "a magician of the heart" after the surgeon performed quintuple bypass surgery on him in 1996. Both the DeBakey High School for Health Professions and the Michael E. DeBakey Veteran's Affairs Hospital in the Texas Medical Center in Houston are named after him. An atraumatic vascular surgical clamp that he introduced also bears his name.02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The surgeon I suggested as more noteworthy than Maxwell is a strong proponent of silicone breast implants.

None of Midgleys complaints about my edits on breast imlants (which are all supported by citation) has nothing to do with the issue as to whether G. Patrick Maxwell is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I have also added numerous examples of surgeons who are credited with the development of the lat flap, which Rob claims is Maxwell's claim to fame. Rob's statements regarding this in the article are not supported by citation. There is a reason for this, as he is not credited in the article I found that includes a large section on the history of lat flap, and the surgeons who made major contributions. Of course, I have a POV on siicone breast implants. So does Rob Oliver. That has utterly nothing to do with the inclusion of Maxwell in wikopedia. I welcome either Midgely or Oliver to write an article on a noteworthy propenent of breast implants, or one of the many surgeons that were credited for major accomplishment on the development of lat flap. And, I urge Midgely stop distracting from the issue at hand by making personal attacks and discussing articles which have no bearing on the merits of the inclusion of Maxwell.

The personal attacks are not warranted, nor are they acceptable in Wikopedia. In fact, they warrant banning, and Midgely has been warned to be civil. He apparantly is unable or unwilling to do this. MollyBloom 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, follow this chain... there are quite a few (one might even say "many") doctors. Of those there are a much smaller number of surgeons (I've not counted, but say around a quarter, of those in substantive posts - reckoning from GPs being a third of the total doctor pop, the rest dividing into surgeons, anaesthetists(the largest hospital specialty) and those the UK loosely calls "Physicians" and the US calls internal medicine specialists, gastroenterologists etc. I've left Obs & Gynae in among the surgeons. There are also a few public health and occupational docs, but this is a very rough cut. Of the surgeons (say a quarter of the total) about 1% are plastic surgeons. Of the surgeons in training, quite a lot would like at some time to end up as plastic surgeons, so it is quite competitive, and quite a filter they go through. Accordingly, not many (of) doctors are plastic surgeons, and those that do as well as being infrequent are selected, and therefore likely to be notable. One might run a similar rough reckoning on lawyers - many students, nealry as many graduates, few of those (in the UK model) become pubils in chambers, and fewer of those become barristers. Of the latter only a minority achieve "silk" as Queen's Counsel, and therefore any QC is likely to be notable. Those QCs who turn out to be married to the Prime Minister, those who become judges or conduct public enquiries and those who become recorders and other judges are progressively less likely to not be notable if only because of the way in which they have changed public policy through interpretation and application of existing law. SOmeone can do the similar one for the USA, it might be interesting if it isn't already somewhere in here. Midgley 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I can show you any number of law professors who have every bit as much (and more) publications, accolates, etc. as Maxwell. This is pretty standard. Yet I would not start an entry on all of them. This is just ludicrous.MollyBloom 18:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As to the content of MollyBloom's contirbutions,
Hopefully Midgely has stopped this vein of attack. If anyone has been combative here, it is Midgely. I asked for an Rfd for valid reasons, as can be seen by the many "delete" votes/comments.

Midgely's attempt to distract has been repeatedly pointed out. if you actually look at them (which action Leifern's comment does not reflect) you see a vast preonderance of edits of Breast implant - many of them combative and associated with turmoil This is untrue, as usual. I was told that I had improved the article from the advertisement it had been. I have cited every edit I have ever made there, which is more than I can say of the previous version. It still needs work, and because of the edit war, I asked for other input . This is all reasonable. NOW, this has nothing to do with this Rfd.
Midgely's attempt to obfuscate and distract is what is combative. MollyBloom 18:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC) - and little else, nothing of note that is not a direct connection to that single interest. If Albert Einstein was available and chose to edit WP, I would be satisfied if his entries only included special relativeity and general relativity, with or without god, dice, universe and quantum. However, none of us here are of such individual merit on any given subject, and I also suspect that he would chip in on patents and possibly Israel and Marilyn Monroe being other topics of interest and on which he could be informative. I read a long record of contributions on a single topic alone as being an indication of a focus unhealthy for WP. I view a public assertion that it does not exist, in the face of a clear and incontrovertible record of it as a suggestive indication of either a lack of self-knowledge, or an intention to deceive. I'm contemplating writing an essay for WP about it, as WP gets bigger, it will happen (is happening) more, and it represents a clear and present danger to being taken seriously as a reference work, a danger moreover which having a few or even a lot of fancruft, bandcruft and other articles on subjects of minor general interest can never represent. Midgley 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, the question I asked was whether we are sure that two of the editors posting overlapping comments, one of them with a very short and restricted list of edits were independent of each other. I see that we are sure of their degree of independence, and it seems to me entirely reasonable that now we are sure of that degree, we can read their remarks in context. I'm bored with this, and I've made my view known - I feel a claim to an interest given I first proposed this article for deletion and have observed and assisted its improvement since is reasonable, and that the reaction from User:Mollybloom is, yet again, entirely unreasonable, and that hte blocking policy relating to alterations to biographies of persons yet living also may apply. My work here, then, is done. Midgley 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a list of plastic surgeons who ARE credited with major contributions on lattisimus flap: The article credited a number of physicians with contributions to the procedure. These doctor include: Iginio Tansini Stefano d'Este Hutchins Darrell Campbell Davis Iginio Tansini Stefano d'Este Brantigan, McCraw William Schneider Muhlbauer Olbrisch Bostwick It appears that if, as Rob asserts, Maxwell's major claim to fame is his contribution to the lat flap (which still has [citations needed] assigned to the claim) then any of these surgeons would merit inclusion more than Maxwell.MollyBloom 20:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As noted over page, the article which Molly is quoting is about a procedure almost completely unlike the free flap transfer. It is both irrelevant, and by being presented demonstrates a lack of understanding of the topic. This is one thing in someone who is politely asking a question, and a recklessly differnt thing in need of correction by the author in someone who is using it in an effort to convince other people in a very public and persistent place that the person involved is not notable or their (vicarious) claim to fame is false. Midgley 00:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More discussion moved from front page

Leifern, you have a misunderstanding of his position. Pat is not an employee of Vanderbilt University & he's not just another physician. Patients and Physicians come from all over the world to visit and watch him work. What exactly does it take to convince you he's a "recognized expert"? In addition you're being somewhat insulting to someone you don't know about something you don't know about. Please keep in mind this accusation of informed consent failure was in fact dropped.Droliver 04:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I never wrote that he is an "employee of Vanderbilt University" and I'll thank you not to misrepresent my position. All I'm pointing out is that his entire claim to noteworthiness (with the exception of legal action against him) is based on assertions that aren't referenced. So far, we only have your word that people travel from all around the world to watch "Pat" do his work. If you can substantiate his fame and recognition this deletion can be dropped. --Leifern 13:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You can't be a tenured professor if you're not an employee of a University is the point I was making as I wasn't sure you understood that from your view that he's only an assistant professor
Wait a minute here. Rob, you wrote "Pat is not an employee of Vanderbilt University". Then you wrote, "You can't be a tenured professor if you're not an employee of a University". What exactly is it that you were trying to say? The fact is that he is an assistant professor. And yes, that would mean he is an employee, but you said he wasn't, then you jumped all over Leifern when he agreed with you, or I think, was confused by your nonsensical statement. He can't be an Assistant Professor, either, Rob, if he isn't an employee. Good grief, you have convoluted this, and to what purpose? So you can prove Leifern wrong? It seems that you were the one who was initially wrong, when you said "Pat is not an employee of Vanderbilt University." He isn't? So I take it he holds no teaching position, or he is an adjunct? That is not what his bio says. Why were you trying to confuse? OR were you confused?MollyBloom 17:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Molly you're deliberately obtuse. "The fact is that he is an assistant professor. And yes, that would mean he is an employee" No it does not mean you're an employee, it means he has have an academic appointment thru the Department of Plastic Surgery. The point of clarification for Leifern was to explain his academic titleDroliver 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you're a little confused. I'm just trying to understand this person's claim to notability. Clearly, it isn't his academic credentials, as he is at best adjunct faculty at Vanderbilt. So maybe it's contributions he's made to the practice of plastic surgery, but that is hardly substantiated. Arguably it's accusations leveled against him for serious ethical and possibly legal lapses, but I'm not sure that is enough, either. You're the one who made something about his employment status at Vanderbilt, not me. --Leifern 18:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
SIgh, Leifern, you said it. It was Rob who made an issue out of his academic position and/or employment status, not Leifern, and not I. If it was not an issue, why did you make it one? I have a bit of experience with graduate environments, and I would wonder why such a world renowned authority would not be more recognized by the University - without demaning extraordinary time requirements. That was my only point. Instead, this has as usual become a tedious circular and nonsensical diatribe.MollyBloom 18:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Since there seems to be confusion about this whole exchange, I'll attempt to interpret what is being said here. Initially, Leifern stated that "he is a run-of-the-mill practicing physician who has only risen to the level of (non-tenured) assistant professorship" which Droliver attempted to explain. The explanation seems to be this: Maxwell makes a lot of money as a plastic surgeon. If he were to become a Vanderbilt employee, he would draw a lower salary and his earnings would largely go to the medical school, thus lowering his income. Therefore, he has an association with Vanderbilt whereby he keeps his income in exchange for a title which is not tenured and is not a full professorship. This is a common arrangement within the medical world and is especially common among subspecialty surgeons such as Maxwell. He remains within the academic environment and teaches students, residents, and fellows but is not an official school employee. I hope this helps, though I'm not sure it impacts the RfD at hand. InvictaHOG 19:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Invicta, for a bit of rational explanation and courtesy here. That does help. It is very similar to an adjunct type of position in some graduate and law schools.MollyBloom 19:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

. As to documenting the scope of his professional activities over the recent period of time: 7 outside the US

[[12]]

  • Chicago 2005 ASPS meeting presenter [[13]]
  • New Orleans 2004 ASAPS meeting speaker Quebec 2004
[[14]]
  • 2004 Santa Fe Breast and body contouring symposium speaker[[15]]

2004 Speaker at NYU Emerging technologies meeting [OLD FILES/Program_Saturday_04S.htm]

I"m sorry to say it, but half of these are in the states, and a dozen speaking engagements over a few year period is commendable, even laudable, but not extraordinary. Not unusually noteworthy for an academic or heck, even a professional who is attending and speaking at a number of industry or professional meetings. MollyBloom 18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing belongs on talk page. DrOliver is arguing a delete vote.

