Talk:Douglas Ousterhout

Removing deletion prod tag

Per the tag statement - you may remove this tag if you "object to its deletion for any reason" - the lede clearly denotes the subject is well-known and pioneer in facial surgery. A quick search found three books [1] , A lecture he did for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons [2] and this bio info:

"I am, and have been, on the boards of many plastic surgical societies, including being President of the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons (1994-1995), and on the editorial board of four different plastic surgery journals. I am on the Advisory Committee for "Recommended Guidelines for Transgender Care", AEGIS.

I hold staff memberships at several hospitals, including Davies Medical Center, Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, California Pacific Medical Center, and the University of California, San Francisco, where I am a Clinical Professor of Plastic Surgery, participating especially with a panel of experts at the Center for Craniofacial Anomalies. I have operated in many countries outside the United States.

Throughout my career, I have presented dozens of major scientific papers, both nationally and internationally. I have published scores of scientific papers. My medical textbook, Aesthetic Contouring of the Craniofacial Skeleton, was published in 1991."

I see little to contradict this information and assert that a deletion before improving the article with regular editing is quite premature. Benjiboi 07:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

adding advert and coi tags

Added advert and coi tags to article using Friendly. Reason behind this is edits have been made to this page by Mira Coluccio who is Douglas K. Ousterhout's office manager and business partner. Also involves talking about a former patient opening other legal issues which could be taken by the patient. Using Wikipedia to disclose patient information by a doctor or employee/business partner of that doctor could become a legal matter. Janemillert 06:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article to remove the peacock words and other inappropriately commercial material, provided a starter set of references and removed the tags. If you still feel the article fails to meet appropriate standards, it'd be helpful if we could identify and discuss the remaining shortcomings you feel should be addressed before you simply reapply the tags. Msnicki (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have placed the speedy deletion tag on this page for the following reason this page is being used to promote a comerical interest for this doctor by his through the direction of Mira Coluccio.

--- WP:OUTING material deleted. ---

So now that we have deterimed that you are spaming your own link under the direction of the offices of Dr. Ousterhout and your company through back linking.

Another fact that proves this very clearly is that you removed the link for Trinity Rose of http://www.facialfeminizationsurgery.net/facialfeminizationsurgery.html which makes this a neuatal article since it advises people of the negative aspects of having this surgery.

This is another attempt to use wikipedia as a advertiser for this doctor.

James, Andrea (Andrea James) A.K.A. joketress sells a video promoting Dr. Ousterhout this in many venues with the consent of Dr. Ousterhout as can be seen in the video all over the web. She also promotes his book. Dr. Ousterhout also sponsors her events. Use of this link as a ref is 100% spam written all over it

Also under publications you list Ousterhout, MD, DDS, Douglas K. (1995). "Feminization of the Transsexual". http://www.drbecky.com/dko.html. Retrieved Oct 23 2010. for Dr. Becky is 100% spam, it is the same information that Dr. Ousterhouts office uses for their brochure. So pretty much you are using wikipedia to spam Dr. Ousterhouts office brochure.

Then you list the site again under Ref. 4. ^ Allison, MD, Becky. "Make Me Pretty". http://www.drbecky.com/pretty.html. Retrieved Oct 23 2010. 

Lynne Conway is a person friend of Dr. Ousterhouts and if you want I could post some photos of this fact.

This page has been nothing more than a spamming point for the offices of this doctor who employs or sponsors former patients of his. First by Mira Coluccio who is the office manager now by you a former patient who seems to be vested with a comerical interest from the added and removed items.

Please stop using wikipedia as place spam this doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janemillert (talk • contribs) 11:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is also the third time I have added the advert and coi tags they have been removed by Msnicki twice now.

Also adding http://www.facialfeminizationsurgery.net/facialfeminizationsurgery.html since it is the only thing that adds something neuatal to this article.

