User talk:Rbernstein

Nomination of Robert M. Bernstein for deletion

The article Robert M. Bernstein is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert M. Bernstein until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 22:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and spam

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Bernstein. Thanks for your recent edits. I wonder if you have read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, and if you think your latest changes conform to those guidelines? Do you think a disinterested third-party would have made all of those additions? Thanks! Axlrosen (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Axlrosen, I am the webmaster for Dr. Bernstein, and I have been making some changes relevant to hair transplantation. All of the changes to wiki articles that I have made are substantive and germane to the articles I have edited. I have added citations to publications whenever possible. Dr. Bernstein's work in the industry, and in particular his portfolio of medical publications, is unparalleled, and so it is of historical importance that this information be noted. If you disagree, please inform me as to which edits, specifically, you object to and why. I have made every effort at contributing only factually-supported content and have documented these contributions as such. We appreciate your concern, and it is safe to assume that both myself and Dr. Bernstein share the same concerns about COI and spam. We are attempting to accommodate those concerns, again, by only contributing factually-supported content and using citations when possible. We both greatly appreciate Wikipedia as an invaluable reference, and we both seek to minimize personal or professional promotion in content about hair restoration and transplantation. That said, Dr. Bernstein's inordinate contribution to the industry should not go unrecognized, and we feel that historical references to his pioneering work is germane and valid and should be included in appropriate pages lest the content of those pages appear incomplete as a reference. Thank you again and I look forward to any critical commentary on, or objections to, our substantive contributions. Rbernstein (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi webmaster, thanks for your response. I appreciate your civility! To be honest, however, from the tone of your response, I suspect that you will have a very hard time editing Wikipedia objectively. It's clear - let's be honest - that your primary intent is the promotion of Dr. Bernstein. That is not a bad thing - but it's in conflict with the goal of Wikipedia, which is to make an encyclopedia. (Whether or not "Dr. Bernstein's inordinate contribution to the industry" goes unrecognized is not the primary concern of an article on hair restoration.) It will be hard for you to be objective about what makes an article better. If it is true that "Dr. Bernstein's work in the industry, and in particular his portfolio of medical publications, is unparalleled," then clearly a third party will see that this information is missing from an article and add it. This would be more in keeping with Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, and would have the added benefit of sounding more impressive (coming from a disinterested third party) than self-promotion would sound. (Note, however, WP:SOCK.) Finally, I note that keeping a WP:NPOV and respecting WP:COI involves much more than "contributing only factually-supported content" and providing references. It also involves much more subtle decisions such as what facts are relevant, what level of detail to provide, what counts as a "reliable source", etc. These subtle decisions are the ones that are the hardest to navigate when one has a WP:COI. Thanks! Axlrosen (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(For specific issues, please see my recent edits from today. I also note that the article "Robert M. Bernstein" reads like promotional literature, not an objective encyclopedic article, and needs some major editing/reduction to have a WP:NPOV.) Axlrosen (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir. What is Wikipedia if not a reference? Wikipedia is based on the model of an encyclopedia, a reference. What is adding historical fact to an article if not adding reference material in conext? Are you holding it against Dr. Bernstein that nobody is going out of their way to add historical references to articles on hair transplant procedures? Did you even look at several of the articles before I updated the content? They were poor by any objective standard. I DRAMATICALLY improved them with factual information. This factual information INCLUDES the historical account of Dr. Bernstein's medical literature. If you happen to think that providing a historical fact supported by medical literature violates COI, then I have no other option but to inform you that you are wrong. Further, you said: It's clear - let's be honest - that your primary intent is the promotion of Dr. Bernstein. I object to your informing me as to my intent. Are you in my brain? What am I thinking now? It is a ridiculous and absurd notion on its face and frankly I don't appreciate it in the least. My intent is clear. In the course of working for Dr. Bernstein I have learned a GREAT deal about hair restoration procedures. Yes, that is part of my job. In the course of doing my job it has come to my understanding that Wikipedia articles on the subject and related topics have been replete with falsehoods, subjective comments and a glaring lack of historical context or even an adequate description of the procedures being referenced. Given my advanced knowledge on these subjects, I have taken it upon myself to improve these articles in order to improve the factual record on these procedures. THAT was my intent. Obviously, the hair restoration industry has had many issues over the years, and if no other industry deserves a complete factual accounting, this industry does. The industry, though greatly improved in the last decade (almost exclusively due to Dr. Bernstein's advancements, and that is a fact recognized in the industry) is still littered with frauds and scammers. That is also a fact. It is also an industry that, while dating back to the 1950s, has evolved rapidly in only the last few years. Research and breakthrough are occurring at breakneck pace. The record, both historical and factual, needed to be set straight. If you prefer an incomplete and out-dated Wikipedia... If you prefer a factually-incorrect Wikipedia... If you prefer that editors of Wikipedia pages are people who do not, or will not, provide contextual material or who are not experts on the subject matter at hand... Then that is YOUR decision. Speaking as someone who was unaware of hair transplantation before I started working with Dr. Bernstein, in looking at the articles that I have edited, they not only left out critical context, but they were flagrantly poor in describing the procedures. I mean, let's be honest, they were laughably poor. As someone who has studied and researched factual information literally my entire life, I am physically unable to sit here and allow those articles to persist in such dreadful condition. Dr. Bernstein re-invented hair transplant procedures with his medical description of Follicular Unit Transplantation in 1995. 1995! Forget Dr. Bernstein for a second. The fact that Wikipedia's entries on hair restoration left out that information as of 2011 should suggest something to you. It does to me. It suggests that NOBODY is going to enter this information into the public record on Wikipedia. Who is the Third Party who will do the editing? Name me some people who are this knowledgeable about the industry yet who don't have some interest in medical treatment of hair restoration. The founder of the concept of hair transplantation in the 1950s, Norman Orentriech, still practices. Dr. Bernstein practices. Guess what. Every single individual in the industry, every single individual who retains this knowledge could be subjected to your same COI complaint. Does that mean that information shouldn't be available in referential material on that topic? The idea is ludicrous. If knowing the facts about hair transplantation and wanting the facts to be entered into a referential record suggests to you that there is a conflict of interest, then I suggest you remove all references to published medical literature and historical context to such literature on Wikipedia. I agree that the Robert M. Bernstein article needs editing. I did not write it and have not had time to work with Dr. Bernstein, nor has he had time to work with me to edit it to read more as an encyclopedic article -- he is, after all, a hair transplant surgeon, a small business owner, a professor at Columbia University, a research scientist, and a human being with side interests and a family. I will, time permitting, edit that article. However, I strenuously object to your removal of historical context particularly with regard to the FUT and FUE procedures. I will keep adding references to Dr. Bernstein's published works that have defined and re-defined the very idea of hair transplantation until they meet Wikipedia's standards. So... You have a choice. You can either work with me to provide factually-accurate non-COI material that provides this important historical content, or you can remain an obstinate obstacle bent on eliminating historical fact from Wikipedia articles on the subject of hair transplantation, thus dramatically worsening Wikipedia as a reference on the topic. That is your call. Which will it be? And for the record, once again, I find your comment informing me as to my "primary intent" in editing this material to be insulting and wholly inappropriate. Rbernstein (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And by the way. What kind of editor edits out a sentence only to leave behind a period and a superscript reference for a publication that is no longer referenced, as you have done on the Follicular Unit Extraction page?!?!?! I have a degree in Communications and Journalism. Honestly, if you were my student, you would get an F for that mistake right off the bat. I will correct your shoddy editing. 16:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

My only point is that it's hard to be objective about a subject that you have a personal interest in. I can only quote a few items from WP:COI and hope that you take them to heart.

"Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia."

"Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." (Note the word "appears.")

"If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community."

"Any situation in which strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies—Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability—when editing in that area."

Also, thanks for fixing my typo. Sometimes I make errors, and I appreciate when people help in fixing things. Axlrosen (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome Axlrosen. Can you please go to the Robert M. Bernstein page and edit the page so that "Bernstein Medical Hyphen Center for Hair Restoration" reads Bernstein Medical - Center for Hair Restoration? Also there is an external link there with the same error in the link text. Please re-instate my account. I am appalled that on the discussion page for the deletion of the page people are LAUGHING at Dr. Bernstein. Is that acceptable to you? All I want to do is fix the Robert M. Bernstein page and I cannot. I have made many edits to relevant pages and THEY are not deleted, so obviously the content I am providing is worthwhile. And the Robert M. Bernstein, despite being flagged for deletion has NOT been deleted because Dr. Bernstein and his work are notable. Once again, the edits made to the page do not suffice. And yet, despite my good-faith efforts at IMPROVING WIKIPEDIA ON THESE SUBJECTS, my account is now deleted. This is unacceptable. Please respond. Rbernstein (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any point in that now, as it's highly likely the page will be deleted at the end of (or before) the AfD period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rbernstein (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have made many substantive changes to pages relevant to hair restoration and transplantation. THOSE edits are still in because they are valid. The Robert M. Bernstein page had issues and I intended to correct them, but now I cannot. If my account was in such violation then why are my other edits still up? Because they are GOOD edits. Please re-instate me immediately. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Your edits may be good, bad, accurate, or inaccurate - the issue here is that your username matches the name of your primary (and, indeed, only) subject, and that there are indications that your account is being used to promote or advertise for the subject. This is a violation of our username policies. Near as I can tell, no other issue exists with regard to your account. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Read our Wikipedia:USERNAME#Company.2Fgroup_names policy; see also WP:SPA. If you read about our WP:AFD process, you'll see that arguments typically go on for one week before a decision is made. That is, unless there are non-single-purpose-accounts who !vote for keep, the article will be deleted at the end of the AfD period. That is, unless it is snowball deleted, as has been recommended by one editor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment For the record, should this "user" reappear with a new user name: an additional reason the account might have qualified for blocking is that it was very close to being a self-declared to be a SP:ROLE account i.e. "this account is administered by the webmaster for Dr. Bernstein" (I'm working from memory since the page User:Rbernstein, where this was said, is now deleted). Any new account must belong to a single individual whose purpose is improvement of Wikipedia, not promotion of Dr. Bernstein. But as often stated (see WP:COI) the best way to avoid conflicts along those lines, and to avoid wasting other editors' time monitoring for them, would be for people associated with Dr. Bernstein to wait for others to write about him and his achievements. EEng (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You can clearly see that I have made a number of valid edits to pages relevant to hair restoration. These edits are still up because they are good edits. I already admitted that Robert M. Bernstein had issues, but I was unable to do any proper editing to the page before the account was suspended. Please re-instate me immediately so I can make a few last corrections to Robert M. Bernstein and then I won't edit wikipedia any more for the foreseeable future. Thank you.

I suggest you read the policy links (as well as the rest) of what I posted instead of repeating your demands. To summarize it for you (1) you were blocked for violating username policy (2) it's highly likely that the Robert M. Bernstein page will be deleted before the end of the week; as such, there's no point in "fixing" anything on it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Question of Robert M. Bernstein notability under WP:ACAD Criterion 7

Note: I've broken this discussion into a separate section heading, and altered the indenting to make it a bit clearer who is talking when. EEng (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC) [At this point user Rbernstein is addressing Ohnoitsjamie...]

Sir, please tell me how Dr. Bernstein is not notable again. With all due respect, I don't get it. This is under the notes section for criterion (7) on the page describing notability with regards to academics: Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. I don't understand how Dr. Bernstein doesn't qualify as a notable academic under this criterion. As I have said, he is regularly quoted in conventional media and has appeared on national TV and radio shows regularly and repeatedly throughout the years. Again, please excuse my ignorance, but please inform me as to why he is not notable given these facts and given this criterion as stated on the wikipedia page covering this issue. Thank you for your explanation.
Rbernstein (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The standard response to such claims would be . It's entirely possible that Dr. Bernstein is indeed notable, but that does not matter one bit if there are no reliable sources to document that notability. The only two references in the article, at present, are works listing Dr. Bernstein as an author or co-author. I can find no sources that discuss Dr. Bernstein directly - only passing mentions in articles on other subjects. Being quoted in media outlets is not itself sufficient to prove that the subject is notable.

UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are some examples. Men's Health, another link, same feature. GQ (print only, so no web link). Dr. Bernstein on Dr. Oz Show (again, no link on the web). Dr. Bernstein interviewed for the Howard Stern Show, listen about 55 seconds in (no web link). Oprah's "O" Magazine. Dr. Bernstein on The Today Show (he appears 2:20 in). NYT. Another NYT. This is all within the last year or so. There are many many others. ABC News gave a patient of ours a video camera and ran a feature on him. Here he is on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Featured on the Today Show with Matt Lauer. I cannot edit the page, but if a third party can add some of these links to the Robert M. Bernstein wiki page as verification of his notability, that would be great. Thank you.
Rbernstein (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Notability (people): "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Dr. Bernstein was not the subject of any of the pieces you mentioned - hair restoration was the subject. Also - I'm not certain, but I believe that things like TV appearances are primary sources, not secondary sources (I actually posted a question about that on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to ask for clarification). As mentioned on Wikipedia:Notability (people), primary sources don't count toward notability. So, based on the references you provide, he fails to meet the Wikipedia guidelines. Sorry.

Axlrosen (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Axlrosen, sir, I still do not understand this discussion and I really do want to understand it. I have repeatedly referenced criterion 7 in academic notability and showed that, in my view, he meets that criterion. So let's try this a different way. Given the fact that he is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert, please explain how does he NOT qualify under Criterion 7? Here is criterion 7 again: Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. Can you understand why I am so confused? This is a no-brainer in my book given the factual record and given the sources I have provided. If you care to elaborate on your answer as to how he does NOT meet Criterion 7, then please also explain what he could do to meet this criterion! Thank you.
Rbernstein (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, Axlrosen, sir, I read your question regarding television appearances on the notability talk page, and I sincerely thank you for helping me understand this conundrum. I think it is clear from Qwfp's response that TV appearances are indeed notable. Speaking as a media consumer, personally, I view television talk shows that have audiences in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of viewers, as being notable and guests on those shows of having some notoriety. Oprah, Dr. Oz. Good Morning America, The Today Show, etc etc. And what of this vague notion of "conventional media"? If the definition of "conventional media" is the linguistic stumbling block with regard to academic notability, then I wish for someone to explain to me what, if anything, is "conventional media" if not the New York Times, GQ, Vogue, Fox News, Men's Health Magazine, the Discovery Channel, NPR? Are they not "conventional media"? If not, then please list some examples of "conventional media". I am not trying to browbeat anyone here! I am genuinely confused by what I see as a conflict between stated criterion for notability and the factual record, and I am trying to better understand the objection to Dr. Bernstein as a notable academic given the criteria posted on Wikipedia. Thanks again, I appreciate any effort at improving my understanding.
Rbernstein (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting Qwfp's position. He said that TV appearances are primary sources and therefore do not lend notability, by themselves.