We're not talking about all surgeons, we're talking about one surgeon with an incredible CV. As to 'dubious ethics', you're making that charge against someone you do not know based on the fragments of a nearly 20 year old allegation of informed consent failure.Droliver 05:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • legal lecturette. Redacted, arguably relevant but for talk page not here. Midgley 17:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I am curious as to what you think distinguishes this surgeon from thousands of other surgeons and academics with published papers, or the many that have received the same awards as he has. I do not see how he possibly meets the WP:BIO criteria.MollyBloom 03:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
In response to your question on my talk page about my vote, I can only say that I did read through the entire article, the talk pages, read the abstracts of his papers and actually googled him myself! I admit to being an inclusionist, but I think that Maxwell passes the WP:BIO/WP:PROFTEST on several counts. First, he not only has a large body of work, but has published quality work (as evidenced by his award for the best article of the year). He first developed an important surgical procedure which I have seen first-hand (free flap transfer). He has taught many other plastic surgeons, not only as fellows (as evidenced by multiple web pages and CVs which trumpet training by him) but also other practicing surgeons (he creates teaching videos and helps run continuing medical education courses). He established a practice which is quite large and which was the subject of a New York Times article [16]. He has done charity work, testified before the FDA, and served on advisory committees for the American Association of Plastic Surgeons. I may not have written the article on him, but since there is an nicely written well-referenced article already in place, I can honestly think of no reason to delete it. If thousands of other individuals with his degree of accomplishment had equally well-written and referenced articles, then I think Wikipedia would be better off for it! InvictaHOG 04:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Did Maxwell develop the procedure, or did he merely participate in it? That is not clear in the article at all. I have repeatedly asked for some substantiation and clarity in the article, and it isn't there. Maybe you are more familiar with him and don't see the gaps in the article. I would appreciate it if you would help clarify these issues.MollyBloom 05:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like he was involved as a co-author or 'first author' of a report about it. Ok, then this would be a good footnote in the plastic surgery section, as suggested in a couple places above.MollyBloom 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He is first author on the referenced/linked case report - this typically means that he was the most responsible for doing the procedure and writing the article. I think it's fair to say that he had a prominent role in this important development. InvictaHOG 05:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Invicta, for explaining that . I did miss that point. So let's say he was, but find a way of wording it that doesn't sound ridiculously awkward. And then lets please freeze this until an decision is made on the merits of inclusion. Otherwise, it will merely be another edit war as it already has become one, with venom being thrown around already.MollyBloom 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that MollyBloom reverted my edit on the article which had made clear that he was first author - meaning as above - to "contributed to", describing this as more accurate. This debate is ill-mannered, a characteristic of the monomaniac propogandist as opposed to the encyclopaedia author occasionally displayed in afds where the intention is to further an agenda other than the encyclopaedia. Midgley 12:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That's ridiculous Midgely. I didn't see the implication of 'first' and now let's just agree that on that article he was the 'first' writer, but find a way to word it that is not pretentious and awkward. Okay? The article should still be deleted, but I do think a freeze on it until such time as a decision is made will save another edit war.MollyBloom 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Response to Midgley

Yes we are two different people with two distinct writing styles. How do we know you and Dr. Oliver aren't one and the same?, Further a number of doctors and scientests have testified in front of the FDA as well as a number of women with breast implant medical issues- do each of them deserve a biography (or in the case of Maxwell, a haigiography)?. I am not the same as Molly Bloom. My edits concerned the haigification of Maxwell. A good bio includes more than just a CV, it should tell the reader something of the man or woman. It should include facts that present the character.

In addition to the arguments I made on the talk page for inclusion of his professional misconduct, as a professional, with ethical duties, I find Maxwell's dereliction of his duties to his patient by flagrantly ignoring her demand not to be implanted with silicone to be telling of his character. I would feel the same way if she demanded silicone and he used saline. It's the patients' body and it's patient's life, it is the patient's decision, not the doctor's. There was no compelling medical reason to go against the patient's wishes, behind the patient's back. I strongly feel that is significant and should be included, if Maxwell is deserving a bio at all. Your comments on the talk page indicate you still don't understand that. In fact your comments suggest you don't even understand the basic facts of this case. I gather you are a doctor as well. Your lacadasical attitude astounds me.

Finally instead of attacking me or Molly Bloom, why don't you submit a reasoned argument that Maxwell has made a significant contribution to plastic surgery that will be talked about 100 years from now. 100 years ago, I am sure there were hundreds of surgeons who wrote academic papers in professional journals. Should they all be listed in Wikipedia? Is the surgical technique that radical or revolutionary? If so, why is it radical and revolutionary? Make a constructive argument, don't just tell me it is so for Midgley has spokenGfwesq 23:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Again put up or shut up on your charges of misconduct. You've made accusations on a med-mal dispute over consent that you don't even know the resolution toDroliver 05:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Careful what you wish for- The plaintiff won the appeal, only an idiot would think she gave up and dropped the case. Do I have to draw you a picture? The inference can be drawn from the available evidence. If you have proof of termination on the merits in favor of Maxwell, give us a cite. You are noticeably silent on this point and face it, there are no good inferences to be drawn in favor of conclusion you want us to drawGfwesq 06:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Establishing a precedent by hearing a case
One reason to pursue an appeal on a point of law is that it seems to someone (including sometimes the judge) to be significant, without reference to the merits of the actual case. This is known to lawyers. It is stated overleaf that the appeal court hearing established a precedent in Tennessee on from when the period in the statute of limitations commences. Thus this is a case which might be taken to the Court of Appeal by one side, or at the instance of one or other Courts, (or, beyond my own reading, perhaps the Lord Chancellor or his Tennessee cousin in law or legislature - this is speculation). Thus, a case visibly of no merit (as much as a case which might be decided either way) may be taken to an appeal on a significant technical point and then the appeal having defined the law on that point the substance of the case be thrown back into limbo. Thus, a case may raise a question, the question be answered, and the case not heard without any conclusion on the merit of the actual case being reached or indeed heard in court. Midgley 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Midgley, you keep shouting about people weighing in on matters outside their expertise. Apply that standard to yourself. As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions now, and you keep ignoring because you have no argument, no evidence and indeed no knowledge of the subject, to rule for Merlo, the Appellate Court had to find there was sufficient evidence from the hearing in the lower court that Maxwell did not inform her to send it back to the trial court. That issue was only a part of the case, but it is the only part of the case that needs to concern us. It sheds light upon character of the alleged notable. Is a Wiki bio supposed to be a haigiography? If so, no one will take it seriously. Gfwesq 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
He wants this article so bad because it promotes his business. That is why.MollyBloom 08:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see your claims of vanity. That would be a serious thing to claim. Kevin_b_er 10:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
DrOliver was busted for writing only positive information on silicone implants, deleting negative information and then linking to his business website the wikipedia article he wrote on implants with only positive info. So if you were a prospective patient and you wanted an "unbiased opinion" and you looked at his plastic surgeon website, you would see a "helpful" link to a article on implants with nothing but positive info and if you were not very sophisticated, you wouldn't know he wrote it and deleted any entry with negative information.Gfwesq 15:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
First: off there is no "positive" or "negative" information on implants. There is only the data, which has been reviewed more then any device ever & continually disputes connections some editors have tried to post irresponsibly.
By anyone's objective standards, information which is used to show that silicone implants are safe is 'positive' and information that is used to show there are complications or other problems is 'negative.' And certainly, Rob, you wanted to delete all the latter. These patently absurd statements of yours, Rob, does not enhance your credibility.MollyBloom 15:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Second: I've never posted links to my practice website. I did (before understanding wikipedia better)link to my blog briefly, which is a 100% noncommercial entity on Plastic Surgery & Medicine which has recently featured such salacious topics as staph infections, breast cancer chemotherapy, lawyers sued by doctors for malpractice, and trends in breast reduction techniques.
Rob posted to his personal webpage - that is a blog, which was by and for himself, and which linked to his practice website. Ok, it was one link removed, and the blog was most definiely a self promotion, which is fine, but not linked to Wikopedia. He was told it could not stay, for that reason. Rob is being disingenuious in his statements here, just as he was when he was told to remove it.MollyBloom 15:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Third: the links on my practice website that re. implants that you are piqued about are to the FDA, the Natl. Cancer Institute, and the joint ASPS/ASAPS site (which has been reviewed and vetted by the FDA) as well as links to several American & international systemic reviewsDroliver 15:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Third: That is ludicrous, Rob. The problem the Wikopedia admins had (and I had) was unrelated to any links such as these. What 'piqued' me (and the people who removed your link) was the fact that your website blog was self promoting, and it linked to your business website. This is not accepetable in Wikopedia, and you were told that. To say otherwise is, again, disingenuous (to be kind). MollyBloom 16:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that this is not so much about my opinion, or yours, for that matter, but how you have used Wikopedia to further your agenda - it appears that you are using Wikopedia as an advertising vehicle, and that is worse than any POV.MollyBloom 16:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comment on Midgleys Unwarranted and Uncivilized Accusation

I resent Midgley suggesting that I would duplicate my identity here. I am NOT Gfwesq. Furthermore, I have no more of an agenda than Rob or you. This article should be deleted. It does not meet Wikopedia standards. Furthermore, I have not and would suggest deletion of other entries of notable plastic surgeons, who clearly DO meet Wikopedia standards. IN fact, Midgely, you yourself questioned this in the first nomination for deletion, of which I was not a part. Many many many articles started by someone on Wikopedia are deleted. Why you think this one is unique, is beyond me.