--- WP:OUTING material deleted.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janemillert (talk • contribs) 12:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC) 

You're engaging in vandalism here and on several other pages I've contributed to. It's obvious you're angry but your response is inappropriate. You'll find another warning on your talk page. Users are anonymous here on WP unless they choose to identify themselves. It is indeed considered inappropriate to self-promote or promote people or products with whom you have a connection. An example is the cut and paste of all a Gary J. Alter's medical society memberships and every paper he's written, copied verbatim from his site onto the page you created for him. But it is still allowable (as it has to be since editors are anonymous) for those with a connection to contribute to an article. The test is, what did they write and is it properly cited. As it happens, I do know both Dr. Ousterhoust and Mira but have not spoken to either in roughly 10 years. I think that's enough distance. In any event, the editing I've done has been to delete the peacock words and other obvious puffery. Msnicki (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverting several edits by User:Toddst1

I have removed the Trinity reference as I believe it falls into the category of potentially libelous material. It makes claims of possible malpractice that, if true, should be taken up in court, not fought out here on WP. Also, I disagree with simply repasting the conflict of interest, advertising and other tags. The puffery and peacock words are gone. I took them out myself. I have no connection with Ousterhout. I haven't even talked to him or anyone on his staff in perhaps 10 years. Finally, I disagree with removing the sentence describing what he does; the patient accounts make it clear both what he does and that he often does it in a single day of surgery. I do concede it's worth citing his book in support of the statement that he developed the procedures in the 1990s. Msnicki (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness how many doctors are there that do FFS

So if you are not a spammer only for this doctor you will not mind taking leaving this list in talk of every doctor in the world that provides this surgery. As you can see I very NPOV I have posted the list for doctors throught the world doing FFS [redacted —chaos5023 (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinity1rose (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how many surgeons do the same procedures Ousterhout does. There could be hundreds and many of them could be better. But even if I did know, it would not matter here on WP. We can't use our personal knowledge even if we have some. If you think these other surgeons are notable, you are free to create pages and see if they clear the hurdle for everyone else as notable. For the most part, I don't know these other people. I have no opinion on their notability and will not be offering one.

More to the point, there is absolutely nothing in the article that makes any comment on what other surgeons exist or what they do. So what is your point? Msnicki (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly not a spammer, and I strenuously object to splattering that enormous list all over this talk page. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What about this: As has been stated before 2. James, Andrea (Sep 15 2005). "My surgical journal". http://web.archive.org/web/20060505223455/www.tsroadmap.com/physical/face/ousterhout1.html. Retrieved Oct 23 2010. is by no means a NPOV link she sells a video selling video she made with the express concent of Dr. Ousterhouts office. She is sponered by Dr. Ousterhouts office. I am a publisher also and guess what there is a contract to do things like this for any admins taking a look at this please let me know if you would like the links to video in question. Making money from a person and selling videos about him is not a Npov referance to use and would fall into spam tag being placed on this article. Trinity1rose (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

That relationship certainly does not make the reference automatically spam. What it does make it is not an independent reference for purposes of establishing notability, but notability is a separate matter from content disputes. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The patient links are not being offered to establish his notability or even the quality of whatever he does. The links are offered merely to confirm that the description of what he does is correct, nothing more. Msnicki (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If none of the references are actually establishing notability, you might want to look into that. WP:BIO and WP:N would be the relevant places to start. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your point. What I mean is that, in this case, I've taken the notability somewhat for granted by the fact that the article, however badly written for however long, has apparently either never been recommended for deletion or has in fact survived it. When I added the links, it was simply to document certain statements as correct. But if you're asking me for my own (close to irrelevant) personal opinion of Ousterhout's notability, I think he is, based on the documented set of procedures for FFS which he developed and which (apparently, judging by Trinity's remarks) are now offered by numerous other surgeons. Other opinions welcome. Msnicki (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not asking for your opinion, no, and the article's continued existence doesn't demonstrate notability. What does demonstrate notability is multiple independent reliable sources discussing the article topic, though in Dr. Ousterhout's case, if he originated one or more recognized surgical procedures, a single reliable source may suffice if it verifies that he did so (per WP:BIO). —chaos5023 (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's a fair question. The procedures are documented in a book in which he was the editor and a contributor and which I've cited as the reference. Three chapters, a total of roughly 60 pages, are his or shared with another author and describe the procedures, complete with pictures and diagrams. The book contains chapters by a total of 35 authors, all of them MDs, PhDs, DDSs or some combination. I have a copy of the book in my hands. They're [http://www.amazon.com/Aesthetic-Contouring-Craniofacial-Skeleton-Ousterhout/dp/0316674109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1288048063&sr=8-1 expensive] but available. It looks to me like he did the work creating several recognized procedures, he did it in the 1990s and with 34 other authors on the book, that the documentation is reliable. What are your thoughts? Msnicki (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that will suffice to satisfy WP:BIO's requirements for a "significant contribution" notability qualification, because it's a primary source (he wrote it himself). Essentially, the logic goes, if somebody's contribution was that significant, then somebody else will have bothered to write about it at some point. It's that independent coverage that we're most concerned with for purposes of establishing notability. If there are any news stories discussing the procedures in question, medical journal articles citing the book, or similar sources to draw from, that'd be what we're looking for. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

