Talk:Permanent makeup

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


changes

Posts or changes to this page should be done only in the interest of the public so as to provide unbiased information that is not self-serving. Permanent makeup is heavily monitored and your additions will be elimated if they link to personal websites or if the articles themselves link to personal websites. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Please refer to the policy on posting external links. policy about external links

Talk page guidelines

From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:

  • Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject.
  • Sign your posts: To sign a post, type four tildes (~~~~).
  • No personal attacks A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:
    • No insults: Don't make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.
    • Don't threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you.
    • Don't make legal threats: Threatening a lawsuit is highly disruptive to Wikipedia, for reasons given at the linked page.

Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.

Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so.

Sbowers3 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality/sourcing

I'm a bit concerned by both the neutrality and sourcing (or lack thereof) that appears here. For example, there is a "results" section which purports to list outcomes, but does not cite where it came from. Especially for data which appears empirical, it is critical to be able to see who compiled it and how. There also seem to be some health concerns cited regarding tattooing, but those receive quite short mention, despite being sourceable to the FDA, hardly a fringe or unreliable organization. Some sections are going to need outright removal if they cannot be sourced. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


While I didn't construct the "results" section, I pretty much left it alone since it is all common knowledge to those within the industry. When time permits I can try to find some "generic" sources but the same information is pretty much repeated over and over again on many different professionals' independent websites. What things are you troubled over the health concerns? I can expand on that if needed. Tatt bratt (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main concern is the unsourced "results" section, right now. "Common knowledge" doesn't do it for evidence presented as empirical, someone needs to have actually studied the matter using empirical methods, and we need to cite it so those reading can see who compiled the results and how. The other bit isn't as big of a deal, since a more expanded article regarding the health issues is linked to, so that's a more minor thing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How empirically can one study what is essentially an art form, really? I see where you are going with this and I will give it some thought and research but it may not be at the level you are expecting. This industry is very, very young.Tatt bratt (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the results haven't been studied and can't be properly sourced, we shouldn't have a section labeled "results". "Common knowledge in the industry" is not verifiable. If someone does eventually study it, it always can come back later with a proper source. As to empirical studies, they are routinely done with cosmetic surgery, using many techniques and metrics with a random sampling of patients by a neutral organization (was the patient happy with the procedure a year later? Was there any visible scarring? Any complications? Any need for further procedures to correct deficiencies from the first one?) Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit of clarification to the Australian regulation sentence but wonder if this entire section (Regulations/Oversight) shouldn’t be moved to the end of the article (just in front of References). It just seems more logical to me to start with History and end with Regulation. By the way, I agree that there need to be a lot more references. The “permanence” issue should also be addressed further in either Results or Adverse Effects and Complications.--Another-sailor (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While some of your changes to the paragraph made it read better, I am not in favor of this part: Exclusive to Australia, practitioners are prohibited from advertising the procedures as "permanent" since, "…benefits of cosmetic tattooing are not permanent and will generally only last three to five years."[2] I think it was better left alone simply because this is not true about the results of permanent makeup - they last indefinitely. There is a lot of poor training and equipment and people get less than desirable results. For instance, my own permanent eyeliner is nearly 20 years old and has not ever been touched up. Some procedures need refreshing of color but that is the same with any kind of tattooing and tattooing by definition is certainly permanent. I put in that link as a compromise to someone who I was pretty much engaged in an edit war because she was insistent on including this legislation, albeit greatly flawed. Please change that part back. I have no problem with moving Regulations. Tatt bratt (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Article needs some information on the type of training that a Cosmetic Tattooist can/does undertake, this is of benefit to both public and to those considering a career in the field. There is limited information online particularly in regards to the detail of training syllabus. A couple of links are provided as examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links are not information. Links to commercial services are spam, and is not allowed. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to edit the Permanent Makeup page in an attempt to exert your own opinions upon what is and what is not reasonable for external links. I consider your approach to be highly inappropriate as you have not adequately participated in discussion on the page in question nor have you made any positive contribution to the page in question.

Your claim is that links to external sites are not appropriate however the page already contains links to external services which are no more appropriate than the ones provided. Yet you do not seek to remove those links.

The question is why is it that you consider 'your' opinion to be more valid than someone else's opinion? Who made you the chief of the Permanent Makeup Page?

I consider your behaviour to be vandalism and the arrogance in your style of editing is part of the reason why appropriately skilled people are becoming less inclined to participate due to bullying tactics of those who lack the skills pertinent to the subject matter in question. Hence the value of the information on the page is diminished because people who know what they are talking about are bullied into not contributing.

The permanent makeup page is now a prime example of what happens when those with the skills are bullied into not contributing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam and personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:policy before continuing to edit Wikipedia. The societies you gove above all claim to be non-profit organisations, for professionals in the industry. That is a very big difference compared to somebody who sells courses. Your links are spam. Spam is not allowed. This is not complicated. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Engaging in editing wars (what you have been doing) is against wikipedia policies please refrain from attacking other contributors particularly in instances where you have limited knowledge of the subject matter and you are merely expressing uninformed opinion. Your 'opinion' that external links added to a page, that lead to one of the few if not the only online source of information on the extent of training and detailed syllabus for technicians who provide the service as described in the article, constitutes spam, is just your opinion nothing more.

The USA is not the only country on the planet and having articles written in a way that places a constant bias towards American ideas and opinions is neither healthy nor accurate. A country that has less than 5% of the earth's population and yet articles are written, edited, and guarded to maintain a dominance of American cultural identity. Permanent Makeup was not invented in the US, Permanent Makeup is not a service that is provided more frequently in the US, yet we have an article which is clearly biased towards the US both in content and in links to regulatory and industry sites. Other contributors face an onslaught of attacks from those who seek to maintain this unhealthy cultural bias which ultimately leads to poorly written articles with inaccurate content misleading the public on the facts.

Take pride in your achievement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links you added were spam. Spam is not allowed. This is not my opinion, but Wikipedia policy. See WP:SPAM. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tone and quality of recent edits; conflict of interests?

The five most recent edits (by the same accout) have added a few issues to the article.

Some of the new content towards the beginning is more of a how-to. The editor seems to be a professional (use google to see for yourself) and did not add any advertisement links or similar, but write about the location they work for. It seems to be quite important to the article though (like most of the added content) and I'm assuming good faith, but a review by an expert on the matter would be nice. Also give the author some time, they've just started recently and might do another edit.

Since there's still the advertisement issue tagged, the article needs a good quality review in any case. Se'taan (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scalp Pigmentation

My contribution to scalp pigmentation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfryer86 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Permanent makeup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits and changes

Hello, I'm working on a project for my college course that is requiring me to edit/update a wikipedia page. There's a learning curve as well as community efforts to keep the page focused on the topic. I understand if anything needs to be removed. I'm certified in permanent makeup, but will try to provide reputable sources that do not link to places that provide services. Just touching base here in the talk page so there isn't confusion on if i'm trying to spam or be blocked. Aratth2 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Aratth2 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources to get an idea about sourcing requirements on Wikipedia. Your edits are being reverted because the citations do not meet that standard. MrOllie (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am going through the link provided to find more reliable sources. However Permanent Makeup: All About the Process, Results, Safety, and Cost (greatist.com) -- used interviews from licensed dermatologist as well as some sourced information from Tattoos & Permanent Makeup: Fact Sheet | FDA. does this source still not meet the standard? Aratth2 (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 12 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mabhullar (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Michelle312 (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Permanent_makeup"