User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 19

Statin Ethics

Could you please explain why you removed my contribution on statin ethics? User talk:Avigdor6 15:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh--I'm not sure aboutt that! 129.82.67.212 (talk · contribs)

It was original research and completely redundant. This "ethical dilemma" applies to a large number of medical treatments. Many people with chest infections will recover without antibiotics, yet all get prescribed their week of amoxicillin, exposing them to a drug that can cause numerous side-effects. If you could write something specifically about statins that is well-sourced it may stand a better chance at surviving.

I do not understand what 129.82.67.212 has to contribute here. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate? JFW | T@lk 13:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Statins are THE extreme example of giving 100 people, all of whom are ASYMPTOMATIC, a medication that will impact all of 3 of them, as per the example you deleted. In the case of chest infections (or a diagnosed heart problem), medicating is a reasonable approach, because the patients have been diagnosed with an illness. In B.C., Canada, for example, they are NOT prophylactically prescribed. This is an issue that needs discussing. User talk:Avigdor6 19:28 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I was giving an extreme example, but the principles are actually identical, and most people who come to their GP with a bubbly cough and no fever will recover even without antibiotics.

Statins are probably the most effective tools for secondary prevention in cardiovascular disease. I agree that those with no risk factors and a mildly elevated cholesterol should not be slammed on a statin (and in the UK the practice is not dissimilar to that in BC), but I disagree flatly with your numbers when it comes to secondary prevention. If of 100 people 6 would have suffered a heart attack, and the statin reduces that risk by half (see the Heart Protection Study, a well-designed and conducted trial by the cream of the UK's epidemiologists) then I think most of those 100 people would not mind giving it a try. The side-effect profile of statins is really quite mild, and people who do experience side-effects should be counselled well, be offered a dose reduction or a switch in compound. Because the health gains have been documented time and time again in the biggest controlled trials that the world has ever seen. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree! The key is as you put it "MOST of those 100 people would not mind giving it a try" . An informed public can decide! As a scientist, I believe that it is our duty to explain all aspects of medication. Gone are the days (I hope) that people abrogate their thinking process to a physician. Why are you opposed to informing them? Can we reach an agreement on a way to write this that you will accept?

User talk:Avigdor6 02:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wat kan ik doen?

Nou een hollander,... tzal zijn!!! nen belg ja! pff kvind uw "overlegpagina" ni... kben nog ni zo lang bezig... kheb me nekeer bezig gehouden met de hernia-categorie vandaag, ipv te leren ajajaj ja kben nog student, 4e jaar... enfin as ik iets voor u kan doen zegt het maar hé! --Steven Fruitsmaak 23:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Especially well qualified user in neuroendocrine issues on Wikipedia

User_talk:Gleng is Professor of Experimental Physiology, Department of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Edinborough. He is a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Physiology and Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Neuroendocrinology. I sent him a welcome note and invited him to the Wikidoc project. He writes very well and even knows how to explain things to non-professionals. He seems good natured as well without any pretense. I met him over some edits at Hypothalamus. I thought I'd let you know he is on Wikipedia. Steve Kd4ttc 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Such editors should be cultivated. The expert-to-troll ratio on Wikipedia is already too low. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/November 2003

Hi Jfdwolff, this article (Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/November 2003) is in the medicine and art categories, but I can't edit it to remove them. Maybe if another admin reads this, the categories could be removed sooner than March 5. --CDN99 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how to solve this. Something for the developers. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski

I have assembled an article myself on the illustrious giant. Nesher 16:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Midian et. al

Hello, Jfdwolff. I would like your opinion and feedback regarding a discussion I am having with Briangotts here about various categories including Category:Midian and Category:Edom. This issue is whether the categories themselves should be subcategories of Category:Torah people and Category:Torah places, or whether just the articles which actually are about Category:Torah people, such as the parent article Edom and Esau, should be tagged. Further explanation and a place to both voice your opinion and vote may be found on the talk page of Category:Midian. Thank you for your time and input. -- Avi 19:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look. In general, not all Midianites are necessarily Torah people. Rather, Bileam should be in both Midianites and in Torah people. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added my comments. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