With 34 other authors and a respected scientific publisher, Little, Brown and Company, I disagree with your characterization of it as self-published. If he didn't do what it says he did, wouldn't one of those 34 other authors or one of the editors at Little Brown have noticed? And he certainly does appear to be doing what he describes in the book if we compare it to the online patient accounts. Beyond that, I doubt there's more I have to offer. I enjoy helping to make a better article but I don't have a lot of stake in this. I've offered my opinion and my reasons. But if the consensus is that whole article should go, I will respect that. I don't come here to argue, especially over notability. I come here to write and I'm way more interested simply in getting facts right and properly citing them. I hope I do some good occasionally. That's all. Msnicki (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't characterize it as self-published. It isn't. What I said is "he wrote it himself", which makes it a primary source, and so generally irrelevant to notability. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I'm trying to give you an idea of what would be necessary to ensure that the work you've put into this article isn't lost to deletion. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for mischaracterizing your remarks. It was not my intent. I try not to worry about my work getting deleted. Sometimes it happens. Maybe there's something else I can do that will seem more useful. I will try to move on to something else where I know enough to know what basic facts are true and where to find the documents to confirm them. Other people enjoy arguments about what to delete next more than I do. Peace. Msnicki (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your lack of distress over the matter is admirable, really. As someone whose personal Wikipedia area of focus is a hobby that's extremely difficult to source articles on, protecting articles against deletion weighs heavily on my mind, but there's no reason anybody has to share my anxiety there. —chaos5023 (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering where wp link for rules for the ref and links?

Wondering which links are being used to establishing notability?

--Trinity1rose (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You want WP:ELINK and WP:CITE, and I imagine also WP:SPAM, though I advise you to be more cautious in throwing that accusation around. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I also advise you against immediately pursuing deletion of this article should you find that its notability is insufficiently established, because your demonstrably heavy personal interest would not weigh well in the process if you were to initiate it. If Dr. Ousterhout is not notable, you should probably leave the matter for less involved editors to resolve. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering if Msnicki is posting a site on the article that is her own site with her full legal name personal info. Would that be condered spamming?? Then she hides the fact with WP:OUTING after people start posting that it is her site. I read WP:OUTING http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information and it said Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. She posts her own FFS story for every one to see with a link here on Wikipedia with all her personal infornation there then if some says it is spam for doing so she and provides the link she has it removed using the WP:OUTING Would that be condered hiding spam?? She has done this from a admin talk page.

I know if I was to post a link to mine own site I would be a called spammer? --Trinity1rose (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it's possible for you to achieve given your described history with this person, but one of the principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith, and aggressively nitpicking all of a person's actions so as to interpret them in the most negative possible light is a violation of this principle even if you cannot, in practical terms, assume good faith because of personal history. (Though that in itself may be a strong hint that it'd be a good idea to recuse yourself from a discussion entirely.) Anyway, having posted a link that you, because of your independent personal knowledge, understand to contain Msnicki's personal information is not at all the same thing as posting that information itself to Wikipedia, and the owner of the Wikipedia account has not identified herself as the subject of that web site, which means your repeated outings of her (rather poor form in any context and by any standard, I have to say) remain completely inappropriate and subject to sanction. Posting a link to one's own site does not automatically make one a spammer, but it certainly doesn't help. You should understand that it's very clear by now that you have an axe to grind with Msnicki, and relentlessly searching for a policy under which to indict her is not helping your credibility. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, I have had no "personal history" and no contact or communication whatsoever with Trinity either here on Wikipedia or in real life until today. I don't know who she is and I have no interest to find out. I would like to be judged by the quality of my contributions and if anyone has suggestions for how I can improve, I promise to listen. Msnicki (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Noted. She sure seems to believe she has personal history with you, though, so I was speaking to that. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone has already posted db-spam tag, coi tag, advert tags on the article as shown in the history of and edits to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Ousterhout&oldid=392794022

