User talk:Droliver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Cohesive gel.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Cohesive gel.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re your comments on my talk page and elsewhere

Please stop injecting invective and commentary about other editors into discussions on my talk page and the article's talk page. When you do this, it appears to me like you are trying to paralyse the article and side-track the discussion into another quagmire. I personally don't care which version of the article we start with as long as we move forward soon. And I won't allow either side to paralyse it in their own preferred version.
As far as other editors and their personal business goes, you're hardly one to talk. For a long time, googling "Breast implant" has brought up the Wikipedia article in one of the top spots. I'd say that gives you a career-orientated and financial conflict of interest.
Soon we are going to start editing this article in one form or another. Sarah 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

                          • This is self serving column that advertises for Dr. Oliver, a plastic surgeon who markets himself on the internet, and is shameless. How dare you edit out the name of Janet Frarnquet from the site for Breast Reconstruction. She gave her life fighting for a change in national legislature that mandated breast reconstruction insurance coverage for all. I was present at Sloan Kettering when she was honored by Senators, and the law was announced. You are not the Wikipedia montior for plastic surgery. Stop acting like one. You should feel ashamed of yourself

[edit] use of surgical images

Dr Oliver,

We are 2 junior doctors from the UK, that have created a free revision website for medical students (www.revise4finals.co.uk). We are keen to include as many educational images of clinical signs and pathological specimins. We noticed that you have uploaded a few images to wikipedia, and were wondering if you would be happy for us to use these images for educational purposes on our website? Any other clinical images you have would be most welcome!

You can contact us either through our website or at contact @ revise4finals . co . uk

Many thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.130.66 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Breast implant talk...

I asked that question about being too small for implants. I'm wondering...when you say smaller implants will work better, HOW small do you mean? I'm about 5'0 tall, I'd say, no less than that, no taller than 5'1, and I was thinking about maybe going up to a C or D cup. (I'm a 36 A right now.) Not sure which. Is that possible for someone of my size? I'm not fat, either--I weigh around 100 lbs. or so. Thanks for whatever answers you can give me--post them on my talk page so I can see em. =) --67.185.26.89 05:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)(ip addresses suck!)

                              • This website is a self serving advertisement for Dr. Oliver —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.175.127.160 (talk) 01:04, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Ualbook.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ualbook.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re the PMED you sent

Hey Oliver, the pub med you sent mentions "unspecified rheumatism". Wtf is that? Joint problems? Pain? Auto-immune? How could there be a rise in this when it's "unspecified" (how did they measuer)? Not that it's in the conclusions anyway, sounds more like a side note. Otherwise, it's a good paper and since it's an extension of an earlier paper, even better. Cheers Dikke poes 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion on editing

Dear Dr. Oliver,

Our expertise is surgery. What do you think of making contributions to something else in wikipedia? Earlier today, I made a comment about the John Edwards (running for president).

There seems to be a fight going on there about Mrs. Edwards' cancer. John Edwards said (and I paraphrase) that the cancer is "completely treatable" and likened it to diabetes (probably because both are not curable, but treatable).

Some argue that Edwards is being deceptive and putting too much of a spin. There was a mention that being misleading is potentially harmful to the public because someone else with breast cancer might misunderstand and think that her prognosis is good. They even wanted to put grim prognosis numbers. Some others thought that "original research" and "soapboxing" is not permitted in wikipedia and they wanted to put just the info from the glossy Edwards press reports.

I take a neutral stance in between.

The problem I see is that is it potentially bad to write about this type of comment? Some doctors in wikipedia stick to medicine but others do not. I don't want to get into a fight between a bunch of Democrats and Republicans.

Best regards, Frank (Doc United States) Here's the link [1] My part is near or at the bottom called "A Response from a Physician"Doc United States 22:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your insightful comment. I saw that you wrote on Hiram Polk. I added a few minor details. We may have experienced similar torture, maybe different years. I don't want to ask! Oh, I am NOT Frank Miller.Doc United States 00:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The user who called himself "Doc United States" has been identified through checkuser as one of numerous sock puppets of User:Dereks1x, who apparently created this false identity as a doctor to gain advantage in an editing dispute. The account has been indefinitely blocked, and I'm striking out his comment above as it was done in evasion of Dereks1x's block and is a fraudulent identity.Tvoz |talk 23:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Droliver: thanks for your note - see my comment on Talk:John Edwards. I think what we have now works - a little more than your drier text, but less than what we had - what the Edwardses say about her specific case - such as their plans to handle it and how she is feeling and the fact that her cancer is incurable but will be treated - is fair to be included in an article about him, but speculation by people not connected to her specific case doesn't belong there. I just added back a little bit about what they said about the impact of her illness on them and the campaign. I also want to bring this to your attention. Tvoz |talk 09:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Maxwell_Clr.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Maxwell_Clr.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 22:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