How was your holiday? Nice to have you back ems 13:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Lovely. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Passover article attacked (hacked?) by missionaries

Hi Dr. Wolff: Hope your break was productive! Please read over the Passover article (it's important because Pesach is coming soon) as we have a gang of missionaries trying to pervert the article and a few others for their own POV missionary ends (rachmana litzlan). Your input would be greatly apprecaited as soon as possible. Zai Gezunt. Thank you. IZAK 18:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't really figure out what the problem is. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

He meant Passover (Christian holiday) ems 11:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

List of people believed to have epilepsy

You may be interested to know that I've initiated a peer review on this article. I mention this since you appear on the edit history and also from the comments on your user page --Colin°^Talk 23:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

GMC

Welcome back, hope you enjoyed the holiday :-)

I see you too noticed the libelous remarks. I had just placed a Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The page has only recently come off a previous protection. David Ruben ^Talk 18:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Something weird was happening to tamoxifen

When I searched for tamoxifen earlier today it wasn't there. So, I figured I'd creat it... 'cause it didn't seem to exist. When I clicked on 'create' -- the old version showed-up so I just saved it. Oddly my edit didn't show-up in the history. The good news is... the article re-appeared.

To me, it looks like there is a bug in the wikisoftware somewhere-- and this is a symptom. I don't imagine you deal with that sort of stuff-- but being an admin I imagine you know who does and could pass this along -- as they may be interested in investigating what was happening behind the scenes (on the database level). Nephron 01:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully it was a one-off. I've never experienced this phenomenon. If this happens again, you may want to post at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). JFW | T@lk 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

MALT lymphoma

Great summary! I've got an endo picture somewhere, will try to find it. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 06:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mercury Rising

I saw your note in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. I tried to help, but the mercury/thimerosol/vaccine/autism/etc. issues are beyond my area of expertise. I saw that the idea of a Wikipedia Quackwatch page or subpage had been presented earlier. Assuming a more neutral name is used, do you think it is an idea worth pursuing? AED 06:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Health controversies is enough of an epicentre to serve as a more NPOV quackwatch area. After all, everything discussed here is bound to be at the interface between orthodox/mainstream medicine and the alternative field. JFW | T@lk 18:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

afd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fletcher

Ulcerative colitis

I had a light call and spent the whole night on an extensive copy-edit. I'd appreciate your comments before it gets qu@çkεd up. Thanks! -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 10:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back and thanks for the comments. Wish I had more time. I think I'll work on some luminal articles over the next little while. Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy has also been on my to do list for a while. -- Samir ∙ T C 23:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus

Welcome back! I hope you enjoyed your holiday. Back here in Wikipedialand a new editor is making rather bold claims about Judaism's view of Jesus, and also insisting he knows Jesus' Hebrew name. Could you possibly take a look at Talk:Jesus#Hebrew_name_of_Yehoshua_or_Yeshua and Talk:Judaism's view of Jesus? I'd appreciate it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what the discussion is about on Judaism's view of Jesus. JFW | T@lk 18:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's long and confusing, but basically Haldrik wants the article to include anything any Jew ever said about Jesus; so, if Vermes views him as a Tsaddik, then we have to include that too, because Vermes is a Jew. My position is that we include what Jewish movements say (e.g. Orthodox, Reform), or what authoritative works says (e.g. Mishneh Torah), or what the positions of authoritative religious leaders are (e.g. Rambam). Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is well covered by WP:NPOVUW. There is no evidence that Vermes' views have notably influenced the view of other Jews. Just because the holder of that viewpoint is notable, that does not mean the viewpoint itself is notable. It's like asking Gwyneth Paltrow to give a serious definition of a macrobiotic diet. JFW | T@lk 19:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if you could comment to that effect, on the relevant page. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Kofeir