But the problem is Msnicki has been undoing those edits all day or doing reverts to them all day. --Trinity1rose (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Someone"? Do you have any personal connection with Janemillert that you'd like to disclose before that train of thought proceeds any further? —chaos5023 (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Chaos5023 I am asking questions thats all about how those this work and how does that work if you think targets at someone can we provide this whole article to a admin board for help and let a group of admins to decide the out come. I am sure there is a board like that one WP that is not related to computers or programing that look this all over. Or am I out of line to request information about a article related to admins that look over maters like this. --Trinity1rose (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you absolutely are within your rights to call administrators' attention to any issues you please. WP:AN and WP:AN/I would be the most effective tools for the purpose, I believe. I look forward eagerly to the results. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Noting here for anyone curious about the abrupt termination of this discussion that Trinity1rose was blocked as a sockpuppet of Janemillert. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

COI promotional material reinserted

This material was removed as promotional but put back. I removed it again here with @Msnicki: reverting it. It's not even a signed account and we have to assume who wrote it. Actually the other promotional pieces are problematic as well, and there are no third party sources on his own material. It probably should be AfD'd. At least needs bio sources tag on it.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

RE; Removal of "primary source" tag. Technically WP:PRIMARY reads: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[3] But I don't think we need to quibble. {{BLP sources}} is good enough for me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The patients' accounts are primary accounts of their experiences. But to the extent they write about Ousterhout, e.g., to offer their opinions of his work, they are secondary. I was the one (see below) who added the citations. Having gone unchallenged almost 4 years, I think it's fair to assume there's a consensus. Msnicki (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There are BLP issues that have not been addressed, including in your section below:

• Conway and James are "SPS": Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_self-published_sources reads Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ... (i.e., Ousterhout). Being an "expert" or a "doctor" or publishing on a person blog on a University site doesn't counter the WP:SPS policy.
• Dr Becky and Hamilton Labs are commercial promotional sites and the conditions under which they wrote these testimonials is unknown. And they still are self-published.

If no one else opines we can get third opinions from WP:BLP Noticeboard. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hamilton Labs is a software company run by Ms. Hamilton. It's pretty darn hard to see how her personal account of having facial surgery promotes that. And Dr. Becky is a cardiologist. Again, it's hard to see how Dr. Becky's account promotes that. But yes, these are WP:SPS pages. WP:BLP Noticeboard is generally intended for cases where editors are adding defamatory or libelous material, which isn't happening here. If you're questioning whether there are sufficient sources to establish notability, you'll want to take it to WP:AFD. But I think the outcome will be keep. Msnicki (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I frequently have brought cases of improperly used SPS in BLP to BLPN and had them dealt with from there. I'm not really a deletionist myself, so I encourage finding higher quality sources. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Brought the issue of all four testimonials to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#SPS_testimonials_in_physician.27s_bio. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The patient accounts

I hadn't intended or anticipated that my citations of a few patient accounts to support the description of what Ousterhout does would to be so controversial. On reflection, I realize I could have been more helpful by offering a comment here to explain the selections I made. Belatedly, I would like to correct that.

1. I listed the Conway reference first because it's simply the most reliable: It's on a University of Michigan server and it's authored by an independently notable individual with credentials to establish her own reliability.
2. I chose the James reference next because James appears to have posted the first photographs to web of any of Ousterhout's work. (The archive.org snapshot is dated Feb 29, 2000 but notice the 1998 copyright on the page.)
3. The Hamilton reference had previously been listed (not by me) as an external link. I used it instead as a third reference because it appears to be the first account published to the web with photographs of patient who's had all of the procedures done at once. The text on the page is intended to humorous, however, and as such, I regard it as less useful for encyclopedic purposes.
4. The Allison reference is also a first person patient account that archive.org first captured in early 2000. It's distinguished by the fact that the author is also a doctor.