You write, "if someone thought it was worth writing an article, leaving it there is reasonable, even if nobody else would have been inclined to write it." That is absurd. If that were true, there would be no deletion process.MollyBloom 00:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Notability

Others here seem to agree that this article is not worthy of inclusion in Wikopedia, or are you going to accuse me of being GassyGuy also? OR maybe Ian? Or Bwitth?

"as I don't see any proof he's more notable than other people in his field. Article was nominated for deletion before and kept on the grounds that his notable contributions to the field would be stated eplicitly, but there has been an absolute failure to clarify why he's deserving of an entry."

It seems that the complaints with this article have been voiced long before my even reading it.

It is dishonest for Midgley to say that I suggested deletion after or because of my edits. The fact is, there are still baseless statements, that are not supported by fact. Moreover, the fact is that this surgeon has no more publications than many tenured college professors or run-of-the-mill experts in any given field. Also, you would not suggest including an article on all those who testified before the FDA, so why this particular person?

Oh, I just heard from one friend who is a plastic surgeon (who does do breast augmentation and reconstructive surgery). He said he didn't know much about Maxwell, and didn't see that he was particularly notable, although he certainly viewed himself to be. MollyBloom 23:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As an exercise, name a plastic surgeon more notable than this one...IE one about whom an article should exist. (You may end up writing it, of course). Meanwhile, on the gneeral subject of notability of what some peoples call physicians even if they are surgeons, this question still lacks an answer on the talk page of notability --> living people. THose who are sure of the answer should perhaps contribute it there. Midgley 23:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir Harold Delf Gillies, for example, which is an entry on Wikopedia. That is most certainly notable. Maxwell (unless it is James Clerk Maxwell, the physicist) is not notable. In fact, Midgely, it might be instructive for you to see the entry on James Clerk Maxwell, so you can see how this is different. MollyBloom 23:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Testifying before the FDA

Midgley, if testifying before the FDA is grounds for inclusion in Wikopedia, then I should have an entry, since I testified. What do you think? Do you even have a clue as to how many people - experts, scientists of all stripes and lay people testify? That has got to be one of the most absurd 'reasons' for inclusion in Wikopedia that I have ever heard. MollyBloom

How many? Of those, how many on matters over which there is significant controversy? Of those latter, bluntly, how many have a professional qualification in what they are talking about? As one sifts, the likeihood of notability rises. And it is of course silly to suggest that any individual item taken alone garantees notability or inclusion - the totality of several does though. My ignorance of such detail is indeed considerable, however it has not been reduced by any information proferred here. As to the merits of writing an article about a living person who is a contributor to WP - that turns upon someone feeling it is worth starting, and there are a bunch of WP policies about it, I recommend reading some of the policies. Midgley 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Midgely. I testified on the same matter that Maxwell did. Is that a good enough example? MollyBloom 18:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability criteria for WP Bio's

A test for worthiness of people like Dr. Maxwell is outlined here on wikipedia aka "The Professor's Test"[[17]]. Proposed criteria to include are:

  • The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources.
  • The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.
  • The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality).
  • The person has published a significant or well-known academic work.
  • The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
  • The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student.
  • The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them

I would sumbit that you can pretty easily show that Dr. Maxwell meets not one, but all of these guidelines.Droliver 04:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Then do it, if you can. Don't just tell us he is important because Dr. Oliver says so.Gfwesq 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then answer this:

  • The person has published a significant or well-known academic work. Which one, or ones?
  • The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea. What new concept did he originate?
  • The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student. I really want to see you answer this one. MollyBloom 04:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Delete I agree with Molly Bloom and Gassy you have no special reason to be here. Get rid of this ad period.. The PS is no better than anyone else, especially a PS who puts the wrong implants in woman. I just came across this ad he puts out a fake act if you ask me. BSBanshee1

[edit] No Big Deal

Gee, another person who thinks it is not a good idea to put silicone implants in a woman against her wishes, or include someone with this background in a Wiki article. I'm amazed at how flippant the Wiki doctors are about this, or as Midgley suggested, 'it is no big deal'. I suspect many women would think it is a very big deal. And as to Maxwell's 'world renowned' status, I have yet to see anything to substantiate that. Maybe Maxwell is a legend in his own mind, and in his followers, but I sure see little to recommend him for inclusion in Wikopedia. MollyBloom 07:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments cut from the main discussion

As I stated, he is no more notable than thousands of other academics. There were at least three in the most recent NYT article mentioned by Midgely. It woudl be ludicrous to mention every doctor, surgeon, engineer, etc who is ever quoted in a paper. IT is ever more obvious to me that this is a promotional article and not worthy of Wikopedia.MollyBloom 22:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
How is he "clearly notable"- specifics pleaseGfwesq 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, for a start if you look here you see that Macindoe (a hero) and Gillies (whose taste in needle holders I share, but I'd not compare my technique with his in any other way - another hero) are in, and so is Maxwell. One interpretation would be that for no other plastic surgeons in history or present has there been a person who felt it was worth the effort of writing about them for WP. Removing 33% of the material on plastic surgeons from WP because it isn't comprehensive seems a big step. Midgley
Let me see if I understand the argument: Maxwell belongs on Wikipeida, because... he is on Wikipeida? Isn't that kind of circular? I see Gillies is the father of plastic surgery; clearly he belongs. Maxwell isn't the father of plastic surgery. McIndoe has a unit of a hospital named after him and is the subject of a recent biography (book). Sounds reasonable to include him as well. Maxwell- any hospital units named after him? Ok, any books written about him? No? He did get a $1000.00 reward for a technical video (a Plastic Surgeon Oscar?) and he has the dubious honor of having his name on a legal precedent in the great state of Tennessee on the issue of when the clock starts running on statutes of limitations. But you and Oliver don't even want to include that bit of info, so obviously you don't feel that is a sufficient reason. ;-) Gfwesq 00:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that is a significant aspect of the case which probably accounts for it being argued at appeal, and then disappearing. I've added it. A detailed reference to that would perhaps improve the paragraph. As to the iterative argument about being the only living plastic surgeon in WP being a suggestion of notability, yes, that is the argument. If there were a dozen extant plastic surgeons with WP Bios, then one might look at them and say "hang on, this one is less notable than that one." Midgley 00:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Is the parent comment still regarded as correct - that the case set a precedent in tgs Tennessee? THere is material in the article on th strength of that but there was further discussion by another lawyer - did this reach concordance? Midgley 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Deletion of comments One of the pathognomic features of advocacy in pursuit of an agenda rather than an effort to write an encyclopaedia of general use seems to be deletion of other people's comments from for instance AFDs. Mollybloom dleted this comment of mine, and therefore affected what subsequent participants might know of the background. [18]

A false attack, used to launch another diatribe, but hopefully this is over and history. Ian below points out that I did not delete. Instead, Ian moved it inadvertantly.

  • Actually it was a _mistake_. A reaction to a perceived attack. The cause was an unfortunate concurrence of complicated editing and irritation, and could have been avoided if I'd read a large number of edits. TO some extent, sorry. Midgley 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Right, that diff shows it moved down, if you scrool down, you see it reappears, it seems that just a linebreak was added. Unfortunatly, this comment did manage to vanish when I moved a rather big chunk to the discussion page (since it wasn't all directly relevent), unfortunatly, I wrongly took that comment with it. [19] Ian13/talk 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This means, that all of Midley's accusation about my deleting his comments here was patently untrue. This accusation then went into a long diatribe about me - this is personal attack, and is a clear violation of Wikopedia standard of conduct. I ask that an admin ban Midgely from all editing if he continues this behavior. MollyBloom 20:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
No. It means someone made a mistake. There certainly seem to be enough notes of attacks being thown around... Ian13/talk 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A review of Mollybloom's contributions shows a clear agenda - a single-minded approach to anything to do with breast implants and now apparently surgeons who do breast implants. It doesn't appear to me that this suggested deletion has anything to do with producing an encyclopaedia, it does seem to me that it is furthering a personal agenda of presenting a particular view to the world and minimising any other aspects' exposure. I made the first proposal for deletion, and the article is in fact considerably better, and does not have the same faults as then - although a set of Molly's edits to it before it was protected would have tended to support that argument (first delete the detail, then claim the article is so uninformative as to be unworth keeping). It does have some additions which - to someone knowing something of the area of knowledge at least - look significant. Writing about technical matters is always going to be a compromise in WP. As to notability - there are not many plastic surgeons, and few of them testify to the US FDA on an aspect of their specialty, so I suspect that this one is notable, at least within the confines of the US. WP has many times been noted to tolerate things which it would not advocate - IE if someone thought it was worth writing an article, leaving it there is reasonable, even if nobody else would have been inclined to write it. Also, if there are hundreds, or thousands of other people as notable a view commonly advanced is that there are therefore hundreds, or thousands of articles yet to write. The alternative to that would be to suggest that no new article should be presented, unless all articles in that category are presented along with it, which would pose a challenge to the productively of WP editors. Lastly, is it clear that Gfwesql and Mollybloom are entirely separate? Midgley 22:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • and Strong keep partly becuase this is a clear attempt to subvert WP procedures and norms, partly because to delete one article in furtherance of an agenda would encourage further depredations, and partly because assertions that someone is not notable becuase they are not in the newspapers but in peer-reviewed journals should not be supported. I suggest that an RFC on MollyBoom's activities related to breast implants and now this afd should be called and that a ban on editing any article related to plastic surgery would be appropriate and improve the quality of the WP. Midgley 12:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved all of the above to the talk page, just so there's some record of it. I don't endorse the comments made, I'm just trying to move them out of the way. Please everyone, try to remain civil. --bainer (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've followed that example, and that of the author of the section moved to below.