Please excuse me for posting this message. I am attempting to combat a very inappropriate google bomb that I recently unearthed. Hopefully Google searches for kofeir will soon turn up the WP page on heresy as the #1 result as opposed to the bio page of Yeshiva University's president. --DLand 21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Obesity

Hello, I would like your help on the obesity topic. It keeps getting reverted to mentioning "Militant fat acceptors" who belive it is akin to treating homosexuality. As someone who could be considered a "fat acceptor", I find this incredibly offensive. There is no so such evidence of these people existing outside of some very creepy websites. I just believe that if something can't currently be cured, it should be accepted, and the comments on that page regarding this is disgusting. It may claim it is only "Extreme" cases but refuses to acknowledge that there are cases that differ. Please keep it out. --Kitty Rose 02:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews

I have always found http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page to load v.slowly on my browser, and I tried adding for the 1st time a news story today. However by the time the page loads for submission, the picture of the spam-protect verification text fails to load, and so I am unable to post the item - could I ask if you could have a go for me (no doubt anti-vaccinators will dispute story):

News story title should be Global measles deaths plunge by 48% over past six years

and the entry markup as below:

{{date|March 9, 2006}} The [[w:World Health Organization|]] and [[w:United Nations Children's Fund|]] announce that the global [[wikipedia:vaccination|immunization]] drive has cut [[w:measles|]] deaths by nearly half between 1999 and 2004. The number of deaths fell from 871,000 in 1999 to an estimated 454,000 in 2004 (the most recent year for which data is available). They report the reduction is as a result of ''"major national immunization activities and better access to routine childhood immunization"''.

== Source ==

* {{source|pub=World Health Organization|title=Global measles deaths plunge by 48% over past six years|url=http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr11/en/index.html |date=March 10, 2006|author=World Health Organization/United Nations Children's Fund}}

I'ld be much obliged :-) David Ruben ^Talk 15:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry - just managed to do it - funny, for wikipedia I need edit in Internet Explorer piggy-backing on top of my AOL connection (my AOL fails to use cookies correctly to permit me to remain registered), whereas for wikinews I need be in AOL (as I.E. fails to load picture correctly to permit anti-spam verification). Funny internet world :-) David Ruben ^Talk 00:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Lyme disease

If you have some time to spare, I would like to hear your opinion on these edits. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 03:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph about "Lyme controversy" is actually a good piece of WP:NPOV, but I removed the patronising instruction to disbelieve websites. JFW | T@lk 01:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 02:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Should be activated now. Will leave my .02 on the AfD in question. Wanted to work on Crohn's disease while on call tonight but instead am running arrests -- Samir (the scope) 06:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

You're too kind. -- Samir (the scope) 06:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You deserved it. Keep up the good work for the good cause. JFW | T@lk 06:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"cures are not expected in psychiatry"

I noted your removal of the contribution "Psychiatry is the only branch of medicine in which cures are not expected." Although I agree that the statement was very bold, what is the cure for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? --WikiCats 04:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Scientific peer review

Have you seen this? Something to consider—I think you'd be a great addition. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Scentific peer review project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Scientific_peer_review#Good_idea.__Physician.3F Midgley 01:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• You'd be perfect for this! -- Samir (the scope) 02:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ...

for the welcome, and the encouragement. Some of the POV psych/anti-psych articles are a bit daunting, but we'll see what we can do -- looking through the discussions, I can see you've already put a lot of effort into it, and that you know your way around WP. Let me know where else I can be helpful. Scot ^→Talk 07:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Seudah article

Hey Jfdwolff, you might want to take a look at a new article by MPerel, Seudah. It looks pretty good to me, but I'm sure it could be touched up a bit. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added some references and made changes according to other suggestions. Would you take a look again and change or give feedback on anything else you see is needed? Thanks! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of Shulkhan Arukh

Almost two years ago someone suggested that this article be moved to Shulhan Arukh, and you countered that that spelling would be inconsistent (see talk there). I just noticed this dialogue, and I think it should certainly be moved - the letter /ח/ corresponds to /h/, at least in accepted academic spelling, while the letter /כ/ or /ך/ corresponds to /kh/. The general popular spelling (Shulchan Aruch) notwithstanding, it should be moved. --DLand 23:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that how it works? Meaning, does Wikipedia follow the popular spelling (Shulchan Aruch) over the more accurate one (Shulhan Arukh)? I'm not challenging your position - to me, "Shulhan" looks quite strange - I just want to make sure that this is the appropriate solution. --DLand 03:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

human feces

do you really think that picture should stay ?

