User talk:Otto Placik

Welcome

Hello, Otto Placik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you created appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been deleted for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of deletion, you might like to draft your article before submission, then get me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that if more than one person is using this account to edit, then unfortunately it will be blocked from editing.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Flowanda | Talk 23:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discussions and a sockpuppet investigation

I thought you needed to be aware of several recent and current discussions involving Dr. Otto Placik, which I assume is you.

This is a link to sockpuppet investigation concerning you, and is considered a serious issue: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto Placik

This is a current discussion I started at the WP:RSPAM noticeboard based on previous discussions (they're listed below): [1]

Previous discussions:

I'm not sure what's going on, as there seem to be other COI editors and images linked to commercial websites, so I hope you'll join in on the discussions. Thanks, Flowanda | Talk 00:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is me Otto Placik. That is my real name. You can find me on the web. It is not a misleading user name and I am not working for anyone else other than myself. It seems there has been alot of talk while I was taking my daughters to camp. Please excuse the brief absence. I am more than happy to join in on the discusssion. However, I am new to this and learning slowly how to edit in fluent manner. On several levels, I believe I have approached this directly and honestly. I embarked on this project when patients informed me that I should use this forum to educate the public and told me that there were poor examples or discussions on these procedure pages. They suggested posting some pictures as illustrations. Being a physician,I personally did not have time but delegated this to two of my staff. Clearly this involves a large time commitment that is difficult for me to personally offer when I have clinical and patient care responsibilities. This resulted in the two other accounts for which some individuals claim I have committed sockpuppetry which I deny *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarahjjohnson123/Archive. On another occasion, I did in error post a photo with a link which I was told was not in conformance with Wikipedia guidelines. I subsequently was blocked. I attempted to respond to Petersymonds on his talk page but never recieved a response. Therefore I followed Wikipedia guidelines and appealed to another administrator. I received the following response nfrom Fred Bauder:

" After you review those guidelines [organizations and COI], if you believe you and your associates can conform to them, please reply and I will unblock you, and if you wish, your two associates, and negotiate with the blocking administrator regarding your editing, as you can too, once unblocked.I have not reviewed the edits made, certainly we appreciate the excellent images and are happy to credit you with them, but links to your clinic or to you are quite inappropriate. Thank you for your patience,

Fred Bauder"

I read and responded to the guidelines and Mr. Bauder actually set up my account and user name On June 26, 1962. I subsequently uploaded several images. In regards to this I believe I have been in compliance with the guidelines despite what others have said here and I will respond on a point by point basis in logical fashion.

1) I have an office for which many individuals use the IP address and even some part time employees that use the same computer. I resent the misleading and false accusations that individuals have raised in regards to sockpuppetry. If you have 10 people in an office, how do you keep them from using the same IP address?

2) I have put my real name to my user account and I do not hide behind some fictitious user name.

3) I have attempted to remain above petty arguments discouraged by the Wikipedia community and I have read and agreed to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines as recommended by Mr. Bauder an administrator.

4) My photos have no links. Mr. Bauder stated I am entitled to be credited as being the source as long as no links were added.

I quote Mr. Bauder: " So, bottom line, I suggest you create an account on Wikimedia Commons to upload images; upload images without a watermark; and in the page regarding that image file credit yourself as the source."

5) Mr. Bauder suggested that I add a brief bio to my user page which I did. This has since been stripped of all images.

6) I have contributed photo images which Mr. Bauder reviewed and agreed provided great clarification to a controversial subject. Namely labiaplasty. Many women complain of this condition and are criticized for what others believe is an unnecessary procedure. After reviewing my pictures, I believe few would say it is an unnecessary procedure. I quote Mr. Bauder: "Excellent image, by the way. I understand now what you're talking about having viewed that image."

7)In regards to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CliffC#A_breath_of_fresh_air.21: I had hoped to refrain from naming others but since they have named me repeatedly most notably Talk.

