User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 15

please come on over to e. fuller torrey talk page

Article has been locked, at my request. We really need fresh eyes on this stalemate. Please join us. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of High Priests of Israel

Hello Dr. Wolff: What do you make of the characters on List of High Priests of Israel, especially the latter-names, they don't sound Jewish to me at all. IZAK 08:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissistic Personality Disorder External Links Suggested Compromise

Most of the text of the article about the Narcissistic Personality Disorder is copied, verbatim, with permission, from Sam Vaknin's page and book. You can check it out here - compare the article to this:

http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/npdglance.html

In view of this fact, think it is only fair to leave one single link to his Web site in the External Links.

In the External Links you left a link to Joanna Ashmun's (great) Web site. Fine. But Vaknin is at least as entitled to this as Joanna Ashmun. Both of them are not mental health professionals - but Vaknin contributed the text of the article and is recognized as an authority on narcissism (see the discussion area of the article).

So, I suggest we maintain in the External Links section one link to each resource: Vaknin, Ashmun, MentalHealth, and Femfree.

You also removed links to Web sites that have nothing to do with Vaknin and are great resources. I restored one of them (Femfree's). Hope this is OK with you. If not, let's talk on this page. 62.162.216.167 OTE 22:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think the article is a haemorrhagic mess and needs serious cleanup by someone who's done more psychiatry than me. Sadly we still don't have any active WikiShrinks. If the NPD page is largely a copyvio then perhaps it needs a new start; Wikipedia should not be relying on other people's material without permission, and it may be undesirable if some editors think he does not have the final word. If there's a compromise now, that's great. I'll double-post this on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 15:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I confused this article with narcissism, which is indeed in the poor state I described. I think four links is plenty - the article is not very long. Perhaps a recent systematic review on therapeutic modalities would be a valuable reference. JFW | T@lk 16:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to be a psychologist, albeit a graduate one, with no postgraduate work. What alarms me the most here is some person's agenda and their obsessive mission to dominate the information available on the internet concerning a psychiatric disorder. And while i find it unavoidable that people with such bizzare notions can roam freely on the net, i consider it unacceptable to allow such individuals to use wikipedia as one of the means of disemminating their misinformation. This is an encyclopaedia and our aim is objectivity not self promotion or skewed personal agendas. The initial state of the article i reviewed a couple of days ago hosted a multitude of links to the very same Sam Vankin that i have been refering to, as a matter of principle i removed all of them, on the basis of his being unqualified to comment on the issue. As it stands right now, there are currently two links to Sam Vankin, one on a personal (one of the many) webpage and another portraying itself as an msn or yahoo -can't recall- group on the issue which is run and operated by Vankin again and in which readers mistakenly adress this character as "Dr. Sam Vankin". To have an encyclopedia pointing to a webpage where an individual is fraudulently posing as Dr. when he has no expertise whatsoever in the field (other than some one year psy related online "internet" degree...) is unacceptable. I have also been informed of a lot of people on the internet who feel they have been victimized (no wonder...) by this person, and he takes the same quasi intimidating tactic with me when he mentions on of his last edits (all anonymously done and under different guises each time) something about the greeks and the terms vandalism, obviously having looked up my ip adress and found that i am posting via a Greek provider. Regardless of where some of the terms in the npd article are sourced from i consider it unacceptable to even allow one single reference to a person who, to my proffesional knowledge, is not the self proffesed npd sufferer he claims he is but a bona fide sociopath as witnessed by his actions. The other personal experience webpage that i have left the link to, is quite different from this guy's obsessive drive concerning this particular issue. I will not take any editing action until I hear from you, i gather from your resume here that you are well meaning and not yet another of Vankin's aliases.87.202.22.19

Please inform me which part of Vaknin's work you disagree with. I'm trying to find out whether I can mediate this issue. JFW | T@lk 21:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have so far made my points clear. I consider this guy a fraud (as is clearly demonstrated by him posing as Dr. on an (his) npd support site), and I also consider him unqualified to be linking multiple links to his webside by virtue of his professed self diagnosis of npd (as qualified as ted bundy would be on writing on serial killers and linking his wesides - people suffering from such disorders npd's verging on sociopathy have little or no insight into their condition) and his having authored a book on the issue at some obscure publishing house, I find his contast spamming of the article with his links (either covertly or overtly) unacceptable, as are his intimidation tactics with respect to my person. Wikipedia is no substitute for treatment, and, what's more important, a precedent should not be set on sufferers of psychiatric disorders thinking they can dominate their respective disorders articles on wikipedia. I won't have wikipedia catering to his grandiosity delusions. Such is the nature of his endeavour that is he so wishes he can submit his edits anonymously, but external links should have the authority they deserve, and they are not there (nor are the talk pages) for the self promotion of anyone. The parody that was the npd article a few days ago, with Sam Vankin number one link, Sam Vankin msn group number 2 link, Sam Vankin's book number three link, Sam Vankins yahoo groups number four etc. etc. is a disgrace to the project and the thousands of contributors here. I think I have made myself pretty clear on where I stand on the issue, and I honestly can't see how what I am saying can be disputed, but I of course stand open to all discussion.87.202.22.19

He is entitled to call himself Dr, unless you can prove he has no PhD in philosophy. It is true that a layperson writing on a medical subject creates the impression he is a doctor by calling himself Dr.