This has been repeatedly explained and your inaccuracies exposed, but you keep repeating the same wrong information.MollyBloom 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the facts submitted were from an Appellate opinion from a 9 year old court case (the incident may be 20 years old, but the allegation is from 9 years ago). I suppose this would be a good place to explain some things about courts and appeals.

1. Trial Courts do not publish opinions. That is not their purpose in life. Trial courts hear the evidence based upon logical rules to establish reliability. A trial court judge can exert considerable influence with his discretion in his evidence rulings. If he allows evidence in, its part of the record. If he doesn’t allow the evidence in, it is not part of the record. If he abuses his discretion in his evidentiary rulings, the affected party can appeal the evidentiary ruling. This is not common. At the end of the hearing or trial, the facts of the case are decided and then a ruling is made by applying the law to the facts to reach a result. Both sides get to argue what is the evidence in the case.

2. Appellate courts review the law, not the facts- unless the appeal is based upon abuse of discretion by the trial court in its evidentiary rulings. The official position of the Appellate Court is they weren’t present when witnesses testified, did not review the physical evidence or conduct the examination of the witnesses, and therefore are not in a good position to determine the facts. They can and do apply the law to the facts and review how that was done in the lower court.

Therefore, the facts presented to the appellate court, were the findings of the lower court when it ruled favorably for Maxwell. If you read the opinion, linked to in the article, you will learn the facts of the case found by the trial court:

1. Maxwell informed Merlo of the hazards of silicone v. saline.
2. Based upon Maxwell’s presentation, Merlo preferred saline to silicone
3. Maxwell implanted her with silicone anyway and presented no evidence that he had informed her of his doing so.
4. When Merlo had to return for additional surgery, she was handed a consent form asking her consent for silicone, which she refused in line with her previous position.
5. After she refused permission, the staff told her she already had silicone implants.
6. This was news to Merlo (see 2 above) and she was visibly upset according to the staff testimony.
7. 6 above imples 3 above was done behind her back

In short, Merlo won the right to continue her case. It is not logical as Droliver continuously suggests for her to have dropped the case after winning the appeal. It is noteworthy that in the history of discussing this case, Droliver first stated the case was dismissed misreading or misciting the appellate court decision. When that error was pointed out to him, Droliver has fallen back on “the case was dropped.” The one statement Droliver never makes, “is the plaintiff lost at trial” or that the trial court “dismissed the case in Maxwell’s favor on X grounds. Since we are talking about his mentor, its reasonable to assume Droliver knows exactly what happened.

Based upon the known facts, there are only two logical and reasonable conclusions:

1. having lost his defense based upon the statute of limitations, Maxwell had no other good defense and elected to settle the case.
2. If Maxwell had a good defense to the merits of the case, presumably he would have defended himself vigorously at trial.

If Maxwell had been vindicated at trial, you can bet Droliver would be telling us this and he wouldn’t be shy about it. And of course, if he lost, Droliver wouldn’t tell us. Based upon his current statements, I suspect Maxwell settled because he did not have a good defense. But then Droliver changes his story a lot, so its hard to say for sure. Gfwesq 16:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read that report. It did not say to me that the lower court had had evidence heard on the case. See comments elsewhere. Midgley 17:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Where do you think the facts cited in the appellate court came from? You think the appellate court just made them up out of whole cloth? Use your head man! Gfwesq 17:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that the poster above is persistently remarking on my being uncivil. And that the allegations in the case were not, and never have been tested in court. I regard them as undecided. I do not regard single documents about undecided court cases as grounds for a conclusion in an encyclopaedia article about particularly a living person. Midgley 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] context for his noteriety

The context for notoriety is the lawsuit against him, what was revealed in discovery such as his admitted alcoholism and entry into rehab (about the time of the lawsuit), allegations of cocaine abuse which was one of the questions of the plaintiff's lawyers, and community reputatation which is not exactly stellar on these accounts.

I don't really think you want to highlight the context for notoriety, do you? The paragrah about the lawsuit is sufficient, without the volatile discussion of his chemical dependencies.

As it has been requested that more evidence of his stature be provided to support the claim that he is both an international figure & recognized as superlative within his field. I give you these links to recent meetings world-wide where he's been an invited speaker. This is in addition to hundreds of other events he's done before the last two years. Is there anyone who can plausibly still argue about this?

I don't think anyone disputed his speaking engagement, but I don't see the point. Many academics travel for speaking engagements, or as visiting professors. I can remember professors rotating these.... This is not particularly unique or extraordinary, unless, of course, you are talking about some small low rated med school. ANd, t his is not a puff piece, either.

I looked up Visiting Professor for plastic surgery foundation, one of the references. (And it is not called 'nationwide'). Here is a professor and surgeon that seems to have considerably more experience and credentials (including speaking invitations) than Maxwell. He testified before the FDA, and etc etc etc which is not all that unusual for proponents of silicone impalnts and those doctors connected with breast impant manufacturers. Here is his CV: http://www.georgetownuniversityhospital.org/body.cfm?id=1637. He is one of many. I don't suggest that all be included with Wiki articles. This simply is not a legitmate way to determine notability. If this were the criteria, every academic and specialist in the country would overwhelm Wikopedia. That is simply ludicrous. Again, I am not discounting Dr. Maxwell's achievements, nor am I suggesting that Spear's be highlighted. Spear was a defendant in a case against breast implant manufacturers, and has had financial links with silicone implant manufacturers (clearly a strong advocate for silicone breast implants) but in a cursory review I see nothing like a claim of malpractice or personal malfeasance. This is merely one example of many, as to why Maxwell is not exceptionally notable in the field. There are many many surgeons with his expertise, and his credentials, and his CV and even more speaking engagements. That is true for about every field I can think of.. God knows, it is in law. I just have to look at half my former law professors and can come up with a CV to rival or surpass Maxwell (taking into consideration the difference in area of study and expertise).MollyBloom 03:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


And now we are having it again. Can you make a coherent argument that Maxwell is a notable figure using the Wikipedia guidlines for notable professionals or not? I'll give you one hint, attacking Molly or me or any other editor is not a coherent argument within the guidlines. What is notable about Maxwell that differentiates him from the pack? I would point out that Gassyguy notes the last time it was promised it would be shown that Maxwell is indeed notable AND he feels that this promise was not kept. So it is not just Molly. So far the only arguments I have seen are circular ones. He is not notable, simply because Dr. Oliver says he is notable. Give an arguement explaining what he has achieved, why it is important and state whether he did all the work himself or as part of a team or what. Complaining Molly is being spiteful does not meet that goal (and really, at the risk of being insulting, it is childish)Gfwesq 04:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Article was nominated for deletion before and kept on the grounds that his notable contributions to the field would be stated eplicitly, but there has been an absolute failure to clarify why he's deserving of an entry.

South Korea 2005 [[20]] China 2005 [[21]] Keynote Speaker of Kentucky State Meeting 2005[[22]] Stockholm 2005 [[23]] Russia 2006 [[24]] Brazile 2006 [[25]] Orlando,FL ASAPS 2006 presenter/panelist [download/2006ScientificProgram.pdf] Atlanta Breast Symposium 2006/2005 [[26]] [[27]] Speaker at Northeastern Plastic Surgery Society meeting 2005[[28]] 2005 Mexico [[29]] 2005 Milan [European Conference 0.pdf#search='patrick%20maxwell%20surgery'] [[30]] Chicago 2005 ASPS meeting presenter [[31]] New Orleans 2004 ASAPS meeting speaker Quebec 2004 [[32]]Droliver 17:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Midgley keeps making accusations of removing his comments, or vote, or who knows what else

I have not removed anything that Midgely wrote except the incorrect comment on the front page. I have NEVER deleted his vote. I do not believe it was deleted -- it probably was moved ot the talk page by Ian, but I didn't look to make sure. That probably should be corrected.. However, Midgely's ugly accusations continue, and are always baseless. He last accused me of removing his vote & comments, and wrote nearly a page long diatribe on how horrible I was. Ian pointed out to him that in fact Ian had inadvertantly moved those to the talk page along with other comments. Midgely never apologized to me, or to anyone. Midgely needs to have a comlaint filed against him, and banned for continued personal attacks and violation of Wikopedia's standard of conduct. His atrocious behavior and personal attacks continue, unabated, despite several warnings from admins. MollyBloom 20:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly scope for an RFC, however it is also abundantly clear that Molly did remove one of my comments(see over for th diff and commentary on it - it was significant), and my vote was removed. THe latter was inadvertent and not Molly. Midgley 00:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I already said that, and I said why. This was the ONLY one I ever removed, and I said that. I also said you could add it back. I see you added a comment much longer. I have already sought a former resolution of the personal attacks Midley has made. Midgely has created a brawl by his personal attacks, and then called for premature closure to the Rfd because of what he created. I appreciate that Midgley finally admitted the removal of the vote was inadvertant and not by me. However, he had previously and falsely accused me of removing it then used that as a forum to launch yet another diatribe against me.MollyBloom 00:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks, Replies to Personal Attacks and Requests to Stop Personal Attacks Moved From Project Page