• it's useless because everybody knows what feces look like
• it's disgusting
• overall, it gives the encyclopedia a bad name Unixer (talk · contribs)

It is my personal opinion that Wikipedia should not have explicit pictures. Consensus is, however, that we do not censor images. I defer to consensus. You are incorrect the picture gives Wikipedia a bad name. It wouldn't be in the Alexa top 15 if this was the case. JFW | T@lk 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Passive smoking

I've run across the page on passive smoking and it seems very bad to me. Lots of POV stuff from the tobacco lobby. However, I don't have expert knowledge so I thought I'd raise the issue with someone with more expertise and you seem like an obvious candidate. If you could take a look, and see what you think, that would be great JQ 09:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi, Samir says that you're a good guy and I just wanted to say hello. I hear that he started cleaning up the ulcerative colitis article. My interests are a. laser delivery in endoscopic systems and b. endoscopic ultrasound and I'll try to add as much as I can also. Barry Zuckerkorn 19:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Halakha

Looks like someone is trying to add some anti-Semitic Original Research to the Halakha article;[1] you might want to keep an eye on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've had to respond to Zadil (talk · contribs) on Talk:Talmud. A somewhat predictable character equating Jews with Nazis over selective quotes. Sarah has already had to warn him about 3RR, with accusations of a "hidden agenda" in return. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Seudah again

IZAK is proposing to merge it into Seudat mitzvah. I don't know, I'll go along with consensus, I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Eructation vibrations

User:Devil Master has raised a question at Talk:burping about whether the sound of eructation involves vibration of the cardia or the cricopharingeal sphincter, and seeing as you are equated with the "medical establishment" on Wikipedia :-) I was hoping you could clear this up or suggest some sources that could help. Thanks, Ziggurat 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Car wash

Hi JFW, was curious as to whether the term "car wash" was ever used outside of Canada? Here, it's slang for intubation + CVP line + arterial line (+/- foley or bronch) = car wash. Have you ever heard it or is it just local colour? -- Samir (the scope) 03:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of it before, but I like it! JFW | T@lk 14:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Seudah/Seudat mitzvah

Ok, as the consensus seemed to be to merge, I went ahead and did so, making quite a few changes along the way. Please comment, or make corrections, additions, improvements. : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Oxaprozin.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Oxaprozin.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't upload that, I only cropped the version that had been uploaded previously. If it gets deleted I'll draw a version that I will licence under the GFDL. JFW | T@lk 14:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Cite:Ref

This new system, which I much prefer, is causing people all sorts of problems -largely due to lack of comprehensible instruction guide. I found one page edited with the reference names chosen as sequential numbers, which was going to be very confusing if ever someone wanted to insert an additional reference or cite the same source more than once.

• The original description on meta.wikimedia was more about the software implementation
• Wikipedia:Footnotes seems more about fending off expected critisim from those grown attached to a previous system.
  • Also it is far too longwinded, especially for a novice wikiuser to just understand what to do.
  • Finally there seems poor mention of how to use both the < ref > tags with a citation template
    • Guilty admission: whilst I was happy using the bookmarklet tool for PubMed, I've only just discovered the category listing all the other citation templates after a couple of previous failed attempts to search for them :-(

I've had a go in my Sandbox at a (hopefully) simpler beginner's guide (see WP:Cite:Ref). As I value your experience and advice with wikipedia, please let me know what you think, and then I might have the courage to suggest this alternative at Wikipedia:Footnote's talk page for wider discussion (gulp) :-) David Ruben ^Talk 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit war over Carlebach "allegations"

Hi Dr. Wolff:I am not making much headway with User:Ckessler at Talk:Shlomo Carlebach#Allegations, yet again. I have placed this message on her page, and she is going for mediation, but I have yet to see where.