I am investigating the other claims. I think it is not reasonable to have >1 external link to Sam's work. JFW | T@lk 09:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"He is entitled to call himself Dr, unless you can prove he has no PhD in philosophy." Actually the burden of proof lies on him, otherwise everyone could declare any qualifications about their person and the rest of us would have to play investigative detectives to either verify or disprove that. I also have it from good sources that his only credentials are some obscure internet degrees. In any case all these are beside the point, as you mention "It is true that a layperson writing on a medical subject creates the impression he is a doctor by calling himself Dr." And that by itself is proof of deceit, both intent and willingness to mislead, and verifies my claim of this individual defrauding others. It's common defrauding tactic to write on issues unrelated to your (in this case unverified) qualifications and use your Phd title to take credit, where credit is not due. This tactic is not the sole one depicting fraud. Vankin has again and again anonymously edited the page, never revealing his identity, and has used multiple aliases and guises also to do so, all of them praising his "work". Like i said the net is wide enough for this sociopath to lure the guilible into his net of various courses, support sites, groups etc, i won't have wikipedia assisting him in this quest of giving him anymore undue authority.

I also wish that you would refer to Sam Vankin either by his full name or surname, because candid and cordial use of the first name indicates friendly association with him, which I am sure is not the case here.87.202.22.19

I'm not sure if verifying Vaknin's credentials is a priority. The fact is, I want to know why you consider his work inappropriate. Just because he's written a lot of the narcissistic personality disorder-related stuff here doesn't mean his content is poor quality (although I have my personal views on narcissism). Let's take this back to the talk page. JFW | T@lk 10:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have some work to resume at the moment, i will be contributing to this discussion in the near future. My main crux is the obsessive self promotion, defrauding, posing as an expert, using wikipedia as a link outlet. I also have issues with his writings which i consider merging npd with sociopathy, and which i find rambling and repetative. In any case I can't take anyone at face value who chose to pose as Dr.'s in a self help group, and who should be in treatment rather than writing about their disorder to cater for their self importance. I really wish i had more time here, but like i said, i will make up for it in the near future.87.202.22.19

List of political epithets

I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this; an anonymous editor is insisting on adding the term "Anti-Semite", thus claiming that is a political epithet, rather than a description of someone who hates Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. A politician promulgating anti-Semitic views in an anti-Semite, but that does not a political epithet make... JFW | T@lk 21:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision advocacy

Would you mind taking a look at the Circumcision advocacy page, and the debate on Talk: page? From my perspective the entire page consists of WP:NOR, but one editor there insists it is not, based on the definition of the word "advocate", and on the fact that it is "obvious" that various people are Circumcision advocates. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presently bogged down with quite a few disputes, so I'm not sure if I should involve myself in any more at the moment. I agree with the view that the real advocacy is being done by the intactivists. There are of course pro-circ groups, but these appear to be much less vocal. To describe medical opinion as "advocacy" is in itself troublesome; if professional organisations recommend circumcision on a medical basis this can hardly be termed "advocacy" unless there is substantional proof that this position is based on activism rather than science. JFW | T@lk 22:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevhorn

I also noticed his edits and share your concerns. I think he's a user to watch and correct when possible. I've redirected a few of his articles which seemed redundant and POV to me. Just bears watching. It'd be nice if he could be guided into a productive editor. KHM03 01:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When will the AfD be finished? KHM03 15:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a week. JFW | T@lk 15:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Obesity Article

Just wanted to comment. Although what he/she is doing is wrong -- I deplore vandalism -- I must agree with the reasons he/she cites for the action: "That picture is revolting." Maybe I could find a more neutral replacement. There is this one image that was used by the BBC in the heder of an article they ran, but I hesitate to upload it do to WP's policies. -- Jason Palpatine 03:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, I'm finished with that discussion. You find a better image and we'll talk again. JFW | T@lk 04:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anxietytreatment.com and Depressiontreatment.com

I am new to Wikipedia and was wondering why my links have been deleted from their relevant section. They are relevant, useful, and will be continually developed by a Psychiatrist and Pharmacist in Canada. Could you please help me understand more about this resource and how I can contribute.

Thanks,

Ryan

I've responded on your talk page. JFW | T@lk 08:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help, it is a great thing that this encyclopedia is so regulated. I will be sure and add useful content that will ensure that it is valuable to the article. Great job with all your articles and thanks for the tips.

Ryan

My pleasure, Ryan. You're one of the first who has greeted my removal of external links with a positive response! Anyway, have fun contributing. Pick any random article, Google away, and make the best of it! JFW | T@lk 13:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help with image deletion

Hi!

