Talk:Laser hair removal

Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Laser hair removal

Hi! This is Andrea James. I was adding some information on laser hair removal from a site I own called hairfacts.com. I own the copyright to this information as it appears on both hairfacts and on QuackWatch, which was flagged as the possible infringement. As you will note, I am the author of the material listed on QuackWatch. If you have any questions, you may reach me at andrea@hairfacts.com

Hi, this is Brad Lustick. I added a link to our site called idealimage.com which is owned and operated by Ideal Image Corp. for whom I am employed and have the express permission to do so. We are headquartered in Tampa, Florida. Please feel free to direct any question to me at brad.lustick@idealimage.com 70.255.4.58 06:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added new information about "shaving bumps" & pilonidal cysts and "tightened up" the article with facts.Philiphughesmd 04:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody add information regarding number of sessions required for satisfactory results? Thanks! -- Anonymous 05:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My laser clinic performs various laser skin procedures including laser hair removal. However after several years of practicing laser hair removal I have discontinued treatment with most of my laser hair removal systems. I have not seen real efficacy in removing unwanted hair. Usually the hairs are "shocked" into dormancy for a period of months to years. Regrowth is much slower than with traditional methods. Still in terms of the cost and the hassle of never ending treatments, I recommend my patients stick to a regimen of shaving, waxing, or plucking. A very small number of my patients have had good clearance with the laser. However even these patients are stuck manually epilating the sparse hairs that just will not respond to laser. I would also like to add that my practice's results are not uncommon from what colleagues have told me. I believe there is real ethical issue for this treatment which I would like to see addressed--but I suppose that is why this section is disputed.

My practice, South Coast MedSpa, has filmed several laser hair removal treatments and posted them on our website at southcoastmedspa.com/LaserHairRemovalVideos.html. I believe these videos are educational and informative and we should be able to post an external link to them despite Dawn bard's objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southcoastmedspa (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of section Mechanism_of_action

Lacking any description on why the section Laser hair removal#Mechanism of action is disputed, I removed the template. --Tunheim 17:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

The article you cite actually lifted all that content from my site hairfacts.com, which I donated here as my first article to Wikipedia in 2004. Jokestress 06:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Can you clarify the terms here so we can remove the {{copyvio}}? Is it PD or somesuch? What a shame that other author lifted your stuff and put their name to it! Not good ... - Alison^☺ 06:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original has been here since 2001 and is based on info I have had on the earliest iteration of tsroadmap since 1998. The ezinearticles.com domain was not even created then. As I mention above, I hereby release all the text for Wikipedia with a GFDL. Jokestress 16:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, and sorry for the hassle. I'll put a comment into the article to ensure this doesn't recur. Thanks! :) - Alison^☺ 16:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permanency?

The article should address whether this procedure lasts a lifetime or will need redone at intervals. Chris 20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a game of semantics. Permanent? The word has essentially been twisted to mean temporary when referring to laser hair removal.

From the FDA website: "Permanent hair reduction is defined as the long-term, stable reduction in the number of hairs re-growing after a treatment regime, which may include several sessions. The number of hairs regrowing must be stable over time greater than the duration of the complete growth cycle of hair follicles, which varies from four to twelve months according to body location. Permanent hair reduction does not necessarily imply the elimination of all hairs in the treatment area." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.18.239 (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of machine

Perhaps average costs of a machine can be given. The Rio Salon Laser Scanning Hair Remover costs around 200£ and is usable at home. see http://www.riobeauty.com/LAHR.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.183.119 (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new removals