Please refer to this criteria. [[33]] It's pretty easily shown he meets the standard on thatDroliver 17:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
And I don't think the fact he had speaking engagements in Atlanta or in other countries means he is anything but a very good academic. Maybe I went to a very good graduate school, but this was pretty normal fare for professors. My question would be, if he was so extraordinary, why was he still only an assistant professor? That is very unusual.MollyBloom 17:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so now he is good academic! If you knew much about medicine in the USA, you'd know that in most surgical fields (and Plastic Surgery in particular) training programs cannot afford the salaries to keep many of the best physicians on staff. That's why he's labled a clinical assistant professor (you also might see people listed as clinical faculty or instructor). The exact title depends upon the University policy and at many programs they do not give out a full title of professor to non-tenure track associates. Some give the title out like candyDroliver 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Rob, there is no reason to be vicious. It is not just medicine, but it is almost all academic fields that don't pay well. That has absolutely nothing to do with his status as assistant professor. And I never said he was not a good academic (aside from his legal and other problems). I never made that judgment, and for you to insinuate I did, is once again, dishonest. What my point is, along with many other editors who have weighed in here, is that he is not an extraordinary 'world expert' worthy of inclusion in Wikopedia. Your statement that schools hand out titles like candy does not enhance your argument. If anything, it goes to show even more so, that he is not sufficiently notable to be included in Wikopedia.MollyBloom 18:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Molly there are WP:Bio guideline for worthiness & I suggest you read them. There are contextual links in & outside of medicine which have been provided to address questions of his stature & noteriety within the field. I've no intention of engaging with you anymore on this as you've now apparently been asked by several moderators to reflect upon your behavior.Droliver 18:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Im glad you mentioned that, Rob, because I have read them. In fact, I even suggested some notable entries for your comparison (and to illustrate the difference between this Maxwell, for example, and James Clerk Maxwell. Evidently you didn't read these. And, I hardly need you to talk about my behavior, good or otherwise, but upon reflection, I'd say I have been remakably restrained, given the onslought of personal attacks and character assassination by you and Midgely.

However, Rob, I do agree that Maxwell has achieved a certain degree of notoriety, as evidenced by the facts in the court case about his legal and other problems.MollyBloom 18:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And I am so glad that you have decided not to 'engage' me anymore. It is not I you need to engage. What you need to do, and have not done, is formulate a sound reasoned argument for inclusion, following the very guidelines you posted.MollyBloom 19:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, publications and positions clearly establish notability. All this talk about legal problems really makes this AFD look like the tail wagging the dog. --Sneftel 17:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The discussion on the lawsuit has nothing to do with the reason for this Rfd. Please read the reason above. Maxwell's legal (and other) problems were discussed in the context of the existing Wiki article - NOT a reason for deleting the article itself. The reason for deleting the article is amply explained above. Wikopedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for a loving student to burnish the credentials of his mentor. MollyBloom 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • my earlier vote was removed. here it is. It wasn't the first removal from this afd. It is too tedious to pick through the history to find who removed it and when and it is undoubtedly the case that they believed they were acting for the best. The vote? After a comment and observing and partly because of the processes here, it was Strong keep. Midgley 20:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Will some admin please explain to Midgely that his vote was not removed? I suspect that one of the administrators inadvertantly moved it along with comments to the talk page. Midgelys implication that his vote keeps getting maliciously deleted is further evidence of his paranoia and unreasonable attacks on other editors and administrators. The last time he accused me of removing his vote/comments and then launched a page long diatribe and personal attack against me, because I disagree with him. An administrator explained to him then that he had inadvertanly moved it --that means I did not delete it. Midgley never apologized for his completely untrue accusation, even after being told by an administrator that he, not I, had moved it (it never was deleted.)MollyBloom 21:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
In the space of a sentence Molly says it was removed, and asks someone to tell me it was not removed. It was there, then it was not there.
That is a flat out lie, Midgely. I said it was MOVED not REMOVED, and I said it probably was (since I was not sure but it seems this issue arose before). Your implication was malicious. It was an inadvertant moving by an administrator and not me,. I asked an administrator to explain this to you, You know darn well what I said and meant, You are trying to inflame here, and it is despicable.MollyBloom 04:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If it was careless, reckless, accidental, due to a cosmic ray passing through a memory location it does not signifiy. It is returned. Molly, I do apologise for thinking that one of your thousand edits had taken it out, my only excuses for not doing so sooner are two:- that I thought that since another editor visibly in good standing had explained it that nobody would need further comment, and that my moderate contrition would be assumed; and that I cannot believe anyone actually wants to read more of this .... page.

You had no moderate contrition. You had no contrition, You simply launched further personal attacks against me, and further misrepresentations.MollyBloom 04:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If we are calling upon admins to do things, let us call upon one to close the afd. It is obvious that a consensus to delete will not be reached and to quote an admin from an earlier afd, "it is turning into a brawl, which is never good." Move to close Midgley 23:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not obvious that a consensus to delete will not be reached. Right now there are more delete than Keep. IS this your idea of a consensus? You claim that it is turning into a brawl, yet you are causing the brawl.MollyBloom 04:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
NO Midgley, I said it had probably been MOVED, not REMOVED. And I did not do it. WHy don't you ask an administrator, instead of making this a forum for attack and brawl. I feel you are deliberately doing this to cut short the Rfd, and to attack anyone who disagrees with you and Rob.MollyBloom 23:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per GassyGuy. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Long list of publications, excellent article with a fascinating paragraph on professional misconduct + article was previously nominated just two months ago and was an overwhelming Keep: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G._Patrick_Maxwell. Maxwell clearly needs to stay and I wish all articles were this good. --JJay 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Gfwesq or I added the paragraph on professional misconduct, and Midgely and DrOliver have consistently vandalized it by stating it is irrelevant. Before, the article looked like a puff piece. I still do not see this particular doctor more notable than many many others in his field. This is a loving gift from a student attempting to burnish this doctor's credentials. Nothing more.MollyBloom 04:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A comment edited by jgwlaw this one definitely was removed from the page, without edit summary, and not by someone else. Molly? For the record, it was a note that the actual proposition upon whcih people recorded their view has been edited, by Molly, since then, and that in general this is Not Done. Midgley 23:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The history of this shows that I did make an edit summary. MollyBloom 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, add it back. I felt it was an unwarranted disruption, and I added the link, which I thought I had added previously. There is no point in adding it back except to create a brawl, but if you wnat to do so, go ahead. And that is the ONLY comment I have EVER removed. You are turning this into a brawl and a forum for personal attack, Midley, and I hope an administrator stops it soon.MollyBloom 23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Molly, don't edit other peoples posts, regardless of how you feel about them. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Or even your own without making it very clear what it used to say, and what now. (Not spellings obviously) Midgley 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS MIDGLEY. Are you saying that I cannot edit my own comments. Excuse me? I make it VERY clear what I am editing about my own comments and why. You have repeatedly made edits without any edit summary at all, so this is rather like the pot calling the kettle black. I am appalled at your continual personal attacks. I am insisting it stop.MollyBloom 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
More than that, I'm going to point out here that I was entirely correct, because when the paper was made available for inspection, rather than relying on Molly's account of what it said, it immediately became obvious to anyone who read it that it was not a paper about free flaps, and therefore of no relevance to the technique under discussion.
THis is not the case,. As I said below, I believe others are capable of reading, without your editorializing,.MollyBloom 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See above. The proper thing to do now molly, is to cross through every word you wrote like this.

THe proper thing for you to do, Midgely, is to stop making personal attacks.MollyBloom 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, the reason that we do not generally edit the start of the AfD is that is fiercely hard work to determine who voted having seen that misleading material before it was corrected, and decide how much their vote is based upon a true appreciation of the facts. Rather than challenging me, Molly, use the WP help desk, or look at (advice I've given before, now lets be forceful) some other pages of WP. Look at the talk pages of other articles (Anti-catholicism is a good one, or quantum and see how they do it. Editing only breast implants and now this does not help to tune into the WP way and norms, and I suspect several people enjoy their experience less as a result. Which is not good. (I omitted to sign this -this happens, and usually someone uses the appropriate tag to note it, working from history. Midgley)

I assume Midgely wrote this, since it is consistent with his many many other insults of the same variety. It is proper to sign one's comments. It is also proper not to misrepresent, as Midgley clearly has here. I have edited many other things, than breast implants. Even if I had not, this comment is not relevant to this Rfd. MIdgley cannot support the case for keeping this article, so instead he makes personal attacks, turns the Rfd into a brawl and then calls for closure of the Rfd because there is a brawl. MollyBloom 04:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I've counted. Many here equates to 1.6%, a total of 35 attributed edits. (It is a rough count, not necessarily correct to the nearest 10)Midgley 14:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You challenged me. I asked you to support your statements. If an administrator asks me to move that to the talk page, I will do so.MollyBloom 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Your continual insults and bringing up articles other than this one or this Rfd is disgusting, out of line, and needs to stop.MollyBloom 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

I am asking again that Midgley and Oliver be stopped from making personal attacks. This is ridiculous. Now because of his own attacks, Midgley says this has turned into a brawl and the Afd should be closed. This is ridiculous.