I thought you might be able to help me with this. I copied the image Schizophrenia.jpg to commons (Schizophrenia_PET_scan.jpg), so I could use it in the Swedish article. Now I suppose I should somehow mark the original image for deletion, however, it is still in use by an article that is protected (featured article of Oct 24, 2005). Don't know what the correct procedure for doing things like this is. Greetings, Skagedal 12:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been unprotected after leaving the main page. I will unprotect it now. JFW | T@lk 13:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was not protected, so I've listed it on WP:IFD. JFW | T@lk 13:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the image wasn't protected, but the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 24, 2005 is, and that page references said image... So if you could change that article to point to the new image at commons so that the archives aren't broken I would be happy :) Good to know about the WP:IFD page! /Skagedal 20:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done[1]. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! /Skagedal 21:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polypharmacy

Thanks for helping with the polypharmacy article; it had been sorely neglected. Your insights are appreciated, and perhaps the renewed attention will continue to result in needed improvements. Ombudsman 21:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How kind of you. There is still plenty to talk about. I am interested in the phenomenon of polypharmacy (and not just because as a hospital doc it's always poor me who has to write long prescription charts). But be gentle with the vaccine stuff, please. JFW | T@lk 21:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, you found my incitement. Good. The gloves are off, pal. JFW | T@lk 01:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the compliment. It has been a pleasure collaborating on Wikipedia with you. --Arcadian 06:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem

Thank you for doing so much work for wikipedia it has helped me so much. 70.25.68.210 (talk · contribs)

My pleasure. JFW | T@lk 14:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hematemesis

Heb de mg/dl toegevoegd, misschien kun je kijken of jmijn rekenmachien het correct heeft uitgerekend. Nog bedankt voor de herinnering. --Nomen Nescio 15:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dank je, ben uitgegaan van de mmol/l zoals wij dat doen, dus het is kennelijk iets anders in de angelsaksische omgeving. Groetjes. --Nomen Nescio 15:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

Since when are references unimportant? We should enforce WP:NPOV but not WP:CITE? Aren't there more productive uses of your time than to move templates around? Couldn't you find other articles which have no sources and mark those however you want, rather than be picky about a template's position? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 17:12

Replied on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 17:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one policy has historically been more enforced than another doesn't mean it is right, just that we are lazy about sourcing our claims. That is not a valid reason for ignoring CITE. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 17:22

Private Links

Hello,

I just received this user talk entry from you:

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 15:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not advertise any site with commercial links. I was the one that REMOVED the commercial links. The person with IP 67.176.76.116 had been posting commercial links (like http://www.fishoilreviews.com) that I was removing. They also removed http://www.fishoilblog.com with no stated reason, and I have found Fish Oil Blog to be one of the most up to date websitse on fish oil. So i am helping to keep wikipedia clean!

Thanks for your concern, however.

Blogs are not usually a good research to link from. The information tends to be volatile. Also, I was wondering if you couldn't simply work on content rather than inserting external links. JFW | T@lk 17:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, but this website consistently has regular updates on fish oil news and I read it regularly. Also, I was planning on writing an entry for fish oil! You can count on it.

Also, what should I do when someones tries to promote their own commercial site and also removes legitimate sites?

Thanks for your help.

If it is your impression that links are commercial without a good reason, you are free to remove them. That does not mean you remove the Amazon.com link from the Amazon.com page, of course, but "buy Vicodin online" on the Vicodin page may be removed without further comment.

When writing the fish oil article, please make sure you include good source material. There are many good studies confirming the health benefits of ω₃-fatty acids in numerous conditions, from coronary artery disease to IgA nephritis. Make sure you include these references. JFW | T@lk 20:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing biases

Jfdwolff, I know a lot of editors declare some of their personal biases, or sources of possible personal biases, and I was just wondering if, were you to list such possible biases on your user page, would you list yourself as possibly having a bias in favor of Israel or Judaism? FuelWagon 21:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users are not required to declare their bias on their userpage, but my membership of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and a quick glance through my edit history would have revealed to you that I have an interest in Judaism. I have been accused of being biased towards particular views concerning Judaism (which is easy), but I dispute that I have in any way violated NPOV on this issue.

My activity on Israel-related pages has been limited, as I don't consider myself knowledgeable on most Israel-related subjects. I actually requested that WikiProject Judaism stayed well clear of Israeli politics, limiting itself exclusively to the religious aspects of Judaism.

I hope this answers your question. JFW | T@lk 21:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom question for Jayjg

JFW --

Got your PM and responded at the election page. No, I did not agree to rephrase my question. Your comment that my question is more a statement is accurate, however the candidate statement page indicates, "Each candidate will have a separate subpage for voters to ask questions and have discussions with the candidate." Note: "ask questions and have discussions." You may disagree with my opinion of Jayjg, but I hope you at least agree that I ought to oppose the candidacy of anyone of whom I think what I think of Jayjg.

Anyway, I'm sorry I couldn't do what you requested.