I have attempted to make good choices but I am imperfect and accept suggestions for improvement. Msnicki (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Although it does appear that the Conway reference is in fact written by Conway, the fact that it is hosted on a university servor does not at all bolster its credibility. This is doubly true for any university address that has a tilde in the url, which typically indicates that that is web space provided by the University as a courtesy to a subset of affiliates (which affiliates depends on which University, but for comparison purposes, I could set up multiple url's like that are prominent universities with basically no effort.

You may be entirely correct that James was the first person to post any photos of Ousterhout's work online, but that doesn't mean much of anything - especially when there is no discussion of material found in the source that is not easily found elsewhere in better sources. You don't appear to be using it as an actual citation as much as a way to try to get people to click on to testimonials that include photos of Ousterhout's work - which is not really a valid reason to use something as a source. There should be an external link to Ousterhout's website, but that more than takes care of that.

The photos on the Hamilton page are of potential encyclopedic value - have you approached Nicole to see if she's willing to release the photos of her surgery under a license compatible with Wikimedia Commons (which would generally be CC-by-SA.) The article could benefit from photos of work that Ousterhout has done, but it's not standard or accepted practice to just throw in an extra citation because it contains unique photographs. But since the article pulls no information from the source (and, again, if there was information worth pulling from the source, I'd expect it to also be found in non SPS secondary sources also.)

The Allison reference is useless as a citation for the same reason most of the rest are: it's a primary SPS that the article doesn't actually even draw any information from (and again, if there was information worth pulling from the source, I would expect it to be found in non-SPS secondary sources also)

None of this is to say that the testimonials aren't interesting - they certainly are, and are some of the more interesting sources I have read to evaluate the appropriateness of in the recent past - and certainly none of this is meant to condemn Ousterthout's work, or the women who took the time and emotional labor necessary to display their testimonials for the whole world to see. They've interesting and worthwhile, they're just not really encyclopedic sources. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

For more detailed thoughts of mine, please see what I wrote at RSN, here. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for thoughts. Having worked on BLPs in many topic areas, I have found SPS in BLPs to be a big problem. Usually they are negative ones and sometimes one has to fight to get rid of even those. But even permitting positive and interesting ones just opens the flood gates for POV/COI/commercial/promotional editing. I have lots of BLPs I'd like to add Positive blog info to, some of which would lead to be controversies. But thankfully that's a Wiki NoNo, removing a truly unnecessary source of conflict. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm super sleep deprived because unfortunately my street has been a bit of a gunbattle recently and had forgotten about it until now, but WP:BLPSPS, which is a subsection of WP:BLP pretty much completely forbids the use of SPS's that were not written by the subject of an article from being used in any BLP. Sometimes there's a little bit of ambiguity in what is vs isn't an SPS, but I feel like that's pretty easily resolvable most of the time. Since WP:BLPSPS is a subsection of WP:BLP, the instructions at the top of WP:BLP (one of our more rigidly enforced policies) pretty much lay out what to do for BLPSPS stuff - "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said at RSN, I'm satisfied that you haven't merely removed content, you've replaced it with superior content. I don't think Nicole will release her photos but perhaps she might reconsider. Msnicki (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sentences about the technique

I removed

FFS generally involves advancing the hairline, making the forehead smaller and rounder, reducing the brow ridge, shortening and narrowing the nose, shortening the upper lip, shortening the chin, narrowing the jaw, and reducing the laryngeal prominence.<ref name=Morrison2016rev>Morrison SD, et al. Facial Feminization: Systematic Review of the Literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Jun;137(6):1759-70. PMID 27219232</ref>

and

"As of 2006 there were only about twelve surgeons in the world performing FFS.<ref name=sfchron/>"

as "not about him".

