Talk:Epilator

Rate of hair regrowth

I would like to see some information regarding the rate of hair regrowth and whether regular epilation eventually leads to near-permanent removal. Jlygrnmigt (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Research on that would certainly be interesting. Like, how long does it take a root to reform, and does plucking a hair root cause any permanent damage to the tissues which generate hair roots, compromising (or perhaps permanently inhibiting) their ability to regenerate a plucked root. Tyciol (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Substantial evidence suggests that hair removal methods like waxing, tweezing, epilators, and threading have little or no permanent effect. While many people report that hair grows back lighter and thinner, some have reported the exact opposite. And even for those whose hair does grow back lighter and thinner, this effect is unlikely to be maintained if they do not continue epilating regularly. I will say that I have epilated my legs regularly for about 5 years and I still have to epilate them regularly. Methods like waxing and epilators may also distort hair follicles, increasing the likelihood of ingrown hairs and possibly making permanent hair-removal via electrolysis more difficult in the future. Andrea Parton (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Tagged this advert; it's written like a marketing article, the pictures are all for one company, and it's very preferential, hardly NPOV.

Also, removed a few references that seem to exist only for PR spam.

Cyt0plas (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like replying to my own comments, but the edit wars don't have a whole lot of discussion going on.

The article was reverted to an earlier version before the emjoj spam - this is consistant with the NPOV policy. It looks like there is information in the article that might be encyclopedic, but it would take a serious rewrite to avoid being spam.

The features are introduced without citations, taken as "good", and coincidentally all happen to be supported near-exclusively by the company who has the most links.

Including yourself in a list of others is still not NPOV, if the whole purpose of the list was to include yourself in the first place. If, in fact, these features are innovative, and desirable, there would need to be a verifiable, notable, non-original source for such. Furthermore, it would not be necessary to include which companies supported it.

I've re-removed the spam - originally, I was going to simply leave it notated, but this is consistant w/ edits by Mayalld, and AliceJMarkham.

I would furthermore point out that the majority of reverts (to add spam) have come from unsigned IPs. Two of these IPs are identified by MaxMind as belonging to Verizon in New York, it's likely these are the same person. 71.249.184.218 has edited two articles - this one, and a rather spammy AquaMaster page. 96.250.16.220 has edited only one page - this one. ComitX, the user who placed the original links, has also edited only this page.

92.196.33.8 added another advertisement warning.

Given the edit history, I would vote against adding the spammy links and content until they can be cleaned up.

I have removed spam content, Mayalld has removed it, as has AliceJMarkham. Daremedareyou has edited two pages - the Epilator and the Aquamaster, and sourced the image himself. Suspect the anonymous verizon IPs are in fact the same individual, given the edit history. He also gets upset when you his edits are reverted - resorting to name calling.

It would appear that consensus is for removal of the offending content - there is enough appropriate information to retain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyt0plas (talk • contribs) 06:17, 3 February 2009

I agree. I originally converted a redir into a stub and then expanded it a bit back in 2006. While it may be worthwhile looking through the spammy revision to extract a few worthwhile pieces to add into the article, I felt that it was far better to start by returning to a sane version and work from there. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Depilator

Should there be a redirection page Depilator ? Maybe one is a Trademarked brand name ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Epilator. 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/20090823121117/http://www.epilady.com:80/about.asp to http://www.epilady.com/about.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)