EEng (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the questions of what frequently quoted, conventional media, and as an academic expert mean, the idea that being "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert" may lend notability has to be applied in light of the text of Criterion 7 itself, which is that The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity (my italics). A good measure of substantial impact outside academia might be the extent to which the subject's opinions stimulate response and discussion, especially from and among other experts, or policymakers. I doubt very much that anyone made any response to -- agreed or disagreed with, commented on or discussed -- anything Bernstein said in any of these forums. He's just a medical doctor who was willing to talk about his field. The substantial impact, if there was any, would have been limited to a possible increase in the size of his practice.

EEng (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

EEng, you are free to have your own opinions, but not your own facts. You have only supposition and no evidence to support your opinions, and I have Dr. Bernstein's volumes of medical literature, major textbook publications and litany of awards, accolades, and national media interviews (interviews and appearances linked above) to support his notability and impact on the industry. Further, I have already noted this quotation upon Dr. Bernstein being awarded the highest honor in the field of hair transplantation: "Dr. Bernstein has contributed to the field of hair transplantation in dramatic and substantial ways, revolutionizing the advancement of Follicular Unit Hair Transplantation. His published articles have become 'Bibles' for this methodology. Dr. Bernstein's contributions extend beyond the application of Follicular Unit Transplantation, such as studies in examining the power of sorting grafts for density, yield by method of graft production, local anesthetic use, and suture materials." ~ Marcelo Gandelman, MD, President, International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery 9th Annual Meeting, October 18–22, 2001 Puerta Vallarta Mexico. Think whatever you want of the ISHRS, but surely this puts to bed the notion that nobody has, to use your words, EEng, "made any response to -- agreed or disagreed with, commented on or discussed -- anything Bernstein said in any of these forums." Simply stated, sir, your opinion is factually incorrect. If you had evidence to the contrary and I had nothing more than a handful of clips of local media appearances, then I would agree that, based on the facts, you would be right. That is not the case. I will no longer be responding to you, EEng, since you have shown that you are not serious in this discussion. However, I will gladly respond to Axlrosen or any other Wikipedia editor who is willing to look at hard evidence and who is willing to approach the situation as a neutral observer -- ironic, isn't it, that here we have Wikipedia editors using supposition and opinion to back their case over concrete evidence. If there are any editors who fit this description and are willing to participate in this discussion as neutral observers, I strongly encourage you to join in this discussion. Thank you.
Rbernstein (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This entire discussion has been about WP:ACAD's Criterion 7, because you (Rbernstein) invoked that criterion, citing Robert M. Bernstein's appearances on television, quotations in Men's Health, and so on. Criterion 7 provides for notability in cases where...

The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. [This] may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark...[etc etc]

In my statement that "I doubt very much that anyone made any response to -- agreed or disagreed with, commented on or discussed -- anything Bernstein said in any of these forums," the forums to which I was referring, obviously, were the same ones to which you had just referred: in your own words, "New York Times, GQ, Vogue, Fox News, Men's Health Magazine, the Discovery Channel, NPR" -- the "outside academia" forums with which Criterion 7 deals. And I stand by my statement: there's nothing to indicate that Dr. Bernstein's presence in those forums has "made substantial impact outside academia."

Your response was to list Bernstein's journal articles and so on, which have nothing to do with Criterion 7, which was the subject of discussion. If you are now claiming that Dr. Bernstein's impace inside academia is what makes him notable, let me turn the discussion over to Axlrosen...

EEng (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The big problem here is that we don't know how reputable the "International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery" is. Many (most?) trade groups are just promotional vehicles for their members. And of course you could tell us how reputable it is, but that wouldn't make much difference, because we need confirmation from a reputable third party. Then, as EEng mentioned, we can have differences of opinion on what exactly constitutes frequently quoted and as an academic expert. And finally, it's an interesting question as to what "a particular area" should mean in this case. Should his area be hair restoration surgery, or medicine? If the latter, then recognition by this society would be much less relevant than if it's the former. In any case, the notability guidelines contain many terms that must be interpreted like "frequently", "substantial", etc. and it's clear that your opinion differs from several of ours in how to interpret these terms. I think it's been talked through. I don't think there's anything that can be done to resolve it. Axlrosen (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Bernstein has published a number of papers in refereed journals, with (and I cringe to quote citation counts, but I will) citation counts of 133, 45, 40, 20, 18, 17, 15, 11; while user Rbernstein will no doubt contest this, in medicine and the sciences such citation counts are mediocre at best. Bernstein also has several papers in Hair Transplant Forum Internation, but this appears to be unrefereed. Thus notability won't be found in his publications either.

EEng (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: At this point the order of the postings gets a bit fuzzy because of edit conflicts. Take note of timestamps if you really care about who spoke when.

Axlrosen, I don't think that is the problem here. In fact, I know it is not the problem here. The problem here is that we have Wikipedia editors using presumption and supposition at the expense of neutral analysis and factual evidence. I have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Dr. Bernstein is a notable academic under criterion 7 due to his litany of appearances in multimedia and print. I have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Dr. Bernstein has made a substantial impact on the hair restoration industry beyond his academic capacity as a professor of dermatology. Frankly, I have met all of your objections with facts and been responded to by Wikipedia editors (yourself not included) with supposition, conjecture, and even bias and ridicule. To add even more substance to my case (as if more was needed), Dr. Bernstein has been published in many peer-reviewed medical journals including the International Journal of Aesthetic Restorative Surgery, Dermatological Surgery, the Journal of Aesthetic Dermatology and Cosmetic Dermatologic Surgery, and Dermatologic Clinics. These journals do not include his dozens of publications in Hair Transplant Forum International, the official journal of the ISHRS. You can read ALL of these publications on our website and download PDF scans of the original publications. In addition to being a member of the ISHRS, Dr. Bernstein is a Diplomate of the American Board of Hair Restoration Surgery (ABHRS), Diplomat of the American Board of Dermatology (ABD); he is recommended by International Alliance of Hair Restoration Surgeons (IAHRS), by American Hair Loss Association (AHLA); and a member of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS). Again, you can argue yourself until you're blue in the face, but nothing you say will change the fact that Dr. Bernstein is who he is. You could have found out all this information by visiting his website and would have saved us all a lot of time and energy. I, for one, am tired of presenting factual evidence only to be told that I am wrong and that the reason I am wrong is because Wikipedia editors have a different opinion, one that is formed on presumption and not evidence, on conjecture and semantics and not the factual evidence. I am waiting for just one of you to provide a single iota of factual evidence that contradicts the case I have laid out in excruciating detail. I expect my wait will be a long one given the total lack of credibility of your opinions and your denial of clear facts. Have a nice weekend. Rbernstein (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL. It doesn't matter what it says on Bernstein's personal website. Personal websites are WP:SPS and do not constitute WP:RS. In other words, how do we know anything he says about himself on his own website is true? He could've just made it all up. Qworty (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Qworty, I linked to his website because it has pdfs of original published articles. Rbernstein (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you being stubborn on purpose? How many times do we have to tell you? Listen: ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ARTICLES DO NOT CONSTITUTE RELIABLE SOURCES FOR DETERMINING NOTABILITY ON WIKIPEDIA. Got it? Got it? Got it? Original published articles are primary sources. What we're looking for are SECONDARY sources. Got it? Got it? Got it? You can't possibly be Bernstein. Graduating medical school must be much, much harder than learning a few simple Wikipedia policies. Qworty (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Really, Qworty, let's stop. He's not worth wasting the bandwidth. EEng (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