megustaria saber encuantas formas puede benir el oro platino y cuanto es lo que puede yegar apesar el platino sies un mtal que se prensa osi es un material que seda en piedra en arena y como se defini grasias

[edit] Hi Rob

Thanks for your note. Good to be around, wish I had more time though. Hope things are well -- Samir 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Micromastia

Hello. Being that you are a physician and I am not, perhaps you could enlighten me as to what I posted under the discussion page of Micromastia. If Micromastia is a real medical term for a real disease and not a term created to make small breasts sound like one, please let me know. I did check a number of sources before I wrote what I did and they all confirmed that while Poland syndrome and hypoplasia are real diseases, Micromastia is not.

There is room in the article for the opinions of plastic surgeons and others regarding the psychological and social problems of "micromastia" but there is no room for inaccurate descriptions of a term which is really a Latin or Greek word that just means "small breasts" and has no real medical basis.
For example, you have put in the benefits of breast enlargement surgery and not mentioned any drawbacks. Would you really only tell a patient this? Frankly, you should worry about lawsuits if that is really the case :).
Your viewpoint is important to wikipedia to help make the article balanced. Perhaps, before you edited it, it was biased against surgery but rather than make it neutral, you instead made it highly pro breast enlargement.
There is a vast difference between a word that is created to cover a observation and one for a disease. The article must make clear that Micromastia is a word that means "small breasts" and not a description of a disease or a medical condition, except perhaps a psychological one.
Again, since I am not a medical expert, please let me know if I am wrong and where I can find some sources to support your claims.
I look forward to hearing from you and to a balanced and correct article in the near future. Thank you. Fanra 08:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've posted on the discussion page my reply. I hope we can manage to work together despite our different view points and create a good article. I feel that if it contains both our viewpoints and explains that people disagree, that will serve the reader best and they are free to make up their own mind on the issues. Thank you. Fanra 20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've placed a totally disputed tag on the article. I was going to write here a long explanation of my objections but I felt that I should take some time to think over how I am going to say it so as to avoid any hint of personal attack. I will say that removing any mention of controversy is contrary to Wikipedia's goal of presenting all sides of an issue, see: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. While it is valid for you to quote sources that say the controversy is wrong, it is hiding your head in the sand to pretend one does not exist. Fanra 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You wrote to me, "that word is really a grab bag of pathologies for hypoplasia." The problem is that the very sources you use for the word pretty much makes it clear that it is not. Micromastia, according to the first source, means "small breasts". "Micromastia (ie, small breasts)" [2] and the second source says the same thing, except adding, "abnormal": "micromastia (mi·cro·mas·tia) (mi”kro-mas´te-ə) abnormal smallness of the mamma." [3]

They do not say, "hypoplasia breasts". Again, as I've said before, breasts can be fully developed and still be "micromastia", just because they are small.

Micromastia does not mean anything is wrong with them. The reason I asked for a "Request for Comment" was because I feel that there is no way you will admit that it is not the same as hypoplasia. While Micromastia can include hypoplasia, the word also includes perfectly normal breasts that just happen to be small.

Why isn't it a synonym for hypoplasia? Because a woman can have small breasts and not have hypoplasia. Hypoplasia means that some part of the body did not develop fully. A woman can have fully developed breasts that just happen to be small. I am 5' 6" in height. You could say I suffer from "Microcorpus", after all, compared to the average American, I do "suffer" from "small body". That would be just as "medical" and as meaningful. My height is "abnormal" since it is below the norm.

Check this out: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/dwarfism.html

Now if you wish to claim that Micromastia is something like dwarfism, with hypoplasia or Poland's syndrome as two possible causes of it, we can go that route. But note that Medline Plus says, "Dwarfism itself is not a disease." Note that they also have a real definition of it, "under 4’ 10” as an adult." Reading the Wikipedia article on Dwarfism can also be a help here. There they make clear that what dwarfism is and is not.