The ONLY thing I ever deleted was your gross disruption on the main page. I NEVER deleted anything on the talk page, or any other comment of yours or anyone else's on the main page or the talk page. Why is this becomeing a brawl? Because Midglely made it one.

Yes, I added to my original reason for Rfd. This is a supplement. Nobody has told me this is a problem. Please refer me to the rule on that, if you can.MollyBloom 23:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANOTHER Request for Civility

The article on breast implants is not related to this Afd. MIdgely needs to stop using distractors and personal insults and misrepresentations to intimidate and bully.

I am a member of WikIlaw project, and have edited on criminal law, and a number of other areas. I hope to edit much more in these areas. I also have edited on other medical article in which I am interested and have some knowledge about, as well as on politics. I am, however, still relatively new to Wikopedia, and hope to edit much more in those areas. The ONLY relevant issue here is that it is not proper to make personal accusations on an Rfd (or any page). It is much better - and more civil - to address the merits of the artice/Rfd. Attacking the messenger is an old and bad trick to distact from the issue at hand.

[edit] This is an Rfd, Not a Forum to Attack Editors

This line of argument, such as it is, is ridiculous. Molly Bloom appears to have some knowledge of the complications of breast implants and I note that on the breast implant page, another editor attempted to remove any information placed by Molly concerning these issues over and over until temporarily banished by admins. I also note a professor of plastic surgery and a epidemiologist associated with Harvard and Yale weighed in on Molly's side on that page. I don't believe epidemiology is a specialty of ether DrOliver or yours, Midge. Furthermore this sort of chart making borders on cyber stalking. Gfwesq 17
06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Please look at the article on Maxwell, It states, "Maxwell was the surgeon and co-author of the first successful microsurgical transfer of a latissimus muscle flap." If this is not related to a latissimus flap, then I don't know what is. Midgley is attempting to use his credentials to intimidate, once agian. And this is not the only time he has done this,

As I said, you don't know. Any of the doctors in WP will know. Asking one of them before you referred to that irrelevant article would have been wise, not seeking to ensure you are not wrong after you have been publicly told that you are is unwise. And yes, microsurgical transfer of any flap is related to the flap, but the essence of the technique (and arguably why the first word of the title is "microsurgical" and not "Latissimus", or "flap") is that where it ends up is not anatomically related to where it started from. Midgley 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Other editors do not have to take my word for anything. Nor should they take your word for it. I believe other editors can read.

They can read now that you have revealed what you regarded as a source - and whichis not a source for what you asserted. Until then it was occult. Midgley 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
As soon as I realized that I omitted the link, I added it. And neither you nor I need to editorialize, since presumably Wiki users are capable of reading. Thanks! MollyBloom 16:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

5. I only edited one comment of Midgleys (or anyone, for that matter). I acknowledged that, and explained why, and told him to put it back if he wished. He chose instead to write a length diatribe, and bring this up repeatedly.

6. Midgely has repeatedly made false accusations against me. As evidence, he first wrote that Gfwesq and I were one in the same person,. Even after he was infomred by an admin that this was not the case, he again wrote that we were not independent persons, and stated that Gfwesq and I should be 'suspect' . Another accusation was when he claimed that I deleted his vote/comments and used that to launch a diatribe against me. Once again, an admin pointed out that MIdgely was wrong, here, as well. Midgley did not admit this until I repeatedly brought it up. Even after this, he once again implied that 'someone' maliciously deleted his vote. This was also untrue.

This is untrue. Midgley 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
No its not. And, to my knowledge, you never acknowledged you made a false accusation and never made a full apology for it. This would be a good time to do so. Gfwesq 16:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Your knowledge is incomplete. This sort of argument requires diffs because often impressions and recollections turn out not to be supported by actual fact. Midgley 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Citation for acknowlegdement of false accusation and full apology please Gfwesq 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the efforts to provide education on legal topics. I will not do what you ask, instead I shall teach you how to use a web browser. Generally to search within a page the key combination is control +f press that, and type "apol". Press next. I found it on the third appearance of the string "apol" in this page. Midgley 23:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You can't even recognize a joke when you see one, can you? in any event its even easier to use the find function on your browser and what I found was not much of an apology and you never made a full admission of false accusation Gfwesq 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It was a joke, or, you had already found it but were demanding I find it for you, or it won't do anyway? It was a mistake, I misread a very complex set of edits - too complex - and it was corrected. WP isn't (supposed to be) a dialogue, it is refactored by many people, and it isn't that important who corrects an error. The Find function is, by the way, teh search within a page function, hence control F, for find. You knew that, perhpas.Midgley 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I made you go through admiting your mistake 3 times now. That's sufficient. You've done enough penance for this bit of malfeasance. Gfwesq 03:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

7. I hope that we can put an end to this incivility and personal attack. Midgley is the worst offender of this. I will note this is not the first time that he has personally attacked those with whom he did not agree. I received personal emails from users I didn;t even know pointing this out to me, His method seems to be to bully and intimidate until he chases someone off Wikopedia.

I'm sure we are getting mail. If you "note" something then it is a personal attack, an attempt to poison the well and various other things which are thought not to advance the encyclopaedia. If you point to a diff, saying that on this occasion something was done or said, then others can judge for themselves. Midgley 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Molly poisoned the well, I think she just pointed out the well was full of poison. If you don't want people calling you on being abusive, refrain from being abusive. Its really simple. Treat others as you, yourself want to be treated. Gfwesq 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That thought is misguided, and not helpful. Midgley 23:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, it highlights the problem and so by definition it cannot be misguided. Also you must be the first person in history to say the "golden rule" is misguided Gfwesq 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to be chased off Wikopedia. I will not tolerate repeated abuse and lies from Midgely. I am hoping an administrator will take action." Until then, I will continue to defend myself, and to point out that civility is not only a Wikopedia rule of conduct, but the mark of a decent human being. MollyBloom 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Midgely's continued complaint that his vote was moved to the discussion page inadvertantly, by an admin.

Please note that the link Midgely has here links to an inflammatory discussion and an accusation that was proved to be false. This needs to be on the front page. Midgley's votes were never deleted, but were moved by administrators inadvertantly. MollyBloom

Ian, an administrator, pointed out that HE inadvertantly moved Midgley's vote to the discussion page, along wtih a section of discussion. For the sake of peace, Midgley, please remove the link to your previous inflammatory disparagement of me, and just include your vote. Thanks!

Also, please do now swear here.MollyBloom 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that my vote was removed, and this much later edit is incorrect, the link I provided is a diff to my addition of my vote, by me to the preceding material. (Molly, the diff points to the right hand column, which is where the new material that has been added is shown.) For th purpose of peace and quite let us agree that whatever it was that happened, before it my vote was here on this page where it could be counted, and after it happened my vote was nt here, not on this page, not where it could be counted. If it is a matter of enormous significance to anyone that this not be described as "deleted" then let us call it "accidently removed". And just above, is a note made by me saying so, and putting it back, and pointing to where it was originally added, and by the way, mentioning the tedium of picking through to find the no doubt benign explanation. Now close the damn thing and stop refactoring the past. Midgley 18:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It was always in your power. I shall now point you to another AfD which contains a quote you'll recognise ... I suggest following it up to the ensuing discussion, and deciding whether anything other than using additional time and effort on something other than writing encyclopaedia articles was achieved then. I think it wasn't. I think that it won't be here, but nobody except the originator of this AfD could possibly close it early. One interpretation of doing that - as shown I hope in another AfD I can't find just now, by me, is being graceful in defeat, although thinking of it as defeat is actually a problem in itself. I have to go out now. Midgley 20:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)(delayed by edit conflict to 2100 on return)
Thanks for the suggestion, which I decline. There has not been defeat on the Rfd -in fact, discounting the new user votes, there are still more 'delete' votes than 'keep'. Whether an administrator chooses to keep anyway, I suppose, is up to the admin. Again, my frustration was the constant fighting, which I still hope we can stop. Thanks Midgely!MollyBloom 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks, replies to personal attacks and requests to stop personal attacks (moved from main page)

As well as general pleas for civility are inappropriate for project page, so I moved them in their entirety to discussion page. I apologize in advance if I accidentally moved someone's vote, feel free to move it (any vote erronously moved) back Gfwesq 16:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

JFW wrote: Censure Molly for using AFD to WP:POINT. JFW |&nbsp Argument ad hominum is no argument. Take it elsewhere. This is an Rfd, and not a lobby against an individual.MollyBloom 02:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when is this a lobby for censuring Molly or lobbying against a person? This is an Rfd, not a personal attack forum. Or am I wrong?

