Talk:Laser-assisted new attachment procedure

Material came from wiktionary, see http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requested_articles:English&oldid=3588751 and search for LANAP

"Have long been in use...". With FDA approval in 2004, this seems to be an overstatement. Would like to see the date of introduction mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.39.55 (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Press Release!!! Proti2 (talk)proti2 —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

"Pocket depth reduction is excellent..." This provides no details and is only an opinion.Proti2 (talk)proti2 —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Seems a bit of a salaes pitch for a new procedure Ashley Payne (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure appears to have been in use for more than a decade prior to FDA approval which suggests that "long been in use" may be appropriate, however imprecise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.145.106 (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HealingCurve2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:HealingCurve2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:HealingCurve2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source[edit]

Nickshu, this is a primary source. Per WP:MEDRS, we should be using secondary sources, especially with regard to treatment efficiency. KateWishing (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming from the alert at WP:Med. KateWishing is right, and I reverted. Nickshu, stop WP:Edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

left message on their page[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of unsourced material[edit]

This edit by Rmoody97 fails WP:MEDRS, which requires high-quality sourcing for medical information, and removes the only decent source in the article (a 2010 review). Pinging Flyer22 and Ozzie, who both commented above. KateWishing (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

concur w/ KateWishing edit (by Rmoody97) fails MEDRS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The editor should be reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]