Talk:Laser hair removal

message: > Some current IPL systems have proven to be more successful in the removal of hair and blood vessels than many lasers.
There's three sources given but none of them seems to look at hair removal, they all look at port-wine stains.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:3182:F0C0:B8BA:21E:96D:19F (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for IPL claim 

message: The citation needed under "regulation" could perhaps be this page? I can't make the edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markj87uk (talk • contribs) 08:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laser hair removal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality of section ''Mechanism_of_action'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: The article should address whether this procedure lasts a lifetime or will need redone at intervals. Chris 20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Chris.  I think that the use of the word "permanent" is a horrible idea when the issue at hand is temporary (like laser hair removal).  Regardless of what the FDA "defines" permanency as, laser hair removal means that, after enough sessions, the treated area will be hair-free for up to a year.  Laser hair removal does not mean that someone will not have hair over the treated areas one or two years following the last session.  This issue should be explained every time a there is declaration of laser hair removal's permanency  If there are any studies as to the percent reduction people are experiencing years down the road, they should be posted.  As far as I know, laser hair removal is completely temporary.--89.246.214.123 (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the FDA doesn't get to redefine the meaning of the word 'permanent', except to define what it means when it uses the word.  If the follicles treated can be expected to grow hairs again, or if new follicles that grow hair can be expected to appear, then this should be in the article, and it shouldn't use the word permanent to mean anything other than what it means in standard English.  No government (save perhaps a totalitarian one; see Newspeak) can redefine a word by fiat. --Elvey (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

text: From a medical perspective though, the use of the term permanent is not that misleading, and the same problem exists with electrolysis.  Basically, if new hairs form after treatment that doesn't say anything about the treatment itself.  For example, if a man has facial hair reduction and it's effective he will have a clean face, but if his testosterone levels are in the male range then he will get facial hair again after a period of time, due to the formation of new hairs.  --Cornince (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you mean "new follicles" not "new hairs"? --Elvey (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Permanency?

message: 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)
thread_title: Cost of machine

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: new removals

message: 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)
thread_title:  More Specific on "Long Term"?? 

message: Are the following sentances (abstracted 31MAR10, 2145hrs) an attempt to associate IPL with LASER hair removal methods ? ...
*Intense Pulsed Light  (IPL) epilators, though technically not a laser, use xenon flash lamps that emit full-spectrum light. Laser and light-based methods, sometimes called phototricholysis  or photoepilation, are now most commonly referred to collectively as "laser hair removal".
*Latest IPL hair removal technology guarantees you complete safety compared to other methods of permanent hair removal. This laser hair removal machine with ICE cooling function allows it to be used for hair removal without damaging. Wear the goggles when using the hair removal device...
...if so, it is misleading and incorrect, especially given that Intense Pulsed Light has its own article. Also, most citation/refs are made to Lasers. They are completely different technologies, although aiming at the same target. Intense Pulsed Light could be added to the 'See Also' section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.125.70 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: IPL hair removal

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laser hair removal. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009040452/http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/pamphlets/laserhair.htm to http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/pamphlets/laserhair.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Change Picture of cynosure laser to DDC Technologies Polylase Dual hair removal laser. Bendonskoy (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Your request consists only of a vague request to add, update, modify, or improve an image, or is a request to include an image that is hosted on an external site. If you want an image changed, you must identify a specific image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2019 

message: I would like to suggest that someone do a deep dive into the history of this procedure.
This article jumps quickly to the 1990s, but the first laser created to destroy hair follicles was actually invented by Theodore H Maiman in 1960, using a small ruby gemstone. It was apparently incredibly painful, often resulting in severe burns. Later improvements were made with a variety of new generation lasers, but perfection wasn’t reached until the 90s.
This article should have a section describing the scientific advancements that led us to 21st century lasers. SheldonHelms (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the laser for hair removal 

message: Gerry mad merry removal 71.217.59.208 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsma 

message: It appears that citation 11 is a broken link. It appears that the original article was archived via the Wayback Machine at US FDA's request. Please update the link to: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20180424190505/https://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/ResourcesforYouRadiationEmittingProducts/ucm252757.htm Cellygirl (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: User:CanonNi (talk • contribs) 04:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2024