User talk:Drzuckerman

Welcome to the Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Drzuckerman! Thanks for alpha sorting the references over on the Breast implant article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Drzuckerman, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 13:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breast implant[edit]

I've left a comment on Talk:Breast implant that you may want to respond to. JFW | T@lk 06:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo in Breast[edit]

Hi, I can understand why you questioned whether the woman in that photo was pregnant. The picture originally came from here; "pregnant" and "pregnancy" are specified in the image tags. But aside from that, it's a high quality non-pornographic image, which is why it was chosen for the lead of the article. There's been discussion about it on Talk:Breast#Superior image, and the consensus has been that this is the best image suggested so far.

Also, I didn't follow your reasoning for removing the plastic surgery section. It could possibly be trimmed, with a pointer to Breast implant for more details, but it seems reasonable to include something about it in the main Breast article, no? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--I admit it -- I don't get it. The first photo looks like regular normal breasts. The woman might be pregnant -- I believe whoever says she is -- but it doesn't look particularly like a pregnant woman's breasts. The caption seems like an excuse for having the photo there. Maybe readers don't know what breasts look like, and that's why this article has so many photos, and needs one right at the beginning.

As the director of a research center on women's and kids health, we actually get emails from girls and women of all ages worried because their breasts don't look perfect. So, let's not have a wikipedia article contributing to that.

If the purpose of the photos is to educate, how about using some photos from this website, showing a diversity rather than mostly idealized versions: http://www.007b.com/breast_gallery.php

I found the comments about "some people think that older women's breasts look unattractive" offensive. And, I don't think it adds anything to the article.

If we're going to have a section on plastic surgery, then I would like to add some sociological analyses from books about the American culture's obsession with "perfect breasts" as well as psychological studies showing that women who undergo breast augmentation tend to feel worse about themselves and their lives than women who don't. There are 5 studies showing that women who undergo breast augmentation are twice as likely to kill themselves as other plastic surgery patients and other women of the same age and social class. But frankly, it was easier to just delete the 3 sentences about breast augmentation rather than add a few paragraphs. I didn't revise the content on breast reconstruction.

By the way, I was at a meeting with pediatricians today, who told me that 13-year old boys are using illegal drugs so that they can develop a 6-pack. If this continues, boys will be just as depressed about how they look as girls are.

Drzuckerman 06:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same impression as you...she appears to be a very healthy young woman; she does not appear to be pregnant. In reading over the comments on the talk page, the image was apparently added because it's a high quality photograph, and, yes, because it's attractive. (Apparently the photo isn't attractive enough for some people...I reverted a change a few days ago where a guy substituted a blatantly pornographic image.) In any event, I don't have any strong personal feelings about what image should be there, except that it should be a high quality photograph. I do think we should have something at the beginning of the article, which was part of the argument on the talk page. I just took a look at the web site you suggested; it seems completely appropropriate to include as an external link in the Breast article, but we (apparently) can't use any of those photos directly. They're watermarked, and the page has a copyright disclaimer at the bottom.

Regarding this sentence:

Pendulous breasts (ptosis) are considered undesirable by some, and some older women seek cosmetic surgery to raise their busts.

I don't have strong feelings about it one way or another. It seems to be factually accurate, but I don't object to removing it or (preferably) rewriting it or putting it in some perspective. That sentence just got added back automatically when I reinstated the previous version of the article.

Regarding the plastic surgery section, I'm sure it needs work, but even if the section is imperfect, it seems at least acceptable...factually accurate and neutrally phrased. It seems preferable to leave it in place until you get a chance to write a better section. Unless you feel that the section as it exists now is actually harmful? My concern about simply deleting it is that someone else will simply reinstate it (as I did..but at least I explained my reasoning to you.)

By the way, we have far too few experts on Wikipedia, and I'm thrilled to see an expert working on these articles. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Thanks for your note, but its 2 am and you deleted my work! Not the best use of my time. Drzuckerman 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly deleted; I reversed your deletions, then explained my reasoning. And all versions of the article are readily available in the page history, so nothing is lost. I hope you find the time to contribute to the article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--I just fixed some of the errors, including once again correcting the spelling of "aging" so please don't revert it again. I'll try to add more tomorrow Drzuckerman 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert your changes again, Doctor. Best regards. Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Thanks! There is an interesting research literature on cultural definitions of breast beauty, I'll see if I can add some of it. For example, in France, older women go topless on the beach and don't feel unattractive -- most women who looked like that in the US wouldn't consider going topless without breast implants.Drzuckerman 13:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Hi Dr. Zuckerman. The RfC on User:Jance is not calling for her to be banned, but is a request for her and the community to comment on her conduct. Many editors view her comments as inconducive to editing, and these need to addressed if we are to make any progress on Breast implant. -- Samir धर्म 06:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Zuckerman, I just wanted to assure you that we are not seeking to have Jance banned. An RfC is part of the official dispute resolution process and bans, blocks and other sanctions do not come as a result of it. The RfC on Jance is not an attempt to sanction her, but simply a venue to discuss her behaviour and the behaviour of others involved in the matter.
Over the last nine months, several administrators have repeatedly tried to explain to Jance that Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks, but she continues making attacks and has even replied to administrative warnings with more personal attacks. In fact, she has previously been blocked seven times by five different administrators and at least three of those blocks were specifically for repeatedly violating the No Personal Attacks policy.
I am sorry to read that you have been subjected to personal attacks yourself. If I had known about this at the time, I would have intervened, however, the bad behaviour of other editors does not excuse more bad behaviour from Jance. I do believe that she can be a very productive and valuable contributor, however, she needs to understand that engaging in personal commentary and attacks on other editors, attacking administrators for trying to do their jobs, speculating about other editors' alleged ulterior motives etc breaches Wikipedia policies. I believe that most, if not all, of the administrators and editors involved do not wish to have Jance banned, but rather want to see her modify her behaviour and attitude. Sarah Ewart 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam[edit]