In my last edit to the page, I took into account your position and changed my edit to reflect some of your points. I did remove some items that you placed in that didn't have sources but I also removed some of my own that could be seen as biased and I did leave in some of your description. I was attempting to try to accommodate your feelings that it should be more neutral.

I have found that your latest edit totally removes everything I put in and pretends that there is no controversy. This is a disregard for any other viewpoint than your own.

The other reason I asked for "Request for Comment" was that after I politely asked that you not remove my sourced information, you did exactly that. At this point, I feel that since instead of putting in other views to refute my posting, you just totally removed it, that we can't reach any kind of agreement. I would be very happy if you could prove me wrong on this and that we can "agree to disagree" and have the article reflect this, but it seemed to me that you were just throwing out anything I put in because it wouldn't be in an article for Plastic Surgery Monthly.

On the talk page, you mentioned Dorlands Medical Dictionary, there it says, "micromastia (mi·cro·mas·tia) (mi”kro-mas´te-ə) abnormal smallness of the mamma." Such a definition is pretty vague. Since the majority of persons height is in their legs, do I have "microscelous (mi·cros·ce·lous) (mi-kros´kə-ləs) [micro- + Gr. skelos leg] having short lower limbs." since I am 5'6" in height? After all, since the norm of height for adult males in the USA is about 5'11", I do have abnormal smallness of the legs, right?

You wrote to me, "You're really equating micromastia with the unique American history surrounding cosmetic breast augmentation which is a different animal and really touched on more in the article on implants, and that is linked to in the micromastia entry. Wikipedia is nominally a world-view treatment of these things, which makes the particular American political hang-up over breasts out of place when you're dryly trying to present a non-partisan presentation of a medical descriptor."

Let me answer this. First, while Wikipedia is supposed to be a world-view on issues, America is part of the world. Issues affecting the United States should be covered. Of course, the views of other nations should also be mentioned. I did have the following in the article before I decided it was not appropriate, "There is a possibility that it might be considered a culture-bound syndrome for Western cultures"

While you feel that I am "trying to present a non-partisan presentation of a medical descriptor." I feel that you are trying to present a non-partisan presentation of a cultural descriptor by claiming it is a medical disorder.

Again, Micromastia is a word for a subjective opinion on the size of a women's breasts. It does not describe a medical disorder. Anymore than saying that Barbra Streisand "suffers from the medical disorder Macrorhino" or Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman suffer from microscelous.

Also, note that "microscelous" does not have an article in Wikipedia. Why? Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that is Wiktionary's job. There is no reason at all to have an article on Micromastia if we are only going to say it means "abnormal smallness of breast". The only reason for an article at all is to mention that it is a controversial word with social and political importance in the USA and other Western nations. Fanra 10:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

How about we just add a micropriaposis article to balance it out? : ) Dikke poes 20:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Implantplacement.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Implantplacement.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Implantplacement.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Implantplacement.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. bluemask (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Ousterhout

Ummm, aren't I supposed to get a {{prodwarning}} for the above article, being the author? Just saying ... - Alison ☺ 01:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tags per WP:AfD - If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. In this case I think notability is not the issue but reliable sources might be, in any case the answer is constructive editing to make the article better. Benjiboi 10:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What would motivate you to remove Janet Franquet's name from the Breast Reconstruction page on Wikipedia. This woman had breast cancer and fought her insurance company, to force them to cover breast reconstruction. Her efforts led to federal legislation that mandated insurance coverage for breast reconstruction for all in this country. She is a national hero and died during this fight. The law WAS named after her. The least you can do is to honor her memory —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.175.127.160 (talk) 01:10, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania in Atlanta!

