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