It seems that pages and pages of venom are spewed here without any intervention whatsoever by admins. Is this Wikopedia style? Please help me understand, because no legitimate organization would condone or allow this type of conduct.MollyBloom 02:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack (in what way did I attack you?) Instead, I wish you'd stop attacking every keep vote. Also, I'm voting as a Wikipedian here; admins have no special powers when voting on AFD and should not receive different treatment for this reason. JFW | T@lk 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you really didn't understand. I did not challenge or criticize your 'keep' vote. What I criticized was your "Molly" vote. That is inappropriate on the Rfd. If you have a problem with me, take it elsewhere. "Molly" censure is not a vote on the Rfd. Frankly, I no longer care what happ;ens to the article. I am sick of the senseless warring and insult hurling that has nothing to do wtih the Rfd. It continues unabated without anyone stopping it. I will delete any further personal attacks since me. THis is not professional, appropriate and if this is Wikopedian, then I want no part of it.MollyBloom 03:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If anything, JFW, as an administrator, you would be more helpful if you would help establish civility here.MollyBloom 03:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop making personal attacks

YOU HAVE TURNED THIS INTO A FREE-FOR-ALL ATTACK FORUM. I am going to delete every personal attack you make. I am sick to death of it. You don't want a reasonable discussion. NOW LEAVE ME ALONE, and discuss issues, not people.MollyBloom 03:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ehmm, Molly, you're not really supposed to delete any material on talk pages, even if it is offensive. (That's something Midgley has done, btw). My advice would be to respond calmly to it, pointing out why it's fallacious, and let it showcase the level of rhetoric Midgley indulges in. --Leifern 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It really needs to stop. It was suggested by a mediator that I open an arbitration, to stop this, since mediators are not admins. I probably will have to do that, since the admins here don't seem inclined to stop it. The problem with it staying is that it has turned the Rfd into a free-for-all and totally obscured the Rfd. It also is outrageous - well beyond a violation of WP civility.MollyBloom 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Rather than threaten to do something, I advise you to either do it, or don't. Prolonging things and threatening doesn't release tension for anyone. I do however suspect that ArbCom won't accept it, purely because other dispute avenues haven't been explored fully, ie a completed mediation or RfC. Ian13/talk 19:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually did, Ian. Thanks for your comment! The mediator here who suggested it was one of the mediators who weighed in on the formal complaint, and suggested that I file an arbitration.MollyBloom 19:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems the mediation process need to continue, before I file for arbitration, but maybe not, since the mediator suggested I do so. I have continually asked and pleaded with Midgely to stop turning this into a forum for personal attack, and to instead focus on issues, not people.
I have asked you repeatedly to intervene and stop Midgely's harrassment and threats, but you have failed to do so.
That is why I actually DID take action, and filed for mediation.MollyBloom 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation may be what you are after for a more formal avenue. Ian13/talk 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Ian, I have already opened an Request for Mediation, which I think I showed you, but maybe not. MollyBloom 19:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I might be missing it, but I don't currently see a request for mediation on this topic InvictaHOG 21:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
See [35]. Andrew73 21:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It might have been improved by reading if not the rules, if not Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, at least the words on the various parts of the page. I think the key thing about mediation is that you seek it. There really is quite a lot of useful info and advice around there. On the subject of advice, my recollection is that the first contact between Molly and I was when I offered some advice...this and a few subsequent postings on my talk page were what I got (click on history or go steadily forward) for it, and [this ] is what I'd offered. I wasn't the first to offer some well-meant advice on getting an effect while reducing conflict (for some reason I thought I'd learnt something about some aspects of conflict on WP, earlier) an adminhere had done something similar, and may yet appear to remark on his thoughts shortly afterward and shortly afterward and shortly afterward and shortly afterward and now, or not. Fortunately, immediately afterward the Wikipedia Ombudsman took her under his wing and offered good advice... - and immediately afterward, I described it as (predominantly) good advice. One likes a quick reaction, but posted at 23:32, deleted at 23:32 made me wonder if the global stress levels might be ameliorated by a little more persistence and that actually a bit of a pointer about some of the rulesconventionsguidelinesless irritating ways things seem to work around here might still be useful...there is the one about not in general we don't just delete comments on user:talk pages because it is regarded as hostile, appreciating which can lead to a more comfortable WP experience, for instance...[36] and I really lit the blue tocuhpaper by remarking "It is regarded as bad form to remove comments from user talk pages. It is more intelligible if you reply in the same page rather than on the poster's own talk page. Comments should be signed by adding 4 tildes - the wiggly character. WP policy on offering advice (which you may see as criticism) is not as you represented it in your reply. You may be thinking of WP:NPA which is worth reading. Midgley 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)" It is true, but when was that an excuse... (BTW, Leifern's advice above you see had previously been given. Perhaps he should brace himself). Bad of me, of course... and imprudent -there is always the risk when you throw someone a lifeline that they pull hard and pull you in... so it got [37]. Now, up to that point, let me make it entirely, perfectly, completely plain, there is nothing in the least incivil in any of my contributions. I've now been deleted, criticised, told that WP:AGF, Dispute resolution and whatever else I offered was bad and given a clear indication that the subject of this RFC and/or our friend and deeply respected colleague Leifern was around in th e background (pouring oil on flamestroubled waters in an effort to help make things run smoothly. Of course, I lashed out inconscionably describing this comment visciously as "incorrect" and offering another piece of advice, at which the target has just arrived two months later, of "and take it to RFC if you won't take advice."
It was free, it was good, it is good, and it had and has been given by others, but it wasn't taken, happiness has not (if I am any judge) ensued, it is all avoidable, it is all reactive, it is a pain in teh arse and it is not my fault or on my volition. And it was deleted. I'm pleased to see that my emollient and excellent colleague David Ruben got longer shrift - it does suggest that some of this was based on something someone else had said, doesn't it... SO lets think of the candidates:-
  • User:Ombudsman :: [38] :: currently in ArbCom :: RFC not having worked;
  • [[User:86....]and other IDs who "why for the love of God why?" persisted in presenting the appearance of being the registered user "The Invisible Anon" rather than his actual registered username ::RFC hanging, since having declared that eventually, when everyone else promised not to say anything else, he would blow them all away with the most effective defence to all allegations imaginable... and slipped away proving himself a troll, and manipulator, and troublemaker...a lawyer, by repute...
  • Leifern, above, of course, a staunch
Anyway, one has to admire David Ruben ... except that what he does, I also do every day, because that is the sort of thing we do as a part of our living, so like Herschel, one looks for the perturbing factor, and I ask, do people who wind up someone (pardon my saying it, but if it is untrue I'll post a video of my hat being eaten) a little more vulnerable than some, a bit driven, slightly suffering... to be more angry and unhappy and sticking their head into a metaphorical buzz saw really demonstrate thereby a commitment to writing an encyclopaedia, or are they pissing about playing mind-games and opursuing their own agendumas?
Now, if that doesn't cause a thought then you are in teh wrong place. (the list above by)Midgley 22:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Jesus Midge, I know overpriced medical malpractice defense lawyers get paid by the word, I didn't realize the same was true for Bristish phsycians!Gfwesq 23:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Defense?! Stick around. Midgley 23:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. The above diatribe is exactly what I meant. Now in addition to insulting me, Midgley is talking about other users, as well. He also insulted an entire profession (lawyers), which is truly interesting. The whole comment above should be deleted, as it has no place on an Rfd. I request that Midgely please look at the comments below by Cowman, and the requests by mediators to stop this kind of absurdity. This is no longer discussion about an Rfd, but a forum to insult people. This is not civil, it is not adherent to Wikopedia rules or general human decency, and it is incredibly childish. That's all I am going to say on this. MollyBloom 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The links were to the formal Mediation Committee, not the Cabal. I think it's more appropriate, but just making sure that she knew if she desired something more formal, as was suggested by Ian13 InvictaHOG 21:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Invicta, I did/do not know the difference between these two processes. I will look into it. I have not before filed any complaint. My only request is that everybody, including Midgely and me, be civil. This has not happened. I have never before seen such continued harassment, and frankly I hope never to again.MollyBloom 21:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
What you do, if you want to reach an accomodation, is ask for mediation. Because we all think you are a good person, and even sarcastic cynical people who say what they think like me think you are salvageable as a contributor to WP, and hopefully because someone somewhere thinks that among my 5k or so of edits there are a few worth having, or that someone who is a b'crat, admin etc on a WikiProject with 200 doctors adding material and ab-so-lu-te-ly no repeat no rows like this in its entire history is arguably not quite as described above at all times in all respects and able to do an impression of modesty on occasion might yet be handy, I predict that there will be a floodrushmodest trickle of offers to mediate. Which means, mediate. OTOH, if you wind yourself up tighter, then apart from the deleterious effect on the arteries, you get to find out that RFCs can turn into an RFC on any participant... looking at the ones listed above would be a very prudent I say again a very prudent action. ArbCom - well, think of it as a cross between a T2000 and the Supreme Court. Great fun to watch on a film. Hint: stop. wait. think. wait. think. reply only now. Midgley 22:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I know what a legal mediation is. I was not sure what the varying processes of Wikopedia are. I have no particular interest in engaging in disputes. My hope was and is that the fighting, insults etc will stop. That's all I ever asked here. And I thank you for this civil remark, by the way.MollyBloom 22:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The weirdest thing is that they sort of work ... and the one steps back ... fixed it. Thank you. Midgley 23:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not argue with those who 'vote'.

I have been told I have done this. I stopped. Please see what Oliver wrote (which, by the way, is still unsubstantiated claim), to argue with a 'delete' vote:

He is indeed notable, signifigant, and world-famous within his field IS the point. You don't have that many publications, acclaim in both the professional and lay press, and featured speaking engagements around the world if you're not. I'm not sure what it is that you'd look for establish that for you. If being a featured speaker in meetings in Korea, Mexico, Sweden, China, Canada & Italy + the major American Plastic Surgery meetings within the last calender year don't establish his credentials as someone of distinction in our field, I don't know what will short of being on Dr. 90210 (which ironically has approached him about coming to Nashville to film a show)Droliver 04:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Everybody else here has agreed to hold back from this type of baiting and arguing and let the Rfd process take place. I suggest that DrOliver do this also.

Furthermore, admins have requested that nobody start blanking and reverting sections of the article. Oliver is still deleting the section on "legal precedent" with comments like "SHut up or put up" that is totally out of line. This has been discussed at great length.

