User talk:Samjonesnewcastle
February 2011
This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Hair transplantation, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. CliffC (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Stop advertising Neograft there are many other manufacturers of such equipment. These articles are meant to be non biased and free from soapboxing, promotion or advertising. You will be banned if you continue thus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjonesnewcastle (talk • contribs)
- Do you look at the results of your edits? Why are you continuing to add promotional mention of a hair clinic in Sri Lanka, a subject first removed here? I agree with you on Neograft, it is unsourced and doesn't belong for that reason, so I have removed the entire unsourced paragraph, both Neograft and the Sri Lanka clinic. Do not reinstate any of it without citing a reliable source. --CliffC (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph mentions Sri Lanka only. There are many clinics there and does not specifically mention any single one. The fox biopsy is a process of selecting people for FUE based on ease of extraction. This benefits the clinics only as they are able to do many more surgeries if they select only the easiest cases for FUE. FUT has many draw backs and therefore people should be allowed a choice. There is published data from Sri Lanka to show that with enough training and a strict extraction protocol it is possible to perform FUE on all clients. This is vital information and should be included. Thanks for removing the neograft insert.
Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
If it is correct to remove all unsourced material this entire article except for a few lines must be deleted. You must do so the next time you remove the referance to the fox biopsy test.
This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I assume you work for the pro FUT hair transplant lobby. If freedom of speach is an issue for you look elsewhere than wikipedia. You should be ashamed of your self.
- If you look at my edit history, you'll realize that is a ridiculous accusation. And you are blocked for ignoring repeated warnings. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Samjonesnewcastle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The entire article save for a few lines is unsourced. My edit was removed on the basis that it is unsourced. This in its self is unfair. The debate over FUE vs FUT is an important one. The fox biopsy is at the heart of the issue as many western clinics turn clients away on the basis of the ease of removal of FUE grafts. The basis is economics. I assume that because the research came from Sri Lanka it was removed. My final edit made no mention of Sri Lanka or a source of the information and only the need for reconsidering the fox biopsy. I believe that this administrator has a vested interest in this subject and does not wish to further the debate. The administrator who blocked me should have their priviledges revoked.
Decline reason:
You were given sufficient warning about the consequences of your actions, but still persisted. Instead, you should have discussed the matter on the article's talk page to gain consensus. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 06:42, 9 February 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.
Right then please provide a consensus opinion.
The debate over FUE vs FUT is an important one. The fox biopsy is at the heart of the issue as many western clinics turn clients away on the basis of the ease of removal of FUE grafts. The basis is economics as it is both time consuming and technically difficult. If you are aware of the topic please comment otherwise ensure that you educate yourselves about it before passing judgement. Feel free to ask questions. Also I have made other edits to the text as it is clearly written by people who have a limited understanding of the topic of hair transplants and most if not all the content is without citation. Additionally the stub linking to the section on FUE mentions neograft which is blatant product placement if I ever so an example of it. I would suggest that you proof read these too.
I assume that because the research came from Sri Lanka it was removed. My final edit made no mention of Sri Lanka or a source of the information and only the need for reconsidering the fox biopsy. I believe that this administrator has a vested interest in this subject and does not wish to further the debate. The administrator who blocked me should have their priviledges revoked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjonesnewcastle (talk • contribs)
- Comment to Samjonesnewcastle - please don't accuse other editors of a conflict of interest without strong evidence. The editor you accuse of a COI has contributed tens of thousands of edits across hundreds of subject areas. You have contributed 15 edits, on a single subject. That's not counting the first reader comment at the Daily Mail article So was it worth the trouble (and the £30,000) Gordon? Ramsay doesn't look too different after hair transplant, where someone who signs as "sam jones, newcastle, England" endorses FUE and the Sri Lankan hair industry:
- "It take about 4.5 months for the hair to start to grow after a hair transplant. Also £30000 is way too much to pay for surgery. In some places it costs as low as $1.5 a graft and thats for the newer FUE not what looks like FUT done here. Try Sri Lanka for instance. I know as Ive had it done there and the results are excellent."
- This editor has an agenda and I endorse this block. --CliffC (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of acting like bullies and threatening banning and getting peoples back up you lot should explain where any issue should be raised on this forum if it is to be debated. I think it is rude to just remove anothers comments especially if you are not infromed about the subject and hold no expert opinion on it. Wikipedia is not owned by the two of you CliffC and Ohnoitsjamie. Use of the talkpage was only pointed out after I was banned from editing. And Yes I do endorse the third world clinics especially Sri Lanka as I have had FUE hairtransplant work done there and it was excellent. They are cheaper than in the west by about x10 and do a lot of research that is over looked here. But more importantly on a personal level I was turned away from FUE in preferance of Strip surgery by 3 leading western clinic because of the so called fox test which is only there for the convenience of clinics not the client. I can see no reason why the mention of specific manufacturers of mechanised FUE machines such as neograft recur in these pages (see stub on FUE) without you lot removing it. Conflict of interest anyone?
- If you continue to make unfounded and ridiculous accusations, you will be blocked for a longer period of time. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:55, 10 February 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) 17:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks will do so in future. --Samjonesnewcastle (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)