Hi Ckessler: You are on the borderline of breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule in the Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach article, see [2] I do not wish to revert you a third time today. Twice is enough for me, I have no choice but to wait another 24 hours to do so. You are treating hearsay and gossip as if they were the legal equivalants of allegations in a duly constituted court of law. A number of admins who know something about this subject will be contacted, to advise how we should proceed. Your refusal to discuss to resolve this matter on the article's talk page is disappointing.

Your input into this matter would be highly appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 09:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-23 Shlomo Carlebach

Also add your comments at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-23 Shlomo Carlebach. Thank you. IZAK 10:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding atherosclerosis, Vitamin C, and United States Patent 5,278,189

Thank you for your clarification regarding references. However, I noted that there is a reference to Vitamin C as well as lipoprotein a in the article on atherosclerosis, and the patent text contains relevant information regarding these items. The fact that the reference is in the form of a patent is somewhat odd, I agree, but the text of the patent contains scientific and medical information regarding atherosclerosis, Vitamin C, low density lipoprotein, and lipoprotein a, all of which are mentioned in the article and all of which are apparently relevant to atherosclerosis.

Additional clarification would be appreciated. For instance, I don't find any reference to the Atlas of Pathology in the text, yet it is cited in the references. The text of United States Patent 5,278,189 additionally contains evidence presented from animal studies, and there are multiple references cited in the patent itself as well.

Yes, the article states that some studies have found that Vitamin C is not effective in low doses, but that doesn't mean United States Patent 5,278,189 is irrelevant. Note that the text of the article currently states, "However, these trials have consistently used lower doses than those claimed to be effective..." (implying that there is some dose claimed to be effective). Regarding neutrality, I beileve that the existing text is already "neutral" enough. Additionally, a bloated article won't be as much use, because it will be less likely to be read; my belief is that the article itself is fine, and already contains arguments for and against Vitamin C and the treatment descibed in United States Patent 5,278,189. There are references to medical studies in the patent, but the patent itself is actually more relevant to the "treatment" section of the article, because it describes a specific treatment (along with the reasons for the treatment's efficacy). Finally, I am not presenting this reference as original research, as you have implied, but of course as you have pointed out, there are bona fide members of the medical community doing research and attempting to promote this treatment.

I would appreciate it if you would please clarify your statement that "this is not a legal text". Why would this reference be irrelevant to someone researching atherosclerosis? And if there are better references, why don't you supply them yourself rather than simply deleting relevant and interesting information? WetBandit 14:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Good catch

Regarding [3] reversion: nice catch. It would have been very embarassing had that entry lingered long enough to have been picked up by somebody "respectable" who is just waiting for us to fail. – ClockworkSoul 23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Google is your friend. As I pride myself in knowing a bit of medical history, I try to keep those sections up-to-date and well-referenced. Recently did coronary angiography, which (like many others) was a serendipitous finding as a result of a medical error! JFW | T@lk 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi Jfdwolff, per Wikipedia's Fair Use policy, please avoid using any copyrighted image on userboxes or your User Page. Becuase of this, I have removed them. Hope you don't mind. Thanks, Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 11:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Zadil tampers with Rabbi Ovadia Yosef

Hello Dr. Wolff: Could you please take a look at what User:Zadil has been up to in the Rabbi Ovadia Yosef article. Thank you. IZAK 12:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status of images

I'm really sorry about that but I don't see the 'License' Field when uploading the images!!. Which option I have to select? General -> Public Domain is correct?