Of course, Dr Zuckerman. I'll look into it now and will keep you posted. Thanks for removing the link from those pages. Since Wikipedia became so popular it has become a target for spammers and it's a constant battle to keep those kinds of links out. Sarah Ewart 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The spam was coming from 64.183.21.83 (talk · contribs) which is the same IP that added them to Plastic surgery and Breast implant on November 28. I gave them a warning and I'll block them if they do it again. I put those articles on my watchlist and will try to keep an eye on them, but if it happens again, please feel free to give me a yell. I also did a special weblink search to make sure they hadn't put the links in any other articles but nothing else came up. Sarah Ewart 20:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it back. Regardless of the validity of the various links, he needs to start discussing without reverting. Sarah Ewart 00:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Zuckerman, I'm very sorry but I probably won't have much time to help out very much as I am currently very busy irl. You might be better off asking administrators Samir or Dr Ruben. I will try to help out as I can. Sarah Ewart 23:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today I was thinking it might be a good idea to have a separate article on breast implant complications and so I did a search and discovered an article called Breast implant/Risks and debate. Apparently it was created as some kind of working page, intended as a sub-page of the Breast implant article. Whoever created it didn't know that you cannot create sub-pages of articles. There's a feature in the software that prevents it, so the page was actually created as an article. It can't stay in the mainspace as it is because it has a sub-page disclaimer, so I've moved it to my userspace, here. Do you think it would be any good as a stand alone article? If not, do you think an article called Breast implant complications or Breast implant risks or something like that would be a good idea? If we did create such an article, we could add a "See also" section to the main breast implant page. Sarah Ewart 16:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look at it, but please, stop calling Dr Oliver a "vandal" and referring to his edits as "vandalism". Under the policy, vandalism is "any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Dr Oliver's edits are a content dispute, not vandalism and many people take such accusations as a personal attack.
As far as the BI complications are concerned, I think it might be better to have a separate article, linked from the main BI article, where they can be discussed in full detail. Sarah 08:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam re. silicone implants[edit]

Thanks for the revert. I just placed a warning on that user's talk page. - Alison ^✍ 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That IP, 68.248.18.170 (talk · contribs), vandalised plastic surgery [1] and edited List of post-industrial music genres and related fusion genres and List of Internet Relay Chat clients but they didn't link spam any plastic surgery articles. Sarah Ewart 20:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed afterwards. Fixed - thanks! :) - Alison ^✍ 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Breast implant[edit]

Hi, thanks for message/query (NB Fvasconcellos moved it from my user page, to correctly be on my user talk page). Page protection has been used not to endorse or fixate on any specific version (see the humorous essay of m:The Wrong Version), but rather to ensure that an edit war was stopped and all editors are thus forced to discuss on the talk page (it is not for an admin to unilaterally take sides in an edit war). Consensus views and edit-changes agreed on the talk page can then be enacted by an admin.

PS I don't see DrOliver as having made the last version prior to protection, but rather the anon User:71.8.78.88 (unless this is DrOliver as either unsigned-on or a sockpuppet) and prior to that was edit by User:Curtis Bledsoe.

So may I suggest placing a simple single proposal on talk:Breast implant (be careful of course to be super-polite and comment on edits not editors), allow a short discussion and then a simple straw poll of editors to show the various views (I would suggest allowing at least 4 days both for people to have an opportunity to participate and also as this helps slow down the previous pace of edit warring) and then allow an admin to consider the consensus and enact (whether that be myself, Samir, JzG or any other admin). Then further proposals (one at a time) can be discussed, agreed upon and enacted. Hope this allays your concerns re the version curently protected and helps set out how a more (OK I agree, forced) collaborative approach may be taken in the development of this article. Finally may I wish you a peaceful New Year. David Ruben ^Talk 00:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breast implants[edit]

Hi Dr Zuckerman. I checked out the article but no one had edited it again since you and Jance. I will try to keep an eye on it and help out as I can. Sarah 07:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Zuckerman, Sarah seems to be wiki-breaking for a while. I left a note on JFW's page instead, since he seems to be taking some interest. Looks like something happened to Jance, too. Dikke poes 15:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Research Center for Women & Families http://.center4research.org[edit]

Accounts

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Hu12 (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]