He has his image on his user page but my image was deleted. why? His gallery contributions and 16 photos all have direct hyperlinks to a Dr. Michael J Schwartz. See this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paravis for example and run your cursor over the Summary table source where it says: Michael S. Schwartz, M.D. This is a direct violation of the Wikipedia Commons Guidelines and why is he not being considered for advertisement and promotion of a commercial website? What are his interests in promoting Dr. Schwartz. Why aren't these motives being questioned? These criticisms seem unilateral and I would suggest he look in the mirror.

8) In regards to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Private_practice_.22Before_.26_After.22_shots

User:Paravis repeats the same reports as above but does little to eliminate the links to Dr. Schwartz website. Does anyone see the hypocrisy here?

9) I am a little confused about the advertsing issue. Nip/Tuck has a entry with the logo, etc listed and links. Is this not advertising for a TV show that also profits from it's advertisors. I would appreciate clarification in this regard?

I hope this has begun to address your concerns. If you have the opportunity to review the photos I initially uploaded (especially to the labiaplasty entry) and consider those non-educational then I can see your point. However, whenever i have shown that image to other individuals they tell me they understand why the procedure is done. There were no links on this image that was most recently deleted and it met all copyright requirements. So please explain to me the purpose of deleting it. If you do not wish for plastic surgeons to provide this image then who would you anticipate would be the best source of such an image?

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

I haven't had a chance to go over your responses at the various discussions, but I'll be happy to help how I can -- although I really have limited experience with images and uploading. I can, however, find editors who can help with images and also run some interference, if needed. I think rather than bad faith, there seems to be genuine misunderstandings all around as to what's allowed and other editors' intentions. Flowanda | Talk 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. I will await you response and suggestions. In the meantime, I have seen that my photos have been taken down. Interestingly when I log on from my office network, no pictures appear. However, when I log on from the hospital wifi, (my office is located in a hospital campus), the images are present on my user page. Is this because the checkuser is active or my office IP had been previously blocked? I still don't know how to respond to the sockpuppetry allegations as they apply to multiple users in one office location with one IP address. Editor user:Petersymonds has previously indefinitely blocked my office IP and I wonder if this is the source of my problem. Otto Placik (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that you are logging into your Wikimedia Commons user page here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Otto_Placik instead of this user page, which is here on Wikipedia.org [2]. It's confusing, I know, but the Wikimedia website is where users upload their photographs and provide the necessary "paperwork" to meet Wikipedia's stringent image policies. Again, I defer to other editors with more accurate, concise descriptions. :)

I don't think that anyone wants to block editors who show a sincere interest in constructively contributing to Wikipedia, and there seems to be a good number of experienced Wikipedia editors and admins who can help sort things out, given a little time. However, since your name (along with others) has been prominently mentioned, if you are uncomfortable with anything that's been said, I would encourage you to contact WP:OTRS or talk again with User:Fred Bauder. I do have limited time this week, and I would not like to see any delay on this matter because of me. Flowanda | Talk 01:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Placik, please read

I saw your comments on my user page. Please accept my apology if I have unintentionally offended you. As you may have figured out, the community standards on wikipedia can be confusing and intimidating. In general, good faith efforts at contributing are encouraged around here. You have inadvertantly run into some of issues that cause confusion when people start wiki-editing. I can remember banging my head in frustration when I first started contributing a few years ago and ran into a few anti-implantg activists who were assaulting the entry on breast implants. It was a long painful process learning how to fit in!

In particular, there is a trend towards using wikipedia as stealth marketing campaigns by various surgeons/doctors, websites, and companies. This is an issue that causes a lot of pushback among wikipedia's hard core admins and editors. I try to keep an eye out for this on some of the areas that overlap with our speciality. If you click the "user contributions" next to my name, you'll see many of the edits I made over the recent weeks were nominating articles for deletion and deleteing commercial links within entries. Anything that suggests self promotion is aggessively removed by many editors, and I think some people felt you were encroaching that standard.