See the quotations below. I have provided evidence that Dr. Bernstein meets notability for academics as indicated by Criterion 7 in academic notability: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. [This] may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. As the notes regarding criterion 7 clearly state, criterion 7 is satisfied if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. Below I have listed 6 recent articles in conventional media that indicate that he meets the criterion by being frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in his particular area. Again, if you have a problem with this fact, your problem lies in the conflict within Wikipedia's guidelines. You have failed to address that conflict. In light of the facts and the notes for criterion 7, Dr. Bernstein is notable. Rbernstein (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you, RBernstein

Let's spell it out in the starkest black-and-white terms. Bernstein can be on every single TV channel 24 hours a day talking about hair restoration and that would NOT make him notable. He could also publish one million words a day about hair restoration in every conceivable kind of magazine and publish 100 books every single day about hair restoration and that would NOT make him notable. Why not? Please understand this now and forever: Because none of that would be ABOUT him. 60 Minutes needs to do a show that's ABOUT Bernstein, Men's Health needs to publish an article that's ABOUT Bernstein, The New York Times Magazine needs to run a profile OF Bernstein, a bunch of medical journals need to publish articles that are ABOUT Bernstein. NONE OF THAT EXISTS. THERE IS NOTHING--ZERO--ZILCH--NADA out there that is ABOUT the guy. Therefore--ergo--thus--according to Wikipedia policies, he is not notable. So do you GET IT NOW, FINALLY, RBernstein? Certainly you're intelligent enough to finally understand how notability works through reliable sourcing. It's very simple, actually. Sheesh. If there's nothing in WP:RS out there that's ABOUT him, then he's not notable, and deserves to be speedied off Wikipedia per WP:SNOW when an article about him appears here. Also, since you're nothing more than a WP:SPA engaging in WP:COI for purposes of WP:SPAM, you should recuse yourself from the topic for all time, and you certainly deserve your block. Qworty (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Qworty, then what's this: Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. I could respond in kind with your type of sarcasm and yelling, but I will not because I don't have to. Critical to this discussion is the inherent conflict between Wikipedia's standards for notability and the stated criterion 7 of notability as an academic. Until that issue is resolved within Wikipedia, you have no case at all and I am in the right. Have a nice day. Rbernstein (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you don't understand what it means "to be quoted." The guy can go on Oprah's show 24 hours a day and talk nonstop every single day of the year. That is not the same thing as being quoted. When Wolf Blitzer goes on CNN and then repeats what Bernstein said to Oprah, THAT is a quotation. Got it? Qworty (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Why the fixation on Oprah? You're ignoring the evidence I've provided proving that Dr. Bernstein is regularly and frequently quoted as an expert in his field by latching on to that one example of a media appearance. This is old and tired. You have no case. I have proven mine beyond any reasonable doubt. You continue to ignore the conflict within Wikipedia's standards because you know that to address it would render your argument moot. Criterion 7 is met. Dr. Bernstein is notable. That is the end of this discussion until and unless Criterion 7 is changed. I will no longer respond to you, sir, until you recognize that conflict and deal with it. Again, have a nice day. Rbernstein (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Bernstein has NEVER been quoted on ANY television program, including all of the television programs you listed and all of the television programs you never listed. Talking on a show and being quoted on a show are NOT the same thing. If he had never appeared on any of the shows you cite, but had been QUOTED many times on them, then you could argue that he had been "frequently quoted" on TV. But the fact is that he has never been quoted on TV. The only places he's ever been quoted, that I can see, are a bunch of webpages and other non-neutral venues that do not qualify as WP:RS. The burden is on you: Where are the quotes? Where are the quotes? Where are the quotes? Let's have them. Let's see them. Put them between quotation marks so that we can see that they are quotes. Show us how they qualify as WP:RS. But you can't do that, because no such quotations exist in WP:RS. They--don't--exist. Period. Qworty (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Save your breath, Qworty. He's a shill (or, possibly, he's Dr. Bernstein himself, sad to say). He's deaf. And he's blocked. Let's both move on, shall we? It's not nice to make fun of the handicapped. Shame on both of us. EEng (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Save your breath, indeed. I will respond with quotations on Monday. But it should go without saying that making fun of the mentally ill crosses the line of decency. Rbernstein (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dear! Please accept our sincerest apologies. We didn't realize you were mentally ill, though now that you mention it that does explain a great deal. EEng (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I would like to add to this section, for the record, that this section contains multiple violations of the Wikipedia talk page guidelines. These violations were made by users EEng and Qworty. The violations include: avoid excessive emphasis (capitol letters, excessive bold face), no personal attacks, never address other users in a heading, and never use headings to attack other users. The user talk page guidelines specifically refer to the general talk page guidelines in the section on Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages. Rbernstein (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Bernstein meets Criterion 7 because he is frequently quoted in conventional media

Wikipedia Criteria for Notability in academics, See Criterion 7: Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. Rbernstein (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

NYT (April 29, 2009): What’s more, “most medications can cause hair loss, some more frequently than others,” said Dr. Robert M. Bernstein, a clinical professor of dermatology at Columbia University who has a restoration center in Manhattan. ... “It’s a big problem,” Dr. Bernstein said. “You shouldn’t go to someone who will give a transplant to anyone who walks in the door.” If your condition is not properly assessed, you could permanently shed more hair after surgery than you gained, he warned, or if the hair transplanted wasn’t stable, “it would disappear.”" ... If you’re suffering hair loss, see a dermatologist first, not hair transplant surgeons, said Dr. Robert M. Bernstein, a dermatologist in Manhattan who specializes in hair restoration. Rbernstein (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Today Show (February 6, 2010): See video interview, Dr. Bernstein appears at 2min 20sec mark. If the video doesn't load, view it here.

AOL Asylum (February 16, 2010): "Power alley is an accurate term for that type of balding," says Dr. Robert M. Bernstein, a clinical professor of dermatology at Columbia University and world-renowned hair-transplant surgeon. "It's Norwood Class III balding, which is the most common type."

O, the Oprah Magazine (February 18, 2010): A possibility if your hair loss is concentrated in specific areas. Hair follicles (in groups of up to four) are surgically removed from an area on your scalp where growth is dense and then implanted in the thinning patches. Since female hair loss is often diffuse, only about 20 percent of female patients with thinning hair are candidates, says Robert Bernstein, MD, a New York City dermatologist who specializes in these surgeries. Rbernstein (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Men's Health (October 2010): "Start both medications as soon as your hair begins to thin for the best results," advises Robert Bernstein, M.D., a clinical professor of dermatology at Columbia University. We asked the experts how the latest baldness treatments measure up. ..."The reproductive side effects—decreased libido and ejaculation disorders—may be persistent, so I don't usually recommend this medication for younger patients," Dr. Bernstein says. ... "Hair transplants are most appropriate for people who have not responded to medical treatments," Dr. Bernstein says. Rbernstein (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Men's Health (October 2010): Typically, about 20 percent of hair-restoration surgeries are corrections, explains Robert Bernstein, M.D., a dermatology professor at Columbia University, who is one of the pioneers of follicular unit extraction, the gold standard of hair-transplant surgery. "Reversing the unnatural appearance of older plugs is more involved than using the right technique in the first place," he says. "But in most cases, it can be accomplished with excellent results." Rbernstein (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

GQ Magazine (Nov 2010 issue): “In the old days, up until the early ’90s, they used to transplant multiple follicular units at once,” says Robert Bernstein, M.D., clinical professor of dermatology at Columbia University, “so what you got were those plugs, which look completely unnatural and gave the surgery a bad reputation.” Rbernstein (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

NY Daily News (November 30, 2010): Dr. Robert Bernstein restored Bob's hair. The doc's customers swear only their hairdressers know for sure they had it done. Asked how Brady might fare, Bernstein said that judging by recent photos, it appears "he has good growth" and enough hair for a successful transplant. The hair doc, whose Bernstein Medical Center for Hair Restoration is on E. 55th St., says there is a reason his results stand up to close scrutiny. "Hair grows in natural groupings of one to four hairs," said Bernstein, who is also a dermatology professor at Columbia University. "By following the way hair grows in nature, we can produce natural results."