Marsden 22:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the candidate statements talk page. You've had ample place to discuss the issues you describe, as they relate to specific article content. JFW | T@lk 22:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"This tactic of the fallacy of many questions has actually backfired quite badly for Marsden and Unbehagen;" I actually resent this quite badly. my comment was an in good faith attempt to airn an important issue. Please show a little respect and civility. Thanks. Unbehagen 17:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your question contained all the words necessary for a veiled attack, and you made no attempt to distance yourself from critical questioners who claimed to speak in your name. There are different ways of phrasing things like "being an editor who agressively pushes pro-Israeli POV". I also note your anti-Jayjg activity in your edit history. JFW | T@lk 17:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rogatchover Gaon

A photo of the Rogatchover can be found on http://www.shmais.com/images/largepics/left_603.jpg I don't know if it can be put on wikipedia or not. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We'd have to crop it to remove the site name. Do you know the Shmais webmaster? JFW | T@lk 03:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know who he is, (as do all Lubavitchers,) but I don't know him well enough to ask him for the picture. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please add David Hager to your watch list

Hello! Could you do me a BIG favor and put David Hager on your watch list. A few weeks ago, during a bout of Insomnia-Induced Insanity, I did a major expansion of the article about David Hager. Hager is the controversial physician that George Bush appointed to the FDA committee on Reproductive Health Drugs. (Self-disclosure: We both live in central Kentucky and our paths crossed through our professions from mid 80's - mid 90's.) Being a controversial figure, I was prepared to deal with POV crap. However, I never thought anyone would put him in Category:Rapists, a list of convicted rapists. Of course, I immediately took his name off the list. He was on the list for less than five hours, from Dec. 1 00:58 to 05:19. Hopefully, Answers.com or another web site didn't download during this time. But now I’m paranoid that it will happen again and I'll miss it.--FloNight 03:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Hi Jfd: Please delete Category:Hebrew novels which I just created, because I think Category:Israeli novels is better for now. Thanks. IZAK 09:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JFW | T@lk 12:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have a good Shabbos. IZAK 13:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Eliezer is reverting articles

I am being harassed by User Eliezer, who keeps making attacks on me, is accusing other Wikipeida contributors of attempting to "shock" and deceive readers of our articles, is making lies about my editing, and is unilaterally reverting a consensus version of an article to one which pushes his own religious belief system. For almost a year I have tried to work with him, along with JayJg and JFW, but Eliezer shows no sign of stopping his messianic religious tirade.

Eliezer is trying to ban me from Wikipedia by making dishinest accusations, such as (a) I am writing under sockpuppets, and (b) that I am making more than three reversions in a single day. In point of fact (a) I use no sock puppets, and I proudly sign the discussion page of each article, and (b) two reverts on one day is not more than three. Eliezer's latest violations of Wikipedia policy are thus:

Doing multiple reverts of an article that had a stable consensus state, and then flat out denies that he had done so, even though the edit history clearly shows this.

Making false accusations that I am editing Wikipedia under some kind of "sockpuppet", a bizarre lie. In fact, despite using multiple computers, I take pains to sign in and use my username, RK.

"Outing" Wikipedia members who edit under anonymous usernames by broadcasting their real names in the article Discussion pages. This is a gross breach of Wikipedia protocol.

Lying about the status of an important researcher in the field of the disputed subject. (Eliezer keeps retitling Rabbi Professor David Beger as Mr. Berger, which is not only misleading, but also considered a gross and deliberate insult in the Jewish community.)

Inserting personal attacks towards academic and Orthodox Jewish authorities whose view of Chabad theology differs from his own. When discussing the new forms of theology developing within Chabad, Eliezer refuses to allow various POVs to be shown in accord with our NPOV policy. Rather, his edit censors multiple academic and Orthodox voices. His non-consensus version censors the quotes of many prominent authorities in the field, and replaces all of their POvs with his sarcastic aside. "While the term received little attention at the time, it was later used to shock those who have no exposure to these sources." Please see the article to see the full context. Eliezer is stating that academic and Orthodox Jews who disagree with messianic Chabad beliefs are deceiving their readers by shocking them, and not letting them know that such beliefs are (in Eliezer's view) standard theology. Of course, how could anyone know, since his edits cut out many quotes and sources....all with an array of POVs that Eliezer apparently does not want our readers to be exposed to. RK

For example, Eliezer writes "I would like to make a note here about the use of sockpuppets by RK to circumvent his restrictions in editing Judaism related articles. He is 66.155.200.129. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Well, that's just bizarre. Please see the page in question, Chabad, which I sign with my username all the time. In fact, my name is all over that page, explaining my edits. There is simply no way that Eliezer can claim that I am trying to hide my User ID identity. He's just out of control. RK 20:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah, a good old-fashioned edit war. I am going to pass no judgement on the personal attacks, but I note your use of "lying" numerous times in edit summaries. This is going to escalate unless both of you adopt a collaborative attitude. Knowing you both as editors, I expect you are both capable of this.

Start by agreeing that the article needs to be balanced. Then agree that there is controversy, which needs a certain degree of coverage. Both of these issues are covered by WP:NPOV and inescapable. The next issue is: what is the article going to cover, which is guided closely by WP:NOR - anything previous expressed in a public (and preferably accessible) medium can be quoted within the framework of balance (e.g. not 10 pro and only one anti source & vice versa). The talk page needs to reflect which point you are disagreeing on, and edits needs to be with consensus agreed over there.

