User talk:Siebrand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Siebrand, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 22:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image:LEA.jpg

Hi Siebrand, I removed the no license tag you applied to Image:LEA.jpg, since the image is marked as public domain. If you feel that the image is not actually public domain, you can use a template like {{PUIdisputed}} to indicate this and list the image on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Thanks, Pagrashtak 21:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pagrashtak, I have reverted your revert: there is no source and no PD justification for PD on this image. This way you could upload anything as PD. The revert of this obvious issue (the person on the image is still alive and was president from 1970-1976) really annoys me. The uploader should prove his claim is correct, not the person spotting this missing information. Siebrand 12:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G. Patrick Maxwell

I see that you deleted a New York Times article, referencing http://www.smilesbydavis.com/the_list.pdf. Do you mind if I ask why? I agree that the 'honor' was misstated, but it appears that 'smilesbydavis' merely used the New York Times article for its own promotion. That doesn't make the article itself invalid.

That said, I am having an ongoing war with the author of this POV piece. Although other editors have said the court cases did happen and should be included, he will concede to the settlement only by highlighting that Maxwell has 'several' patents (without substantiation) and refuses to listen to other editors but only deletes the other lawsuit. The lawsuit was public record, it reflects on this person's professional life (which is why he is, if at all, notbale), and the appellate court reversed a statute of limitations ruling of the lower court, because the appeals court said the lower court could infer 'fraudulent concealment' based on Maxwell's not telling his patient he used silicone implants.MollyBloom 15:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Molly, I choose to stay out of the dispute and not give an opinion about it, although reading about the dispute got me there to take a closer look. I think I should give the mediator every room to take his approach.
I checked out that one particular source and found that it was a) misquoted and b) rather not a mention worthy of place in the section "Professional recognition". Not sure if I can quote this, as the NYT article is 'subscriber only' and I think the PDF I used may contain copyrighted content from the NYT - please remove it if not allowed:
  • The NYT article was kindof a 'top list'. Hardly to be called scientific or statistically hard. How was it created: "... Experts were polled, from doctors to nutritionists, from makeup artists to beauty editors, in an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff."
  • Why was Maxwell in there: "BETTER BREAST IMPLANTS"
  • What was the alledged "Professional recognition" on en:wikipedia: "one of the United States top Plastic Surgeons"
  • I thought about rewriting the 'Professional recognition' to something that had to do with breast implants, but...
  • My verdict: "I don't think so, take it out, because there is currently no source to verify this was a thourough investigation in the surgeon community."
Cheers, Siebrand 17:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The mediation is dead. There can be no mediation with this editor. It is impossible. If you think his 'misrepresentation' was bad here, you should see the "Breast Implants" article discussion. I would be utterly terrified if he were my 'doctor'. MollyBloom 23:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oliver put the reference back in, without discussion. So if you think it is inappropriate, you might want to discuss on talk page.MollyBloom 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gfwesq pointed me to the actual NYT article and it doesn't say "Experts were polled, etc." That must have been from the PDF file, from Smiles. (Gfwesq is in the same household as I am). He disagreed with me when I said I thought it was okay. Gfwesq pulled up the archived NYT article, and it does NOT state anything about experts. At all. I thought surely he was missing something, so I pulled up the actual article (we have a subscription and can access the archive). Nowhere in there does it say anything about "top plastic surgeons". Nowhere. So Gfwesq removed it again, after Oliver put it back up. This is not the first time I have seen Oliver say or cite something that has nothing to do with what his claim is. It is stunning. Thanks for pointing this out to me. If you would like to see the intro paragraph, I can show you.MollyBloom 00:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWW -no:

Hello, Siebrand!

Why did you remove the interwiki Norwegian links from WWW articles? --Knakts 09:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

They created a redirect from WWW to Internet. As those are not the same and they pollute the interwiki bots, I've removed all mentions of it in all Wikipedias. Siebrand 14:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

That's O.K. Thanks for telling me as fast as you can....Sugarpinet 15:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/e/User_talk%7ESiebrand_a48d.html"