CBS News (December 3, 2010): Dr. Robert M. Bernstein, clinical professor of Dermatology at Columbia University, told CBS News, "It looks like Tom Brady is starting to comb his hair forward and he has some recession in his temples, so those are kinds of signs that he starting to lose his hair." Rbernstein (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN... Wikipedia Criteria for Notability in academics, See Criterion 7: Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. Rbernstein (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You make no attempt to reconcile the fact that Dr. Bernstein is notable according to Criterion 7. You insult me and you insult the mentally ill (honestly, have you no shame?) while ignoring this fact. I have met every insult and biased comment with facts. Dr. Bernstein is notable. Thank you. Rbernstein (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

WP's guidelines contain no "inherent conflict" (as you claim) but rather call for a measure of subjective judgment, as they must. You're still ignoring the substantial impact outside academia provision of Criterion 7, as well as the word may in may be satisfied. You also don't seem to understand the concepts of primary vs. secondary sources and so on. And so on. And so on. And so on and so on and so on and so on. See WP:DEADHORSE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

By the way, it bears repeating that (as discussed on at [1]) Bernstein isn't actually a professor, but rather an unpaid "volunteer faculty member" of which there are more than 100 in Columbia's Dermatology Department alone!

I did not insult the mentally ill, but I did insult you, which I should not have done even though you roundly deserved it, and for which I beg the forgiveness of my fellow editors.

You're welcome.

EEng (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Bernstein satisfies one of the criteria for academics, since he is not an academic. Also, fooling news organizations and others into believing one is an academic is not how one becomes an academic. And doing volunteer work at a hospital is not how one becomes an academic either. Perhaps Dr. Bernstein should look for a PAID teaching position at a community college or high school instead--if he can get one. Qworty (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Listen, Qworty, I share your anger about self-promoters. And don't mistake what I'm saying -- Bernstein is a clear delete. But for future reference, you're wrong about the applicability of WP:ACAD -- you don't have to work for an educational institution for it to apply. You might work for a university, private industry, or be a wealthy gentleman scientist doing private research. If you've been recognized for your work as specified in the Criteria of WP:ACAD, it doesn't matter what your "day job" is. EEng (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right, but his argument isn't that WP:ACAD applies to him because he's a non-academic. His argument is that WP:ACAD applies to him because he's an academic. Since he's going around posing as a notable academic, that's what I'm addressing. If/when he starts going around posing as a notable non-academic, I'll address that as well. LOL. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

[Addressing Rbernstein:] It's been said MANY times before, but I'll summarize one final time. Determining notability (like many things on Wikipedia) is necessarily a matter of judgement. "Dr. Bernstein appeared on such-and-such TV show" is a fact; but how to apply the facts to words like "substantial" and "frequently" is a judgement. It's pretty clear that your judgement differs from ours. (I personally think it's less cut-and-dried than some other people on here, but nonetheless, the consensus is pretty obvious.) To state that you've "proven" his notability simply makes no sense - there is no way to do so. Furthermore, WP:COI and WP:SPA and WP:ROLE cause us to put far less weight on your judgement; your behavior is indistinguishable from someone whose main interest is promoting Dr. Bernstein, rather than improving Wikipedia. And, you've also been uncivil to several editors on here, which also hurts your case. They have also been uncivil to you, but we're supposed to remain civil even in the face of incivility. (Which we should all take to heart.) Hope this helps. Axlrosen (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Axlrosen, I appreciate your once again being a voice of calm, if not reason. I have been patient and have presented facts in the face of being called "mentally ill". I have presented my case to "neutral" editors who have mocked and laughed derisively at hair transplantation. I apologize to you, sir, if I have made any comments that you feel are uncivil, but I refuse to apologize to other individuals. At my count, no fewer than 3 Wikipedia editors have been uncivil to myself and to Dr. Bernstein, and that is being charitable, it is probably closer to 5 Wikipedia editors. I appreciate that you suggest that the "consensus" disagrees with me. However, if your consensus includes these editors, then I submit to you that your consensus is corrupt and should be dismissed as such. That is why I have called for more non-biased neutral observers to add their voices to this debate. As for credibility, I have presented facts. You can consider my opinions to be non-credible, fine, but you cannot reject the factual evidence that I have posted. I also disagree with your comment that my main interest is to promote Dr. Bernstein and not improve Wikipedia. Putting aside the Robert M. Bernstein page for a second (I have agreed since the beginning of this discussion that it needed a total overhaul), please take a look at the Follicular Unit Extraction page from before I made my edits. Here is that page as of December 2010. The page consisted of two paragraphs with no references at all, subjective commentary, and two mentions of a hair transplant facility in Sri Lanka! Now, look at the page after my edits. I expanded the content, added references, and -- as a neutral observer -- it is improved. I put as much factual information in as I could, with the idea that more people would flesh it out and add references. I did not add any external links that would be considered promotional. There was one external link to Dr. Bernstein's site that I do not remember adding and, knowing what I know now, I would not add. I am fine with removing ALL external links on that page, and all I wanted to do was improve the FUE page because it is a very popular hair transplant procedure and I thought, as a neutral observer, that it was a shame that the FUE page would be so incomplete and written by someone who was promoting hair restoration in Sri Lanka. Likewise with the Follicular unit transplantation page. Go ahead and look at it. It is largely sourced from Dr. Bernstein's publications, and the reason for this is because his publications are responsible for transforming the procedure from "hair plugs" to the current modern procedure. There are no external links on that page. Look at the Hair restoration page, it didn't even mention FUE! I edited these pages because I felt they needed editing, not because I was trying to spam the pages. If I went overboard on promoting Dr. Bernstein, that was not my intent. My intent was to add as much information as I could to these pages to improve them for thousands of Wikipedia users who view these pages. Please kill all external links to Dr. Bernstein's website except the link from the Robert M. Bernstein, which is germane and deserves to be maintained. Once you are satisfied that I am no longer responsible for any spam, then please go back and remove the flags from the Robert M. Bernstein page and restore the substantive references and content that I added and I will be satisfied. To be clear, I am not lobbying for the restoration of the Rbernstein account, just the inclusion of the facts and references that deserve to be a part of the referential record on Wikipedia. Thank you again. Rbernstein (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Axlrosen, I looked into the external link to bernsteinmedical.com that was on the Hair transplantation page and it was not, repeat, not added by myself. It was made by someone at the IP 24.228.146.111. Here is the version before the link was added. Here is the version after it was added. I am not responsible for the inclusion of that link and I am glad someone removed it. Rbernstein (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