The Chabad article is important. Chabad, one has to admit, has been a shaping force in post-WWII orthodoxy and well outside it. Without Chabad, we probably would not have the "Jewish music" so popular in Haredi schools. There would be a much-reduced emphasis on "outreach"/kiruv rechokim. Whole areas of the world would be without rabbinic guidance, as no self-respecting non-Chabad rabbis are happy to take up a stelle (position) in Peru or Tokyo unless they're past their sell-by date (i.e. all their children are married off).

Not everyone is thrilled with certain Chabad innovations, and the controversy well predated the Rebbe's petira. Only recently has the debate been taken to the printshop, but I remember full well a degree of resentment being voiced prior to 1994. Very unfortunate, but we can't hide from this.

Wikipedia needs a good Chabad article that covers this remarkable movement warts-and-all. Please collaborate. I suspect this page is served about 100x an hour, and your contributions will be vitally important. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying this to Talk:Chabad Lubavitch, and will make some suggestions there. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JFW, your points are all well-taken. You certainly set me straight with your to-the-gut and simultaneously funny comment about WP:Cite being "the new black". It forced me to research the quotes that I had come upon previously. I keep forgetting that if I demand others to provide a source, then I have to as well. As such, here are the sources for my edits. RK 22:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chabad_Lubvaitch/Sources_1

I like to make intraabdominal observations, as long as they achieve something :-) Thanks for all the hard work with the sources. JFW | T@lk 23:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nomination for administrator - JWS

Thanks for nominating me to be an administrator of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community has long given me a "free ride". I have recently tried to start helping the community by performing some housekeeping. In particular, I set a goal for myself of doing vandalism patrol on 0.1% of Wikipedia, particular basic science articles where school kids often do "test edits". I am willing to be an administrator of Wikipedia. I am rather in awe administrators who have tens of thousands of edits and do so much for the community. If I become an administrator, I will feel obligated to do more to help with community efforts. --JWSchmidt 15:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great. My pleasure. JFW | T@lk 15:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I filled in my answers to the questions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JWSchmidt and I linked that page to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. I was amused by "Multicellular nominator"....I hope there are no votes cast by unicellular organisms. --JWSchmidt 17:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unicellular? Well, as long as they don't try to NPOV Staphylococcus aureus all lifeforms may edit Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 20:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been enjoying the rollback feature today for (Difference between revisions). I want to make sure you know about Anthrax vaccine, a new page by Ombudsman. I have a special interest in anthrax so I will try to keep this new page under control. --JWSchmidt 05:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

On your medical thing. KHM03 22:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Luck and inspiration. It's fun - to a degree. JFW | T@lk 22:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Dwek

I've withdrawn my nomination of Moshe Dwek for AfD. The comments there from El C, Bacharach44, and the original author seem to verify the article about as well as it's going to be verified in English. If you agree with the evidence presented, you may wish to change your "conditional delete" comment to a "keep" comment, which would allow the article to be speedy kept.

Or, y'know, you may not. But I figured I'd mention the possibility in any case. Thanks for your comments on the AfD discussion.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 00:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Mediation

Well, I think it's better if you keep mediating and I'll just see what I can do for a couple of reasons 1) for me to catch up would take a good week... 2) i'm pretty busy and 3) you've already got a start! if you could point me over to where the mediation is going on I'll take a look. Thanks! Sasquatcht|c 01:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the warm welcome! I am still working at getting the hang of the formatting, and learning as I go. Uthbrian 08:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi Jfd - just noticed this. I assume it was a Wikiburp, but you might want to correct it lest our hot-headed friends get upset. Jakew 10:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Unction fixed it. It must have been a Wikiburp (-grebs-). I never delete AFD votes. I wouldn't dare messing with cranial hyperthermia folks. JFW | T@lk 11:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, just checking out the medical algorithms page

I hadn't ever seen it before and I keep coming back to it now through your user page. Noticed the broken links and just fixed them! InvictaHOG 12:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for welcoming me

I apologize for only giving Eliezer credit. Thank you too. DovidMenachem 21:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Thanks for expressing interest in dealing with external links. I suggest the WikiProject could do two things: (1) help improve the external linking guidelines. (2) be a place to list problematic articles that need links 'weeded' through, or articles to be watched. We can work on further defining what the WikiProject should do at Wikipedia:WikiProject External links. --Kmf164 03:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Many thanks for your vote and kind words at RfA. I just noticed, though, that the resuscitation guidelines are now out - the latest is 30:2 compressions, 1 shock per cycle etc! (just came in last 2 weeks). I'll get working on it. Again, thanks!--File Éireann 09:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Escape network