It was restored with the justification, "of course its about him, he invented the technique." The first sentence can perhaps be integrated into the rest or the article with some minor changes, which I will try. The second I still think belongs only on an article on the technique. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

Please stop adding additional links to drofacialsurgery.com. Am looking to see if there is some ref about facial masculinization surgery; if there is this should go in the body of the article; the lead just summarizes the body per WP:LEAD. This is classic spamming behavior. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Found a surgery textbook talking about this, and added to the body in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit does not "remove spam". Reporting that Ousterhout also performed facial masculinization surgery is not spam. It merely reports what he did. I remind you that the man is now retired. There is no possible way he financially benefits. Please try to resolve the question here on the talk page. If you have a change in mind that you feel would be helpful, please try to demonstrate that you have consensus support. The claim has been there quite a while, so I think it's fair to consider it to have de facto consensus support. If you would like to make a change, show that there is support for the change. And that doesn't mean templating me with idiotic claims that one revert is an edit war. Please try to behave respectfully. I support introducing better references but there is nothing wrong with a WP:PRIMARY or WP:SPS to support a claim about the services a famous, now-retired surgeon offered during the time he was active. Sheesh. Msnicki (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

About your edit note here where you wrote Not spam. He's not even in practice anymore. The man is retired. This merely reports what he did. Please take five minutes and read the website. Here is the link. Is that the website of a clinical practice or not? Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The link has gone stale after he sold his practice. Here is what it looked like when he was still active. You should left the vulgarity in your post so everyone could know how grownup you are. Msnicki (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

So you have no leg on the content, and so you stoop to digging shit out of redacted edits. Whatever. We appear to be done here. In the future please take time to edit competently Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA, please. If you're unable to control your behavior, perhaps another site would be more to your liking. Msnicki (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Describing behavior is not a personal attack. Now you are just making drama, which is even less about improving the article than your prior comment. We are done here. The article is better now, although our relationship is not. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Gratuitous remarks about editing "competently" are a personal attack. Per WP:NPA, Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. Please stop unless you're looking to add another entry to your already impressive block log. Msnicki (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm just fine with my block log thanks, which I am only noting since you seem to think it is some how "scary" to refer to it. You have nothing more to say about the content I take it. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

oh, whatever, i will stop contesting the link, especially now that the duplicate EL link has been removed.

Msniki - you keep writing thing like this edit note saying "Rm the official website. That's clearly not really his anymore now that he's sold the practice" and this edit note saying "Since no official website anymore, put an archive link into the lede".

I just want to point out that the vanity fair article, dated 2015, says "semiretired". I have fixed that. I don't know where you got the idea that he is fully retired or that he sold the practice... this is not sourced anywhere. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I know he's retired from private communications with Ousterhout, himself, which I'm not free to post and wouldn't be helpful as an WP:RS anyway. I suppose it's possible he offers an occasional consult but my understanding is that he is no longer doing any surgery. Msnicki (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. You know him; you should not be editing this directly per the COI guideline. And you should not be making edits based on personal knowledge, as you know.... Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"Knowing someone" and having exchanged emails with them is not intrinsically a COI else no reporter would ever be able to write a news story about someone. Please be more careful with that charge than you've been in the past. I do not now and never have had any financial or other interest in his practice. He has never paid me anything nor he has he ever given me any gifts. I have never intentionally made edits based solely on personal knowledge. Without checking the history, I don't know if I put the word "retired" or the original (stale) link to his site in there or if someone else did it. I think it's common knowledge in the served community that he's retired but concede we may not have a source that uses that word. My only interest is the ordinary interest we all have that the article should be an informative, helpful article sourced as well as we can, reflecting consensus and guidelines. Please try to WP:AGF and avoid WP:OUTING. I'm not your enemy and the aggressive way you've been treating me isn't helpful. Msnicki (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly not an WP:RS, but as evidence of what I meant as common knowledge in his served community, consider the July 30, 2014 post about halfway down the page from Nicole Hamilton, one of his patients mentioned in our article, stating, "Dr. O just told me in private email today, "I am retiring. My last surgery will be August 15 th. I will be transfering [sic] my practice to Dr. Jordan Deachamps-Braly, a superb and very well trained plastic and craniofacial surgeon.". Msnicki (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not have any of those relationships with the subject and I do not need more templating. I do have personal knowledge. I do not have a COI. I ask that we not pursue this further into an WP:OUTING. This has gotten you in trouble before. Msnicki (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

No templating and there is nothing even approaching OUTING. This is not about the article so I will not continue this here. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)