My final comments; the page is 3 days away from imminent deletion. See WP:DEADHORSE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OhNoitsJamie, maybe once the editors delete the Robert M. Bernstein page, they can take a look at the Hair transplantation page. In this section alone there are two non-cited spam references to a specific hair restoration clinic in Sri Lanka. These edits were done by the same person who spammed the Follicular Unit Extraction page. It is odd, to me, the content that the editors have allowed, while removing references to Dr. Bernstein's work, work that is universally regarded as having revolutionized the industry. As has been stated several times in this conversation, your work is subjective. And it shows. Wikipedia's content on hair restoration, across the board, will continue to suffer due to the subjectivity and selective editing by yourself and your fellow the editors, and that is a shame for anyone who seeks to use Wikipedia as a reference. Rbernstein (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that there are other hair transplantation spammers out there has no bearing whatsoever on your case. Also, you are just not telling the truth when you say that you are here to help build Wikipedia. Every single edit you have made is related in one way or another to hair transplantation, and most of your edits promoted Bernstein in one way or another. Wikipedia is not solely about hair transplantation, and you are most definitely a WP:SPA. Had you made non-hair edits to (for example) World War II, American Literature, Fred Astaire, and General Motors, then you could plausibly state that you are a multi-purpose account that is interested in building an encyclopedia. But that is never what you have been. You have always been a disruptive editor: WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:SPAM, etc. etc. etc. It appears that the only reason you ever came to Wikipedia was to violate policy, over and over and over again. Ignorance of those policies is no excuse, because after they were explained to you, you continued to violate them, and then started to claim that the policies were wrong. Well, if you think they are wrong, then the proper course of action is to debate them in the relevant venue and try to get them changed through consensus. But that wasn't what you did. Instead, you just kept promoting Bernstein and hair transplantation more and more vociferously. Even today, that is still what you are doing. If you want to be taken seriously, you should never mention Bernstein or hair transplantation again, and focus on the rest of encyclopedic knowledge. Because what has been told to you is correct: Given your history of promoting Bernstein in the past, even if he were somehow to become notable over the next 72 hours of the AfD, we would not listen to you about it, because your history taints you. Why? Because you are either Bernstein or someone working for him, which leads to your number-one problem: YOU CANNOT BE NEUTRAL ABOUT BERNSTEIN. Qworty (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Qworty, I have already made clear that I will not respond to you on the substance of this debate, nor will I respond to your opinions posted here. And that is due to your behavior. You ought to study the mature conversation I've been having with Axlrosen. While we have some disagreements, he/she has been incredibly helpful and respectful. Rbernstein (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You just got done telling Axlrosen "Your consensus is corrupt and should be dismissed as such." Yes, wonderfully mature. Your false claim that others have been uncivil toward you while you've been a saint is just one more red herring, designed to deflect attention from what I and everyone else are telling you--you have always been interested in promoting Bernstein, and never in helping to build an encyclopedia. Qworty (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I stand by all of my comments and opinions and will not be dragged into a conversation with you on any level. Consider this conversation closed. Rbernstein (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So you stand by the abuse you just got done hurling at Axlrosen: "Your consensus is corrupt and should be dismissed as such." Thank you for providing additional evidence for why you deserve the indefinite block you were given. Qworty (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hair transplantation

Thank you for removing spam from the Hair transplantation page. I must say, in reviewing the current page, the History section is incomplete. I am making a note of this now, but I will be back to add details in a bit. If anyone wants to improve the section, I think that would be wise. This is a major page in wikipedia on the subject, and to offer a history section that skips over the actual history of the development of the current procedures doesn't help anybody. I am not lobbying for re-instatement of this account, nor am I lobbying to preserve the Robert M. Bernstein page, but, again, I refuse to allow a major reference for this much-maligned industry to persist in such an incomplete state. I don't care who edits the page, but it needs and deserves to be updated with the facts. Rbernstein (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Spam is spam, and I enjoy removing it regardless of who points it out, or why. There are three million articles in the English Wikipedia; therefore many do not get proper oversight from real, non-conflicted editors. However, I am sure the recent attention you have called to the industry and to your own editing will improve that situation. I would suggest that you not add any suggestions for improvement, as it seems likely these would be viewed as tainted. To anyone watching, it would also be a bad idea to resurrect any of the single-purpose accounts mentioned at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Team_editing_in_the_hair_loss_community for the purpose. --CliffC (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

CliffC, thank you for your comments. As I have been saying since the beginning of this discussion, almost every page on the hair restoration industry was; and in many cases still is; incomplete, inadequate, or replete with spam. That said, why can I not even suggest content for a neutral editor to use in updating these pages? Are these pages, which receive thousands of views each month, going to have to remain in their current condition (incomplete until someone adds spam content)? It seems a shame and contrary to the concept of Wikipedia that just because a newbie Wikipedia editor (yours truly) made a series of mistakes in posting content that Wikipedia users, who seek valid information on these topics as a reference, should suffer the consequences. How can this be remedied? Thank you. Rbernstein (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

CliffC, sir, as a follow-up to my comments immediately above, I want to thank you for posting the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Team_editing_in_the_hair_loss_community page. In looking at that page I see a list of hair restoration physicians, some whom I know for a fact have made it their life's work to improve not only the medical hair restoration procedures, but to improve the image of a tarnished and much-maligned industry. Hair transplantation is a very specific medical procedure, and it takes a fairly substantial investment in time just to understand the procedures and how they work. That said, I have a serious question. How does an industry with such specialization as hair restoration go about including factual content without COI? The only people who talk about hair restoration are people intimately involved with the industry. Is any edit on a relevant page in Wikipedia by anyone in the industry considered COI? Yes perhaps, but who else is going to spend the time on the topic enough so that they can post intricate details of the industry without COI? I certainly had unfavorable impression of hair transplantation before my association with Dr. Bernstein, and thanks to him, I now understand the benefit these physicians have worked their entire lives to provide not only to individual patients (you should see the pages of "thank you" letters we have received over the years) but to an industry that had such an auspicious beginning? How does this content get onto Wikipedia, and who puts it there, without COI? Thank you. Rbernstein (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)The opposite of WP:COI is WP:NPOV. Bernstein could come onto Wikipedia and edit for hours and hours and hours on hair transplantation or any other subject, and as long as those edits were not seen to personally promote Bernstein in any way, then consensus would probably say they constituted WP:NPOV rather than WP:COI. Most people who are knowledgeable about a subject are able to write about it on Wikipedia without egotistically blowing their own horns from morning till night. However, once an account such as yours has been identified as WP:COI, it doesn't matter what WP:NPOV edits you've made in the past or think should be made today, because, as has been pointed out to you over and over now, you are already tainted with WP:COI and most likely WP:AUTO. You're like a guy who wants to construct buildings, but only if he can cover the building with advertisements for himself. If you had built your buildings without the advertisements, nobody would have noticed you, and you could have contributed good work. Now it's too late. Everything you contributed here was designed to promote Robert M. Bernstein in one way or another. As a consequence, nobody wants you around, you are blocked, and probably nobody is going to make the article changes that you deem important. It's a shame, really, but that is the price of ego. I see these cases on Wikipedia all the time. In dozens of them, a person is caught promoting himself, and ALWAYS says that he's someone "working for" the person who's being promoted. I'm working two such cases at the moment, in addition to yours. It's always pure BS, and it doesn't even matter, because even if it were true, it would still be WP:COI. These people always claim to be innocent newbies who didn't know the rules. But no self-promoter is ever innocent. At the most, we can say that they aren't very bright, as so many of them choose their own names as handles! Qworty (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Qworty, I am going to ask you nicely. Please refrain from ever editing this page again. You have violated the talk page guidelines on more than one occasion (on this page alone) and I am explicitly requesting that you refrain from ever commenting on this page again. Thank you. Rbernstein (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I would very much appreciate it if a neutral editor, preferably CliffC or Axlrosen, respond to my questions and comments from 16:19 and 16:29. I am not interested in re-litigating my past mistakes, nor further explanation as to why they were considered mistakes by the Wikipedia community, but I am interested in improving Wikipedia content on the subject of hair restoration to the best of my ability within the guidelines and given the fact that I am no longer able to edit content. As I have been saying all along, I am solely interested in improving Wikipedia content and I honestly thought I was engaging a good faith effort to do so at the outset of my recent edits to several hair restoration pages. Again, I am interested in moving forward and helping Wikipedia editors who are able to contribute content to add viable content to these pages. Looking forward to any replies (except those from users who I have asked not to edit this page. See the note immediately above). Thank you. Rbernstein (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rbernstein, I don't see how I can add much to the advice given in WP:COI to those who have a COI and to the advice given to you specifically in all the back-and-forth above and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert M. Bernstein - generalizing here without consulting that policy, (a) don't create an article about yourself, if you are notable someone else will notice and write such an article; and (b) do not edit articles where you have a conflict of interest, suggest changes at the article's talk page and, (my personal advice) if no non-conflicted editor picks up on them take the hint that they are not thought appropriate - don't argue for what you want, just walk away. --CliffC (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