Hi, Back in March you deleted Escape network, I do believe that the article "Escape line" could become a healthy article and am willing to work on it, I do believe that escape network is a WW2 topic worthy enough of an article.Escape line would be better as a google search 20,000 results while Escape network only less than a thousand. There is also other meanings to the phrase, realating to oil drilling and the outdoors. I am waiting for your feedbck to start research.--mexaguil 09:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a registered user there is no problem with recreating the article. The content of the substub I deleted was "escape networks- the secret passage-ways of the french to help prisioned people escape". This was unworkable and qualified as nonsense, given that non-French people are equally capable of using escape tunnels (a more suitable term). If you think significant content can be created there I see absolutely no reason why that article should not be recreated. JFW | T@lk 09:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish history stub

Hello Dr. Wolff, BeHatzlacha with your exams (...and may you merit the blessings from "...kol she'oskim betzorchei tzibbur be'emuna..."). Please see, and cast your vote at [2] concerning Category:Jewish history-related stubs. Thanks. IZAK 10:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yetzia bish'eila

Take a look at Yetzia bish'eila, maybe you could add a word or two. Thanks. IZAK 11:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol tolerance between populations

Thanks for your comments. The reference you pointed me towards seems quite interesting, and answers some of my questions. I'll try to give it a proper read sometime, and then hopefully upgrade the article, but I'd be interested in any further thoughts you have. Anyway, thanks for responding, and good luck with your exams! --Plumbago 15:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are problably recent reviews about this. I'll see if I survive my exams. Does your username have anything to do with lead and back pain? JFW | T@lk 15:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought there'd be reviews somewhere, but medical literature's not my bag. As for my user name, it's actually taken from the genus of a plant species - but a very good guess. As for its origin in botany, I've no idea. Best of luck surviving the next 48 hours! --Plumbago 15:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Torrey

I've just now unprotected the article. I'm hopeful that Francesca and the anon contributor can find a happy middle ground, but I think that may be more likely with a third party such as yourself also actively contributing. I just wanted to let you know that the article has been unprotected, as I'm sure we'll see editing start up again. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. I withdrew from that discussion a week ago because 24.55.228.56 (talk · contribs) was giving adequate responses. I also felt I wasn't doing Francesca a favour by continuously disagreeing with her :-). I'll keep an eye out. JFW | T@lk 16:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nowiki tags and brackets

I was editing and kept finding single brackets all to themselves. The only one that really stands out was an article on a programming language; once I reallocated the nowiki tags it worked better.

Seems as if a lot of the "fix brackets" are already fixed by the time one gets there.... but there is no way (that I can see) to check if they are or are not - not even the preview shows it. And some "lines" are so long that trying to find the error seems to be slow going..... DavidDouthitt (Talk) 21:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: prime

Hello, Jfd. I wonder if there is a policy on the use of "prime" in the article title. 3′ end and 5′ end look ugly with the extra space. And I can't type " ′ " with my North American keyboard. Would " ' " be good enough ? Not sure what is the best way to fix this. Any ideas ? -- PFHLai 08:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. Good luck with your MRCP exams.[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure how to tackle the prime. In fact, according to Wikipedia style it should be a ' anyway. :-) JFW | T@lk 20:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

For the MRCP :) Fintor 08:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And let me second that. Good luck. --Arcadian 01:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Andrew73 01:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A little too late to say good luck, but how did you do? --WS 18:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sepharad

What do you make of this Sepharad little jumble? IZAK 11:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

gedday

seasons greetings. looks like the mess has gotten busy again good to see! gasboys.net and family keep me away from 'pedia more than I'd like, but there you have it. just had another crack at choking to bring it up to date... seems like the heimlich manourver is increasing favour! hope all is well, best wishes Erich 18:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once a Wikipedian, always a Wikipedian. The mess is crowded but the level is very high. You should see the work they're doing. I had avoided articles like multiple sclerosis because they have so many aspects and piles upon piles of literature. But together this is much easier. You are always free to help out :-) JFW | T@lk 20:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

For some reason, I've never become familiar with e-mail at Wikipedia. I work in London, but would gladly share more info by e-mail. How does it work?--File Éireann 21:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of these articles?

Hi, Doctor. I've been watching these articles over the past month, and I'm not sure what to make of them. It appears that there is a group of editors, or editor working under multiple user names, who are working exclusively on developing those articles. Although every statement is referenced, something smacks of Wikipedia:No original research and they are beginning to look like books or essays rather than encyclopedia articles. What do you think? Edwardian 22:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Jfdwolff, I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section. When you have time, would you go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation on the Jewish conception/its meaning and importance for Judaism you think necessary? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA

Thank you, Jfdwolff, for your #80 support in my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 02:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ^{<--note new "admin gold" sig :-D}[reply]

Categorizing drugs

Thanks for the barnstar! I just hope I'm not messing up the categorization scheme. I've noticed that some of the drug articles have the Drug template on them, such as Aspirin. Should I do the same? Uthbrian 16:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iron metabolism, hepcidin, etc.

Hi, thanks for the hepcidin ref on the hepcidin page. If you have the time and inclination I would appreciate your review of human iron metabolism as it is the first large medical article I've attempted.