Can you see my [Talk] page? Identifier 22:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Identifier 15:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Heat of the moment

It's generally a bad idea to blank users' comments on talk pages, as that just creates disruption, though I know your intent was to avoid it. I'd suggest leaving the comments alone, but posting a rebuttal to them. Simply blanking them, though, isn't really acceptable unless it's a personal attack. Just an outsiders' view. Watch those heat of the moment reverts! They can get nasty. Give me a ring if you need a cool, neutral head to spout off an opinion. Cheers! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you follow the discussion. There was broad consensus that further posting of specific quotes is regarded as trolling. Zadil knew this, and yet posted more quotes. He has still not posted a source of the type that is actually useful for the purposes of the article.

Also, I did not blank the comments, I replaced them with the relevant diff. That is radically different - people can see that Zadil edited, and have access to his contribution if they are really interested in the content of his posting. JFW | T@lk 07:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ankylosing Spondylitis

Please check the pages related to AS, since I am new to Wikipedia (thanks for the welcome!) and I'm a researcher in engineering...

PS. I do not know if this is a place where I should say these things... ``talk or...? If I'm in the wrong place please let me know! :)

I forgot to add the signature... sorry! Sensei 15:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Greetings, saw you in the rule-room, and just dropped in to say a big hello. --Bhadani 16:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to India. Yes, I am an Indian, and I invite you to India -next time, please do not just fly over - please land and see the warmth of Indians. --Bhadani 14:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

asymmetric dimethylarginine

hello and thank you for your interest in ADMA. have you read the wikipedia article on ADMA and seen the two web links? they will also link you to about 80 other research level articles on ADMA. it seems as though that data speaks for itself: that ADMA creates a down-regulation of nitric oxide production, which can be an important detriment of endothelial health. it strikes me that ADMA is really understated on wikipedia, not overstated...i look forward to your response. best regards Anlace 22:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think wikipedia risks overstating or giving an original research opinion (at very least an interesting monocular interpretation of the current research). User:Midgley had a go at the main description and I have toned down the description of L-arginine as having proven benefit, see changes and discussion on the talk-page. David Ruben ^Talk 02:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your continuing interest and comments on my talk page jfdwolff. at this point i dont know which to which article your comments pertain. i thought you had fixed atherosclerosis to your liking. as far as the early mechanism, are you suggesting that something other than absence of nitric oxide is driving the the early stage of endothelial change? please respond here or on the talk page of the relevant article. thank you. regards Anlace 15:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Talmud

Please stop blanking out the discussion page. While you and Slimvirgin might not agree with the individual's statements on the page, he was editing in good faith. Throwing large "here is a troll!" posters all over the page and then blanking it in the middle of the discussion (there was NOT "broad consensus" about the topic) only detracts from Wiki's intent. Look, I don't agree with Zadil's point of view at all, however, calling his edits "trolling" and merely erasing what is his legitimate right of discussion only adds to bad blood. Adding to that, neither you, nor Slimvirgin have attempted to engage this individual or even discuss his edits in any way.

To put it simply- accusing this individual of trolling and blanking of the talk page en-masse does a disservice to all of Wikipedia. Please take this as a civil attempt at discussion, but if neccesary I will continue to put back the good-faith edits that were erased wantonly. Daniel Davis 08:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, you have come completely out of the blue pretending to know the history of that discussion. Allow me to make some points: (1) The page was archived, not blanked. (2) I did not post the trolling images, although I agree implicitly. (3) I have engaged Zadil plenty, as cursory reading of the discussion page will show. I am not duty-bound to debunk every single one of his egregious misrepresentations of the Talmud. That is not the purpose of the Talmud talk page. (4) What else do you call the repeated posting of uncomfortable quotes apart from "trolling". Goodness, the term trolling was invented for this kind of behaviour! JFW | T@lk 20:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars and Babel tip

If you edit the Barnstars & Babel part of yer user page so that the babel box code comes above, you can make them align real nice imo. Still, it's your page ;) Lemmio 12:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Namely, this part:

<table style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px"> <tr><td><center>'''[[Wikipedia:Babel]]'''</center></td></tr> <tr><td>{{User nl}}</td></tr> <tr><td>{{User en-4}}</td></tr> <tr><td>{{User he-2}}</td></tr> <tr><td>{{User doctor}}</td></tr> <tr><td>{{User Drugs}}</td></tr> <tr><td>{{User coffee}}</td></tr> <tr><td>{{User wikipedia/Administrator}}</td></tr> </table>

Try it out, I hope you like it!