CliffC, thank you for the succinct explanation. Seeing as how the Rbernstein account is rightfully closed, would it be considered appropriate if I were to register a separate user account for my own personal use and then use that account to suggest content on talk pages relevant to hair restoration (among other subject areas as I see fit)? The reason I ask is twofold. In the first place, my edits have never been about promoting Dr. Bernstein's practice, and for another thing, it is a matter of principle for me that a subject where I have knowledge is adequately represented in Wikipedia. If I can make a valid contribution to the way hair restoration is portrayed on Wikipedia, and I can, then I would like to see to that. I would feel the same way about, say, baseball, or any of my other many personal interests... but I'm sure the content on Wikipedia relevant to baseball is adequate, whereas in my view, on the topic of hair restoration, it is lacking. Rbernstein (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pass. Anyone? --CliffC (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with how this account wants to edit Wikipedia on a go-forward basis, especially given the previously-established conflict of interest. I'm not sure whether a new account is the better approach, as opposed to changing the username of this one. I'm willing, barring objections, to unblock this account for the purpose of a name change. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I strongly oppose unblocking the user. The reason for his block is WP:COI. His statement of a few moments ago, "my edits have never been about promoting Dr. Bernstein" is a demonstrable falsehood [2] [3] [4] [5], with literally dozens of more examples available. The fact that he is still contesting his WP:COI block, after his first unblock request was very recently and justifiably denied [6], combined with the fact that he is still not telling the truth about the promotional edits that led to his block, indicate that he still does not understand what he did wrong, and since he has never admitted wrongdoing, he would be an unfit addition to the WP editing community. Furthermore, his attempts to vote stack his unblock request by personally threatening me against commenting on his case [7] is further indication that he does not understand the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and that he would continue to be a continued negative presence on the project. Qworty (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose unblocking this user; sorry if my "pass" above might be construed as "okay by me". It was meant in the sense of "I don't want to dignify this outrageous request with a response". Whoever is operating the Rbernstein account needs to be kept as far away from Wikipedia as possible. --CliffC (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

CliffC, I feel that this issue with Qworty needs to be addressed. This individual has, in my view, not only repeatedly violated talk page guidelines ( see above ), but I have explicitly asked him to no longer write on this page. In the user pages guidelines there is the following passage: If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to). Is Qworty an administrator? If not, then what right does he have to violate my request? On top of what I see as talk page violations, his comments contain a number of false assertions. He is falsely accusing me of continuing to contest COI on this account, while in fact I have repeatedly said I am not interested in doing so. I have explicitly stated, I am not lobbying for re-instatement of this account, nor am I lobbying to preserve the Robert M. Bernstein page and I have also explicitly stated, seeing as how the Rbernstein account is rightfully closed. How many more times do I have say repeat myself before he understands me? Qworty, I am not interested in unblocking this user account! Should I repeat myself once more? It seems that I must for your benefit. Qworty, sir, I am not, repeat, not interested in unblocking this account! Do I need to repeat myself for, what, the 4th or 5th time now? He has also suggested that I have "never admitted wrongdoing" despite my repeated admissions of mistakes on my part. I have said, "just because a newbie Wikipedia editor (yours truly) made a series of mistakes in posting content" and, "I am not interested in re-litigating my past mistakes". It is almost as if he has something personal against me and is not even reading my comments. Despite having to deal with this series of false accusations, I think the more important issue is what I see as someone who has repeatedly violated talk page guidelines. I believe he has violated multiple talk page guidelines in the section he created called Let me spell it out for you, RBernstein. As I wrote in that section, "the violations include: avoid excessive emphasis (capitol letters, excessive bold face), [no personal attacks,] never address other users in a heading, and never use headings to attack other users." These are, I believe, clear violations of talk page guidelines and I would like to know if these were, indeed violations. CliffC, C.Fred, Axlrosen or anyone else, putting aside the COI and hair restoration issues, can someone please explain to me why what I perceive as Qworty's violations of talk page guidelines are tolerated? Are they indeed violations of talk page guidelines? If you look at his comments, especially in the section he created, and compare them to the guidelines they seem like clear violations. Can someone other than this individual please respond regarding this conduct? Rbernstein (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) You asked above, Rbernstein, "would it be considered appropriate if I were to register a separate user account." What you don't seem to understand is this: Not only is your present account blocked, but you are fully blocked as a human being. It doesn't matter if the issue is unblocking this particular user account, applying for a user name change, or opening other accounts in violation of WP:SOCK. You are blocked personally, regardless of who you are, and are therefore prohibited from editing Wikipedia in any manner or form, with the exception of your little domain here on your blocked user talk page. This is not a technical matter that you can get around by trying to change your user name or creating a variety of illegitimate WP:SOCK accounts. The spirit of your block is expressed perfectly by CliffC above: "Whoever is operating the Rbernstein account needs to be kept as far away from Wikipedia as possible." So let me repeat this to you, sir, so that you may finally begin to understand what has happened to you: It is not just your account or accounts that have been blocked: You personally as a human being have been blocked. Now please go away. Qworty (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree in opposing unblock (but see Further note below). Many users make mistakes early on, but this person has shown resolute refusal to absorb and follow policy and guidelines. He'll likely continue his misbehavior under some other username anyway, but there's no reason to do anything that might suggest (to others, but more importantly, to him) that what he's done is acceptable. If as a technicality only his username is considered blocked, but not the person himself as an editor, then that needs to be revisited -- that is: his disruptive behavior is far more problematic than is any problem connected to his username per se; he should be considered blocked personally; and that status should continue until he can demonstrate that he understands how he is expected to behave. If he can do that he might be allowed to return on a trial basis -- perhaps with an initial, probationary topic ban re "hairy issues." (I don't know if that level of sanction is or is not in line with common practice for this kind of offense.) And before considering doing anything to encourage or allow this person to resume editing, give a full review to his edit history.

Further note: I composed the foregoing before seeing Rbernstein's latest post (immediately above). There's no provision for anyone to edit only article talk pages -- he can continue to be just as disruptive there as he has here at AfD and elsewhere. To be allowed to contribute, he needs to get himself unblocked, period, and I've already said the terms I think should apply to that happening. But Rberntein's continued refusal to acknowledge what he's done, and finger-pointing at other editors, shows he's nowhere near ready.