Best regards Joewright 19:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Menachem Mendel Schneerson

Please take a look at the recent edits to Menachem Mendel Schneerson and give your input. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put in some carefully sourced details alongside the chabad account of his life in Berlin and Paris. Outside hagiographies accounts these details are not controversial. They at least deserve equal prominence as they are the only account with any basis in historical records. Eliezer completely removed my edits citing 4 minor points that certainly don't justify a reversion (only for vandals or gross POV or libel or CopyVio). I asked him to apologise and then tried to edit the article to accommodate points he made so it could be to his satisfaction. While I was doing this he continued to revert the page completely - I lost some material in the process. He has now reverted my edits three times in 45 minutes with no justification. I am quite upset by this aggressiveness, I am not used to this kind of thing. jucifer 04:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I too am quite upset by the personal attacks (For example her calling my edits "behaving in this bizarre sociopathic fashion") and her agressiveness in reverting to her viewpoint. I am not used to people personally attacking me, and she has not appologized for her edits or her personal attack. She has completely ignored what I wrote on the talk page, and has now reverted to her version 3 times within 40 minutes. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the article talk page. JFW | T@lk 04:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JFW, I would like yo ask you to make corrections to the article based upon your understanding of it. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying here what I wrote there. In Friedman's work he states the following "According to Laufer, Rabbi Joseph'Dov Halevi Soloveichik of Boston was also studying at the university in Berlin at the time, and he lived nearby. Whenever he had a question about an academic or religious text, he would stop over at Schneerson's house and consult with him. Laufer (citing one of the rabbis who heard it from Soloveichik himself and a Kfar Chabad rabbi who heard it from associates of Soloveichik) says that even though Schneerson did not spend much time at his studies, his marks were always higher than Soloveichik's. Moreover, "the rebbe was known to have received several advanced degrees in Berlin, and then later in Paris." " In the articl it is also stated "When Friedman reached Berlin, he found that some of the archives had been destroyed when the Allies bombed the city during World War II. "From my perspective, the research is incomplete," he says, " --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reference Laufer? JFW | T@lk 05:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friedman does already. The same source of Jucifer's edits says what I am saying. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The source for everything is here: http://mentalblog.com/filedepot/PDF/Avirama%20Goian.doc --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryke_Geerd_Hamer

Hello JFD ! keep this article under observation please. my english is perhaps not good enough for editing this article in correct english. but i may "feed" you with some further info in the future if you like. it is a clear antisemitic person. he has lost his medical license in Germany. If you understand german i may link to some of his original statements (keep your nose closed reading). his medical pov has been rejected here as pseudoscience. he was one year in jail here, and is now again in jail in France. Austria wants him also. this article should be transformed into a npov-article or deleted, perhaps we can work together. the paper cited there is a joke, read it carefully. regards, Michael Redecke 12:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

post scriptum: this is a supporter-page from Austria: http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/Korrespo/2005/20050808_Beisswenger_GlaubeWissenWeisheit.htm

look at the CT there for example. it is a clear ring-artefact of an old Siemens CT scanner (i worked 2 years in radiology). Redecke 12:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

question about p53

Could you see Talk:P53#Phosphotransferase? about this this edit and the question: is p53 a phosphotransferase? Thanks. --JWSchmidt 13:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drug molecular structures

Hi JFW, I've been a bit AWOL for the last few months trying to complete my Honours project. It's finished now, and during my project I acquired ChemDraw which I find even better than ISIS/Draw for structures, so I can help out with these if you need. I read Uthbrian's talkpage, and agree with your sentiments, and saw the you were having problems with output from ISIS/Draw. The way I've traditionally done my diagrams (e.g. morphine to the right) was as follows:

select the structure in ISIS/Draw and copy it to clipboard
paste into an image editor (I use IrfanView)
resize if needed
save in PNG format and upload

If you haven't already tried this way, see if you have any better luck with this method. Cheers. -Techelf 15:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Have you also had exporting problems in ISIS/Draw 2.5? JFW | T@lk 21:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Rare RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...

JFW:

Just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for "supproting" me in my recent RFA. I have passed muster with a 46/13/2 tally, and am now the proud possessor of the Mop and Bucket(tm), so fabled in song and legend.

It seems that you are not a frequent participant in RFA discussions, so I am doubly flattered that you chose to support me in mine. I will strive to live up to your expectations.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 22:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I browse through RFA once every week or so. I do not vote on editors I have never had any contact with. Having seen you at work I thought you could use something of that "it's not a big deal, as Jimbo said". Understatement of the century. JFW | T@lk 21:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians by D&D alignment page as being associated with the Lawful Good alignment. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians by D&D Alignment for instructions. --Cooksey 15:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not such a D&D adept. I think the deletionist category is plenty. JFW | T@lk 16:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam link

please use http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist :o) Hashar 18:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hashar, will do. JFW | T@lk 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism_and_Christianity#Love

Hi Jfdwolff, I thought you might be interested in this section, recently added to the article, and in the discussion on the Talk: page regarding it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes mellitus

Jfdwolff. I concur that technical accuracy is one, of several, goals. Another is that of patient understanding of issues and pros and cons of treatment options. Type I is classically also insulin deficient and will die within about a short period, e.g 1 month, because they are incapable of making enough insulin, the typical 35-45 units/day, needed to sustain adequate glucose extracelluar to intracellular movement, are far more likely to enter DKA and die without intervention. I have personally treated, successfully, some unusually severe cases.