ONce again, I ask that all of this STOP.MollyBloom 04:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's try AGAIN to be civil

My suggestion is that all stop the personal criticisms, harassment, and turning an Rfd into a forum for personal argument, swearing and the like. I don't know how many times I need to request civility, but I will try again. From this point forward, let us discuss issues, and not people. I also ask that any administrator that sees any violation of this promptly respond and delete the personal insult or attack. That includes mine, if I make any. Since I am trying to be fair here, it includes everybody, including administrators.MollyBloom 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, let us not use this thread to launch another fight, as to who did or who did not act uncivilly. Let's just start over, and act like adults -- ALL of us.MollyBloom 20:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That includes ceasing threats, discussion of what happened or didn't in a mediation that is not this Rfd, snideness, personal criticism, etc etc etc. Please do not continue threads above this, that continue this behavior. That includes me, Midgely, Droliver, Gfewesq, Ian13 and everyone else. MollyBloom 21:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As Molly has said, the best action for everyone would be to put this matter behind them. As I stated on a Mediation Cabal case concerning this AfD, further comments focusing on the editor rather than the matter at hand is not getting the debate forward. Accusations were made, feelings were hurt, but in the best interest of everyone let's put that behind us. In conclusion (Warning:Cliché!)if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 22:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
you mean as opposed to Alice Lee Roosevelt Longworth's If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me?Gfwesq 23:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you Cowman and MIdgley

First. Kudos to Cowman for a stellar job of mediating.
Second. A big 'thank you' to Midgley, for his offer of half a cookie. I would take the left half of the sugar-free, thank you.MollyBloom 00:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing the debate (moved from main page)

Since there is agreement that this AfD has reached a conclusion, it would be best if it were closed - Molly would be the best person to do this, for obvious reasons, and it would then not need to be an admin. Instructions and assistance are available at Wikipedia:Deletion_process and from any admin I'd think, or various others. Midgley 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Midgely - I actually added back your comment, because it was a fair question, but I see you already did. I still believe the article does not merit inclusion on Wiki..
Actually, my concern was to stop the hateful arguments, which may necessitate arbitration. I do not want to close the Rfd at this point, upon reflection. I think that the Rfd should have a full hearing, and be closed by an administrator upon that full hearing. Thank you, though, for your civility here. I really appreciate it.! MollyBloom 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Note: Move further discussion to talk page.MollyBloom 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Midgley, the AfD needs to remain open for at least 5 days (at least until 21:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)). Furthermore, non-administrators can only close discussions where the decision is unambiguously "keep", see Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-Administrators closing discussions. --bainer (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. Although I'd be surprised if the outcome changes, we should stick to process as there is nothing to lose by doing so. Midgley, please familiarize yourself with standard practices for these things - we've been over this before. --Leifern 13:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Advertisements on Google look just like Maxwell article

Oh and most if not all the docs below have had assitant professorships. Hmm.
Here is something about microsurgery and breast reconstruction:
Dr. Robert J. Allen pioneered microsurgical Breast Reconstruction with perforator flaps in 1992. He originated the DIEP, the S-GAP, the I-GAP and the SIEA procedures for breast reconstruction.

Okay this may be a different procedure. How many different surgeons belong in Wikopedia, who each developed procedures or refinements? This really is a fair question.

Is the issue just a matter of who has a student willing to push a POV? I note that the docs who are for inclusion of their fellow doc point out his work on the microsurgical free flap. How is that related to this statement: "Maxwell is a strong proponent of silicone breast implants" that is in the article? It seems t o me more a POV by Oliver, who has been angry about the introduction in the BI article that there is any controversy whatsoever. This is exactly what I mean. There has been a lot of vicious talk here about my POV. Wow. I think it is obvious that Oliver has taken his love of silicone breast implants to push POV and highlight his beloved teacher at the same time.MollyBloom 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Dr. Zoran Potparic has 25 years experience in the field of plastic surgery. He received his plastic surgery training in Europe, England and the USA. He also completed four years of postgraduate fellowship training in craniofacial and cosmetic surgery and reconstructive microsurgery.

Dr. Potparic is extensively published and recognized as an international speaker on various topics related to the specialty of plastic surgery. He has participated in numerous research projects in the field of surgery and pioneered some of the techniques currently used to treat birth and posttraumatic deformities in children and adults. For his contributions he was awarded with a Fulbright Fellowship, The British Council Scholarship, Marko Godina Fellowship, and a Spanish Government Visiting Fellowship.

  • 'Dr. Robert J. Allen pioneered microsurgical Breast Reconstruction with perforator flaps in 1992. He originated the DIEP, the S-GAP, the I-GAP and the SIEA procedures for breast reconstruction.'
  • Dr. Berka. Undergraduate Degree: BS, Columbia University (Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society, Magna Cum Laude)

Medical School: MD, Columbia University (Roche Award to Outstanding Medical Student); Medical Internship: The Johns Hopkins Hospital;
Surgical Residency: The Johns Hopkins Hospital
American Board of Plastic Surgery; Fellow, American College of Surgeons; Hospital Affiliations...
Honors and Awards
-Artists for the Cure Award for Dr. Beraka's work on Breast Reconstruction presented at Carnegie Hall
-Top Doctors: New York Metro Area (Castle Connolly) -Annual Prize, Residents' Competition, New York Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery -Harold Lee Meierhoff Memorial Prize, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University -Delacorte Scholar, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University -Regents Medical Scholar, New York State 0Publications / Presentations
Dr. Beraka has written many articles published in medical journals, including Surgery, American Journal of Medicine, Surgical Forum, Archives of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery.
Dr. Beraka has written several chapters for textbooks on cosmetic surgery and breast surgery. His latest chapter is "The Pursuit of Excellence in Cosmetic Surgery".
Dr. Beraka has presented numerous research papers at medical conferences, symposia and panels. One of his contributions is the development of the central pyramid breast reduction technique.
He has also done research on collagen, microsurgery, breast reconstruction, facelifts and breast augmentation without implants. He is a clinical investigator for experimental implants and for cellulite treatments.
Dr. Beraka is often interviewed about cosmetic surgery by reporters in print and television. He has been the cosmetic surgery consultant for a major woman's website.
Etc etc. on Dr. Berka. Does this look familiar? Well, this was not a Wiki article, it is the plastic surgeons' website and advertisement.

  • [Contribution of ultrasonography-guided microbiopsy in breast disease] (first author is Escolano - no, Maxwell didn't contribute to this
  • Dr. Zoran Potparic -- There are very few plastic surgeons practicing in this country with such a broad education in the field of plastic surgery. Dr. Potparic was trained with some of the most prominent experts and pioneers in the field of plastic and cosmetic surgery in the United States and Europe. This international experience is combined with the highest surgical standards. Dr. Potparic's range of expertise extends from skull base surgery to foot reconstruction. Dr. Potparic is an author of over thirty journal articles and several book chapters in the Plastic Surgery Literature. Dr. Potparic is certified by The American Board of Plastic Surgery. He has been in clinical practice for over 18 years.
  • D Glynn Bolitho, MD, PhD, FACS, FRCSC, FCS(SA) - Dr. Bolitho received his medical degree from the University of the Witwatersand (cum laude) in 1986. He was awarded several prizes, including the prize for Surgery, and the final year student to demonstrate the most clinical ability.He then completed surgical training over a twelve year period including residency at the University of Cape Town, and Emory University in Atlanta for plastic surgery training. During this time he was awarded a PhD in organ transplantation research, a diploma in primary emergency care and numerous other awards for laboratory and clinical research. He has made numerous contributions to textbooks and journals on plastic surgery in the fields of pediatric hand surgery, facial aesthetic surgery and tumor reconstruction. After completion of his training in plastic surgery at Emory University, he remained in university practise in the post of Assistant Professor in the Division of Plastic Surgery at Emory.

Okay I think everyone can get the idea. Why don't we just turn WIkopedia into an advertisement for plastic surgeons? OR maybe doctors in general? Hey it is great publicity! That is what this article on Maxwell is. It is not much different than any one of the dozens or hundreds of plastic surgeons that one can find googling. All of these are advertisements. Not one of them really stands out for a Wikopedia article, any more than Maxwell. Evidently, they just don't have a student with an agenda to promote POV on silicone implants and their favorite teacher. All of these advertisements sound remarkably similar to Oliver's writeup on his favorite teacher.MollyBloom 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography is defined as a story of a person's life

Wiki Entry: Harrison Arlington "Pete" Williams Jr. (December 10, 1919 – November 17, 2001) was a Democrat who represented New Jersey in both the United States House of Representatives (1953-1957) and the United States Senate (1959-1982). Williams was convicted in 1980 for taking bribes in the Abscam sting operation, and resigned from the U.S. Senate in 1982 before a planned expulsion vote. Williams is one of numerous public officials known to have ackowledged drinking problems during the time.

Okay. Here is a bio of someone who was actually convicted. True, with Maxwell, it was only an adverse ruling at an early step in civil litigation. It is relevant because it (1) shows the character of this man who had no evidence to show he provided informed consent; and (2) it shows an important issue in med mal litigation, and this case, in particular. However, Maxwell admitted drinking problems, and entering rehab. SHould we include that in a biography? It is probably a more serious issue that a surgeon have a drinking problem, than a politician. And probably more unusual (or certainly I would hope).

This is what a 'real' biography, and not an advertisement is. The real issue is that Oliver wants a puff piece /advertisement/ hagiography on his mentor, and pants to push a POV on silicone breast implants, as he did on the BI article. This is not a respectful use of WIkopedia. MollyBloom 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia_talk%7EArticles_for_deletion_G._Patrick_Maxwell_%282nd_nomination%29_fbee.html"