Hi there, I added some important changes to the page recently but someone removed all three changes. The first change is: the article contains a link to http://visol.com/en/products/Xemos.html as a reference which needs to be removed as visol "suspended sales on all products until further notice". Second: FDA released a consumer update about "Removing Hair Safely". It is a trusted authority resource, should be mentioned as an external link as it has very useful information. Third: The risks part of the page currently only contains very brief (my opinion: not so useful) information about one of the most commonly asked questions and concerns regarding laser hair removal: what are the possible risks / side effects. I added a few lines that I think summarizes much better this subject and as the most detailed information I've came across was on a site called www.ilovelaser.com I added a reference as well (the section definitely needs more work, but I think it is already a way better start than before). I am a new Wikipedia editor, but I have a lot of experience with laser hair removal because of my job. I would appreciate it if the person who did these reverse changes could respond to this post. In general, I think it would be appreciated if new members would be helped in a way that if some changes / edits are not accepted by much more experienced editors, it would be great if we could receive a few lines as well... The risks part of the page definitely needs an update as currently it is completely unhelpful to readers; the other two changes are pretty straight forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamos68 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your post to the bottom, where new comments go. I removed your text as it reads like spam. If you can rewrite it in an encyclopedic way, proper capitalization, no ampersands... it can stay. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE explain before removing... The first change is: the article contains a link to http://visol.com/en/products/Xemos.html as a reference which needs to be removed as visol "suspended sales on all products until further notice". Second: FDA released a consumer update about "Removing Hair Safely". It is a trusted authority resource, should be mentioned as an external link as it has very useful information. Third: The risks part of the page currently only contains very brief (my opinion: not so useful) information about one of the most commonly asked questions and concerns regarding laser hair removal: what are the possible risks / side effects. I added a few lines that I think summarizes much better this subject and as the most detailed information I've came across was on a site called www.ilovelaser.com I added a reference as well (the section definitely needs more work, but I think it is already a way better start than before). I am a new Wikipedia editor, but I have a lot of experience with laser hair removal because of my job. I would appreciate it if the person who did these reverse changes could respond to this post. In general, I think it would be appreciated if new members would be helped in a way that if some changes / edits are not accepted by much more experienced editors, it would be great if we could receive a few lines as well... The risks part of the page definitely needs an update as currently it is completely unhelpful to readers; the other two changes are pretty straight forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamos68 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Specific on "Long Term"??

Just about everyone reading this article has a question that goes unanswered, and that is: "Exactly how long will the effects of laser hair removal last?" This is not answered. Can anyone shed light on this? I know results vary, but people want to know what is typical (medians, averages, standard deviations, etc.) and that is a very important pieces of information to have in this article if it is known and available. The article is very vague when stating "long term"... that could mean 2 months, 2 years, or 2 decades for all I know. 99.65.198.152 (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)jj—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.198.152 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Side Effects & Risks link replaced and deleted

You can stop your linkspamming anytime. Multiple editors have reverted you, get the hint. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the talkpage of the article, not individual users. Next reversion against consensus gets you reported, understand? The article, not my talkpage, not other users' talkpages. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the kind reminder. My life is not all about editing WP, so had no idea about where to send, what message... understand??? First of all I suggest, that before you threaten anyone with reporting, how about you try communicating with other contributors like you would do at i.e. a workplace, and not like a in a barn. Here is my previous Re:

Please review article history more in-depth before calling edit linkspamming. The link in question points to a trusted health site and has been part of the article for a significant time; it is the original resource of the Side Effects & Risks section of the article where I took the information from. Please see long time history for further details. The link has been removed on 18:48, 13 February 2010 by an anonym user (119.152.117.99), and been replaced several times by a linkspammer Tomson84 (all this user does is generates external links to a spam site called laserhairremovaltreatment.org). Please see my previous contributions to the article before calling my work linkspamming. Looking forward to your reply. Thank you.

The link in question points to a page where the first few sentences of the Side Effects & Risks section are summarized from. I would appreciate it if I could receive a respond to this post; I am trying to learn Wikipedia here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamos68 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I saw this dispute listed on Wikipedia:Third opinion but my post isn't one.) I think Adamos68 might find it helpful to read the Wikipedia:External links guideline. – Athaenara ✉ 06:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the guide to me; I've already read this article and I didn't (and still don't) have a feeling that my contribution is violating WP guidelines... Will read again. Now, obviously I know that this doesn't mean that I am correct; I understand that there are way more experienced contributors out there, so I am very interested to see other editor opinions. (FYI: for brief explanation of link in question please see 3rd paragraph of new removals section above. Thank you!