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Saledynamicduo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Saledynamicduo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of WP contributions for self advertising

"Even more ironic, is that last week I authored a section about surgical treatment of liver metastasis in the colon cancer entry on Wikipedia. Small world, eh?" from your blog. [4] Sunday, July 29, 2007 This is followed by what appears to be a reproduction of the logo for the German Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC) (I came here as a follow up of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Todd_Wider. DGG (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wp Alabama

Hi Droliver! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your excellent edits on Alabama related articles. We need your help at the Alabama WikiProject! This is a new WikiProject and there is much work to do. Please head over to the project page, add your name, and help us enhance and increase the coverage of Alabama related stories.
JodyB yak, yak, yak 14:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MCOTW

 Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Physiotherapy was selected.
Hope you can help…

JFW | T@lk 11:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:DDY1cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:DDY1cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Janet's Law

I am Janet Franquet's identical twin sister (an appropriate factoid) Joyce. Although you may feel that including her name in the law is not significant, I assure you, she sacrificed much to get this law passed. This was due to the actions of ignorant health insurance agency who claimed that a breast had no viable function. You may feel that the stories behind a law due not matter, but it is the action of the one individual that needs to be told to enlighten you as to why there had to be a law in the first place. September 27, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjoyce (talk • contribs) 03:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • There's some confusion you have re. this issue and as to what exactly wikipedia is or should be. I have no personal issue with your sister or her memory, but instead I'm trying to keep this discussion (on an area I care a great deal about) "on the tracks" of how this would be presented in a textbook or peer-reviewed article. My redacting mention of your sister is that in the context of breast reconstruction as a topic, she is not an important part of the narrative. Getting off onto American-centric minutae about one of the many stories of similar nature that were percolating re. this doesn't really serve an article well, particularly on a topic that is a medical articel rather then a sociological one. In addition, from an international perspective (which is Wikipedia's goal) it is completely irrelevent that some relatively anonymous American was used as an anecdote in the American legislative debate. The relevent fact is that the law re. mandatory coverage exists in the US in a similar way that other countries have such coverage, rather then Janet's role in that. Droliver 22:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I find your continued manipulation of the breast reconstruction site in regards to Janet's Law, and proper attribution, extremely inappropriate and unethical. I can't quite understand why you are persisting in this exercise. The law was named for her sister. A federal law was named for the woman, and that was well documented in the press at the time, as I have repeatedly noted before. It seems that that is not minutae. Your response is to attempt to remove the entry about me, which would seem to be mean spirited. There must be some personal animousity that you harbor and I find it a shame. Tmwmd 06:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)tmwmd 12/1/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmwmd (talk • contribs) 05:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Saledynamicduo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Saledynamicduo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Salegrayhulk.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Salegrayhulk.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Secondaryrhinoplasy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Secondaryrhinoplasy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Appendixcancer.gif

Hello, and thank you for uploading Image:Appendixcancer.gif. Could you please upload the original JPEG copy of this image? You've modified and re-saved it in the GIF format, which is not designed for photos, and the photo shows visible degradation because of this. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DallasRhinoplasty.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DallasRhinoplasty.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dallasrhino2nd.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dallasrhino2nd.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Polk00.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Polk00.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appendix

How can you tell if an appendix is inflambed before operating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.94.187 (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] appendicitis

I just had a question for you; I saw the picture on here of the appendix you removed. I recently had my appendix removed, after being in a car accident. I got in an car accident on October 9th, 2006. After that, I had been experiencing a lot of pain in the lower right hand quadrant of my back. I assumed it was from the car accident, until I started feeling feverish. A friend of mine told me it sounded like I had a kidney infection or something, so I went to the Emergency Room of a Naval Hospital (which wasn't a good idea). They diagnosed me, after speaking with me for 30 minutes, with a bladder infection and sent me home with antibiotics. The next morning, I woke up vomiting and went back. They ran tests all day. I had a high fever with chills, lots and lots of vomiting, and ached all over. They did a cat-scan, and an ultrasound, a pelvic exam. I was there from 7:30am and at 4:30pm a surgeon came into my room and told me that he wanted to do exploratory surgery. I wasn't too excited about hearing that, but went through with it. When I woke up, the doctor told me that my appendix was actually up and behind my colon. So here is my question; I really believe that the only reason my appendix was found in such an odd area is because of the car accident, but my husband believes otherwise. Have you ever seen or heard of an appendix being positioned in such a place? I read about its positioning, and its usually either on one side or another (the left side being rare). If you could email me at; sara.wert@navy.mil


Thank you for taking the time to read this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.84.201 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manual Dexterity

Hey, I noticed on your userpage that you are a plastic surgeon. I was just wondering, in general, how do surgeons train their hands and develop their manual dexterity? Are there special exercises or techniques to develop a steady hand? thanks. Acceptable (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)