Psychiatrist

Hey Jf,

Been awhile. ;-) I need to pick your brain a bit. I've been writing an article on a psychiatric topic which I'm no expert in . I'm wondering if you know of any Wikipedian psychiatrists? I'm thinking of asking one to give it a quick once over when its uploaded. Your magic ability to find your way to the pages of newbie docs tells me that if anyone here would know, you would. Thanks —Encephalon 21:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry! The thing is, there's an unwritten convention on RfA that editors not "advertize" their noms. In practice it can be a bit difficult to observe the convention and also mention it to friends who might not be aware, and to whom it is only polite to say something. But don't worry, it's the thought that counts! By the way, you were once aware that I'd returned. ;-) But yes, you're right that I haven't been writing much in the medical articles recently (onwiki, anyway), and I daresay I slipped off the radar that way. I'll try to be a bit more obvious. ;-) Part of the problem may be my tendency to reply on my own talk page when a message is placed there. I'll copy here next time. ScotG, eh? Thanks, Jf. If he deals with velociraptors this should be nothing. Best wishes as always —Encephalon 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

medical articles

Hi, im trying to fix and organize all the various medical articles out there but it's just so frustrating to see so many things lying here and there and everywhere. For example i was trying to work on the diabetes articles, but i see one page on "diabetes mellitus", another on "diabetes mellitus type 1", another on "diabetes mellitus type 2", and another on "management of diabetes". If i was going to organize it i would just put everything in "diabetes mellitus". I know other people have contributed to the other articles and i don't really WANT to delete/redirect their articles but it's also really confusing to see the same/similar treatment plans on 3 different articles and then another article on the treatment as a whole. Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Andrewr47 03:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Phantom eye syndrome: copyright issues

Hi, doctor. It appears as though one of the primary authors of this study in Neurology created the Phantom eye syndrome article, but I found via a Google search that almost the entire Pathogenesis section is directly copied from the study. It is my impression that the journal, not the authors, hold the copyright for this material. Although I advised the author of my concerns on his talk page, no changes have been made. What would you advise the next step to be? Thanks, again! -AED 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It appears as though the author has made the appropriate changes. -AED 22:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hello Dr. Wolff: I have received the following request concerning Rabbi Yaakov Meidan:

Rav Meidan, now a Rosh Yeshiva in Yeshivat Har Etzion, recently requested that his name be spelled in English publications as "Yaaqov Medan." As you can imagine, this spelling garners much fewer Google hits than when spelled with a k. Should his article, and all mentions of him, be changed to "Yaaqov" in deference to him as a self-identifying entity, or not? I'm not familiar enough with WP:NC to know the answer. Thanks, DLand 18:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Input is welcome. IZAK 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Rabbi Meidan can enforce a spelling of his name, especially against search engine evidence. The vast majority of Jews do not spell the kuf as a "q" anymore. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cancer

Good job removing the Vit E paragraph. There has been a gradual degradation of the cancer article recently. Too many digressions (Catholic Saint, Coley's toxins etc.) It needs a bit of a Spring clean. Might be worth mentioning on Talk Medicine. I am unfortunately up to my eyes in grant submissions at present, but will contribute later this Summer. Jellytussle 21:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Phantom eye syndrome: copyright issues