Again, please accept my apology for any misunderstanding! Rob Oliver Jr. Droliver (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. But you still have not answered my question. Your selective retention of your before and after photos while suggesting that mine are self promotion seem enitrely discriminatory, predatorial and acting in bad faith with a very blatant aspect of self promoting your practice. I think that if you are to take the stance that any before and afters are considered "stealth marketing campaigns" as you state, then you should walk the walk and talk the talk. Why don't you apply the same standards to yourself that you apply to others. Any other action would be considered hypocritical and not "Hippocratical"! Thank you. I look forward to your response.Otto Placik (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Placik, what I was referring to with images are those watermarked or embedded with names or web address of people's practices. This is not a specific issue with you, it's been a pattern of repeat issues related to medical and industry topics. If you'll notice similar issues with this, the objections from the community have to do with the potential for commercially based conflicts of interest. If you will notice on the image (one of several I've uploaded in breast and oncologic articles) you're referring to, these is no identifiable reference to any commercial entity. Even the image attribution only refers to my wikipedia username rather then some searchable tag that would pop up on a google search, for instance. It is important to remove any appearance of opportunism or conflict of interests when possible as an editor. Therefore, not all before & after type pictures are problems, but one's that carry the potential for the appearance of commercialism or advertising/publicity should be avoided. Again, please accept my apology for offense with my original comments on the photos, it was more a generalized statement then a personal rebuke. Cheers! Rob Droliver (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Otto Placik (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)==Image on user page== I see no attempt to put an image of yourself on your user page, yet you are complaining about not being able to. I think you are conflating events on Wikimedia Commons with events on Wikipedia. Most Wikipedia editors, even administrators, have next to no influence on Wikimedia Commons; it does no good to complain or ask for assistance here. You need to go there and deal with their users and administrators. Fred Talk 12:53, 1 July 2009 (UT[reply]

Thanks for your follow up and guidance. Perhaps being a neophyte, I am a little confused about the difference between Commons and Wikipedia. When I refer to my user page currently, there is an image of myself that I have uploaded. However, it was not there in the past. I don't understand why you see "no attempt to put an image." Can you briefly explain? --Otto Placik (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If all the links have been removed I have no further concerns.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed any links on all of my images but the user:paravis with whom you agreed here[[3]] continues to link all his images (at least 12) to a commercial website see here for an example [[4]]and I therefore find his criticisms of me to be hypocritical. Shouldn't some of these images be eliminated? Otto Placik (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Before & After Buccal Fat Extraction.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Before & After Buccal Fat Extraction.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the GNU license at the bottom of the image description page. Can you please tell me why this is not adequate? Am I missing something here? Otto Placik (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Lip lift, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. PDCook (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Lip lift

Wow, please realize that I was not personally attacking you. This article, while seemingly a valid and notable article, has some issues. Here are some of them:

The use of weasel words

"...With the rising popularity of facial rejuvenation techniques, a number of surgeons noted..." This sentence contains the weasel words " a number of." Rather than giving specific examples (and citations) of surgeons who note the following statement, using weasel words here makes it sound as if there is consensus among surgeons without really proving it.

"Although many surgeons report satisfaction with their procedure to be 'high,'..." Again, "many" is a weasel word.

How can you quantify something that hasn't been quantified?

I could say that with the rising popularity of healthy lifestyle choices, a number of Americans prefer to eat fresh fruits and salads over fast food. I doubt I would need a reference for a benign comment like that which does makes sense. Does that make it a weasel word? I make no implication that this is a consensus nor am I trying to scientifically prove a point through hypothesis testing. It is a comment. I did not say the "vast majority". I did not say that they "overwhelmingly prefer" this option. I am not trying to sway, convince, or pursuade the reader but to provide insight about a surgical option that is poorly described. I present the advantages and disadvantages.Otto Placik (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Tone

The History section of the article is written more like a promotional piece than an encyclopedic article. Also be sure it is written with a neutral point of view

No footnotes

Having a lot of claims being made without footnotes makes it really difficult for readers and other editors to know what is verifiable fact and what is puffery.

Please realize that I'm only trying to help. If you need additional help, let me know. PDCook (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lip lift

I noticed you're adding footnotes in manually. There is an easier way using <ref> and </ref> tags. Check out Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnote_referencing. Regards, PDCook (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I also noticed that the format in which the references are given is unclear. Some of them are just author and year. Does that imply that the full reference has already been given above? You can check out WP:Citing sources for better ways to give references and to fix the footnotes. Regards, PDCook (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]