I suggest. That the rest of us stop now editing this page or responding in any way to Rb., no matter what he says here, with the exception of weighing in on the unblock question if necessary. And by if necessary I mean: if and only if it appears some admin seems about to take Rb.'s pleas seriously. I assume we'll get ample notice by watching this page.

And finally... I've been a spectator to incidents like this before, but never party to one. I've seen how angry people get at editors like Rbernstein, but always thought I myself wouldn't be so affected. I was wrong. It's a good thing we operate in cyberspace because the urge to reach out and strangle someone like this is almost overwhelming. And please, Rb., don't even think of trying to make an issue out of the foregoing.

EEng (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

EEng, is calling someone "mentally ill" a violation of talk page guidelines? What about using a header to address an individual user? What about excessive use of all caps and bold face? What about suggesting that you want to "strangle" someone who is asking a question? I guess not. Nothing wrong with that right? Rbernstein (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Rbernstein (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We the undersigned undertake to ignore Rbernstein's continued posts to this page.

(1) We are confident that others will understand that our silence does not imply assent to, or impotence in the face of, Rbernstein's claims.

(2) If other editors wish to engage Rbernstein here, that is their business -- they can see for themselves what they're getting into, and for all we know they may be able to show him the way to being a productive contributor.

(3) Exception: We may resume participation should unblocking become a realistic possibility -- not that we will necessarily oppose unblocking under all circumstances and for all time, rather that our experience with Rbernstein gives us insight that should not be overlooked in any consideration of his future presence on WP.

I subscribe to the above. EEng (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I subscribe to the above. Back quickly away. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I subscribe to the above. Qworty (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I subscribe to the above. CliffC (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with portions of Qworty's characterization of your block. First, this account has been blocked under the templated reason {{spamusernameblock}}. The primary reason for the block is the inappropriate username. It is a "hard block," meaning that the privilege of creating a new account was revoked along with the issuance of the block. Accordingly, any attempt to begin editing under a new account name would be consider abuse of multiple accounts, likely resulting in the indefinite block of the new account and a possible ban from Wikipedia.

Blocks are preventative, designed to prevent further disruption of the encyclopedia. Yes, your editing under a spam username was deemed disruptive. Your addition of certain external links was also deemed disruptive. That's why the block template indicates that if you are unblocked, editing in areas related to your conflict of interest is a bad idea: it would likely be viewed as renewed disruption and lead to another block.

That said, you are currently indefinitely blocked. You have not been banned from Wikipedia at this time, either via process or via the de facto method mentioned in the description of indefinite blocks, so you have not been told to go away. The simple reason is that there is still one administrator, myself, who would be willing to lift the block (although I might insist on a topic ban as a condition of the unblock). However, indefinitely-blocked users retain the privilege of editing their user talk pages for one reason: to request their account be unblocked. As your use of this page has not been overly abusive, neither I nor any other administrator have felt the need to restrict your use of the talk page. However, maybe it's time to ask the question: to participate in the editing of articles, you must request unblocking. Do you wish to do so? If you do not wish to request unblocking, I'm afraid you must cease discussing edits on this talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I cannot thank you enough. Of course I would like this account unblocked. I, frankly, did not intend to pursue that notion until reading your note, and I, frankly, have decided that it is not worth my time to post any more content to Wikipedia for fear of being verbally assaulted, as I have been on multiple occasions on this talk page and on the Robert M. Bernstein deletion page, but if my request is to be received by administrators instead of the editors who have commented here, then I might reconsider. But my interest in potentially contributing more content to Wikipedia has all but vanished, and this goes for not only subjects related to hair restoration, but all subjects. It is simply not worth my time to expose myself to the kind of abusive conduct exhibited by users Qworty and EEng and editors like them. Their actions are appalling to me on not only a personal level but on a professional level as well. I have been insulted and attacked, and I have had repeated false assertions leveled at me, almost exclusively by these two individuals. As is evidenced by my conduct with regards to other users on this page (CliffC, Axlrosen), I am/was more than willing to come to an amicable resolution to this discussion. I do not claim to know all of Wikipedia's guidelines, but I in no way deserved such treatment. Before I make any sort of formal request at a removal of a block (which is something I did not intend to pursue until reading your note), I wish to receive a response from you in regards to the conduct of these two individuals. I believe they have repeatedly violated guidelines explicitly stated on the Wikipedia page describing guidelines for talk pages. After I receive your reply, I will consider whether it is worth the pain and agony to continue attempting to add to Wikipedia. Thank you again for stepping in when you did. Rbernstein (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

@C.Fred: With all due respect, and aside from the technical considerations of Rbernstein's original block, there are now three editors--CliffC, EEng, and myself--who have recently come to the conclusion that Rbernstein should not merely continue to be blocked due to user-name considerations, but in fact should be banned from Wikipedia. I'm not going to wikilawyer the technical specifics of his current block, but rather would point out that WP:Consensus--which is the overriding spirit of WP--not only strongly opposes an unblock in this case, but is in favor of an outright ban. Clearly, as an admin, you can do as you think best, but I don't believe that WP:Consensus should be overlooked. You are offering the user something which I don't believe he understands--a topic ban. I don't know how closely you have followed this case, but the user has stated again and again--and this is consistent with his edit history--that he is not interested in editing anything except hair-transplant-related articles. Thus, if you are going to offer him a topic ban, it would effectively be the same thing as a user ban in any case. Qworty (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Imho, you should answer for your violations. I have admitted to my mistakes. Imho, you must be held to account for yours before I even begin to contemplate a formal unblock request. This was my first foray into editing Wikipedia, but I am/was not solely interested in editing this topic, I have just been discussing this issue because I had just made a handful of edits to Wikipedia pages on this topic. Your false assertions are just the beginning of your flagrant misuse of this page. Your conduct as a whole has been deplorable. It is up to administrators now, as it should be. I eagerly await any comments they make about the treatment I have been subjected to by the likes of you. The sad thing is, I don't even know you, nor you me. We might have a lot of interests in common. I know that I do with Orangemike, for one. We might get along great in "real life," but you took my inexperience at editing Wikipedia and my attempts to explain why I thought that Dr. Bernstein was a notable academic and you made those issues into a personal war. This disgraceful treatment of a fellow human being, regardless of my intent for posting content on Wikipedia, is nothing if not shameful on your account. Again, I sincerely hope an administrator weighs in on your conduct, and, were it warranted, I strongly encourage the harshest penalty they can impose on you for your abusive behavior. Rbernstein (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Fellow editors, please see the undertaking I've suggested we all sign, at the top of this page. EEng (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved from top of the page down here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We the undersigned undertake to ignore Rbernstein's continued posts to this page.

(1) We are confident that others will understand that our silence does not imply assent to, or impotence in the face of, Rbernstein's claims.

(2) If other editors wish to engage Rbernstein here, that is their business -- they can see for themselves what they're getting into, and for all we know they may be able to show him the way to being a productive contributor.

(3) Exception: We may resume participation should unblocking become a realistic possibility -- not that we will necessarily oppose unblocking under all circumstances and for all time, rather that our experience with Rbernstein gives us insight that should not be overlooked in any consideration of his future presence on WP.

I subscribe to the above. EEng (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I subscribe to the above. Back quickly away. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I subscribe to the above. /Qworty (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)/

I subscribe to the above. CliffC (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I subscribe to the above. /Sign here/