There was some concern about the article on Phantom eye syndrome which I have started a few days ago. I have added citations and changed the text to make it more readable. Regarding the copyright, I have asked "Neurology" to clarify the issue. In my understanding, transfering the copyright to a journal does not mean that I have to find new words when expressing an idea just because I used a certain sentence in a previous publication. By the way, copyright agreements which hurt the authors are one of the reasons why I plan to publish more and more in open access journals where I keep the copyright. Regards, --Peter Soros 01:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend the content is rephrased enough to make it original. Neurology would not be best pleased to see Wikipedia reproducing its content. JFW | T@lk 07:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks that you made me aware of possible problems with copyright. As you might imagine, I don't like the idea that my work, financed by public money, is not accessible by the public. But I also understand that Wikipedia has a genuine interest to protect copyrights. So I have rephrased most of the Phantom eye syndrome article. However, I got the permission from Neurology to use the contents of my paper for Wikipedia. Is there a way to indicate this fact in the article? Just to make sure that a future reader who might find some similarities between the Wikipedia article and my paper knows that I am allowed to use the material. Best, --Peter Soros 20:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hirschian

Thanks for your kind welcome. Amazing as it is, the Hirschians seem to be in the slight minority. I'm glad to know there are others out there ! As it is, R' Hirsch's vision is usually at best misconstrued, at worst distorted. Although in the arena of ideas, I do not doubt the eventuall recognition of the beauty and magnificence of the Hirschian philosophy. It is amazing how timely Hirschian ideas are for our issues today !

I hope we can talk or chat or whatever this is called, in the future.

Again, thanks, Shykee 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)shykee

Whale broaches and breaches

[[4]]. Is the next step an RFC on conduct, and on content? Midgley 13:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate your best efforts to help me with this [5]. --66.58.130.26 11:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

I was wondering if you might be able to assist me by moving a page for me. Vision loss currently redirects to Visual loss, but I would like to see it changed so Visual loss redirects to Vision loss. ("Vision loss" gets 2,800,000 hits on Google, whereas "Visual loss" only gets 508,000 hits.) Per Wikipedia:Requested moves and Help:Moving a page, this would seem to be an uncontroversial move. Let me know if you have any questions or need more info. Thanks again! -AED 07:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look. JFW | T@lk 20:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! -AED 21:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Weston A. Price Foundation: Criticisms

Hi! I saw your comments in Talk:The Weston A. Price Foundation. I think that it would be great, if you'll contribute to The_Weston_A._Price_Foundation#Criticisms, please don't hesitate to do it. Unfortunately my english is not absolutely perfect, I can't express in words the things that you wrote here as fine as you did. Thanks! Alex ex 09:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any reactions from the medical establishment. Perhaps it has not graced the Foundation's views with a reaction. Until then I cannot insert "Criticism" without violating WP:NOR. JFW | T@lk 07:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the encouragement. Yes, I have other interests besides flatulence ;-) If I manage to find time I will probably start a new article or two in the medical, physiology and/or anatomy areas. Dr.JVU 12:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Panic attack

Hi, I've reverted you're revert, to an anonymous editors last version. It seems there's some truth perhaps in what he's saying - based on a google search there's a couple of .gov and .ac references [6] granted it needs formal references but as I've an interest in the subject I'll hunt around. Cheers! --PopUpPirate 22:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the great review!

One-sided, conspirationalism at its best, January 3, 2006 Reviewer: JFW (United Kingdom)- This is a repository of pseudoscientific and usually demonstrably wrong material about a host of topics, including many imporant medical ones. It promulgates views one finds in the pro-UFO magazine Nexus. Everything is a conspiracy, and if it isn't then one can usually be found. Disappointing. john 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

John, your incitement on Wikipedia has sure hurt your ratings on Alexa. Cheers[7].

I also really like the comment by "The Probe": "This is one of the craziest websites on all of the internet. It is replete with mis-information, lies, and distortions, and, clearly the owner's reality check is fully vulcanized." JFW | T@lk 06:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny, this shows they have gone up 80 percent recently against the 2 year average - [[8]]. Must be User:Jfdwolff's and his buddies' efforts on Wikipedia helping the increase.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 86.10.231.219 01:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon, if that is all due to me and my buddies the baseline ratings didn't amount to much. JFW | T@lk 07:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)