Before R.A. deFronzo's research work focusing on the early type 2 Diabetic state in the 1980'2, it was believed that all diabetics were somewhat insulin "dependant" for survival, some just less-so, as opposed to their actually being hyperinsulinemic, thus the sulfonylureas to promote more insulin output. Dr. deFronzo was the first to publish that most diabetics maintain normal glycemic control until their insulin output, even though as high as 500% of an age matched, healthy non-diabetic control, can no longer increase enough to maintain glycemic control, especially after eating. Granted, when challenged with a specific hyperglycemic load, those with type 2 with not have a strong an insulin response; their insulin production rates are too chronically challenged to equal that of a comparatively non-insulin resistant individual.

Promoting to those with type 2, predominantly insulin resistanct, DM that pills (much less extra insulin) are the only and best treatment is quite misleading. For years, from my experience, I have been more successful than many endocrinologists in the San Antonio area at helping type 2 individuals maintain better glycemic control through their better understanding DM physiology, decreasing carbohydrate intake, actually losing weight (a key strategy is avoiding extra externally administered insulin, I do use Lantus on occasion but work to get people off this, often with success over time), along with using the glitazones, metformin and now also exenatide, with about half achieving HbA1c's of <6.0, rarely even to the optimal of 5.0, and without hypoglycemic complications.

In my experience, most individuals with type 2 learn from their formal DM education to be scared, somewhat hopeless and just feeling dependant on their physicians for the next expensive pill, yet not understanding the either the issues well or their power and how to use tem so that they can promote improvements in their own health.

As a Cardiologist, I also aggressively and proactively treat lipoprotein (NMR assays and Lipoprotein little a), homocysteine, BP, excellence of cardiac function, exercise and other healthy physiological behaviors because most major DM debilitating clinical events result from macrovascular arterial disease. I apply these same strategies to those with even early evidence of metabolic syndrome (handy to now have a more widely recognized term for this common state).

I strongly believe that a major goal of the Wikipedia clinical medicine focus should be fostering greater personal, practical understanding by the people we physicians serve, not primarily our own sense of erudite, technically popular (?accurate?) current views, at least some of which tend to be self-serving. e.g. its all too complex, patients could never understand well enough to help themselves without our continued intervention. Prioritizing explanations to foster better client understanding of the issues and how they can exercise their own (primarily most important) power to improve their own success, as opposed to just the usual disease treatment we are all taught, is highly desirable, though less self-serving. My focus is what works in practice and is quantitatively verifiable, even though not always reflecting currently accepted views/approaches from an academic standpoint.

In the U.S. Air Force, as a recognized outstanding supersonic jet instructor pilot, I also emphasized sophistication and thoroughness. However, I also learned, the hard way, that prioritizing and carefully simplifying the issues was often more important to helping others learn and progress in their skills more rapidly. Unfortunately, this issue of simplifying (with attention to accuracy and effectiveness of the resulting end behavior) is always very difficult to do well; too often taken for granted as relatively easy. It is not easy.

The philosophy briefly outlined above underlies all my writing. I am far more direct and blunt within my own practice. Within the Wikipedia community, given group sensitivities, I am far more guarded in expressing this approach.

Respectfully, MAlvis

I think you are referring to the revert by Alteripse (talk · contribs)[3]. I have not edited that page for weeks, save for reverting some spam.

I agree with your assessment that we need to strike a balance between technical accuracy and accesibility for the average reader. I aim to do this in my medical work on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alteripse (talk · contribs) motivated the revert on Talk:Diabetes mellitus. --WS 23:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Satmar shenanigans, admin needed

Hello Dr Wolff: I just received this request, and I think the page needs to be frozen for a while (choose a good version tho')...similar problem to the Bobover succession: "There seems to be some issues at present involving people continuously changing and reverting the article on Aaron Teitelbaum. I've reverted the page and tried to incorporate some of the other contributors' changes, but if it keeps up, maybe you could step in. Thanks. ShalomShlomo 09:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)" Thanks a lot, IZAK 10:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Responsa

Hello again Dr. Wolff: Would you mind taking a look at the new article: History of Responsa, I tried to fix it up a little because it is filled with many factual and historical errors. Perhaps it should be merged with Responsa, or even redirected, for now? Best wishes, IZAK 12:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worth a look?

Hi

You might want to take a look at the contributions of 152.2.36.90 - see Special:Contributions/152.2.36.90. The contributor is presumably medical, but does not seem to have much a a feel for how the wiki works. See for example their contribution to Colonoscopy. They just seem to descend from a great height, drop a few words of wisdom without really looking at the context too much, and vanish.

I may of course be overreacting. :)

13:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Oh dear my IP has vanished. Oh well. I am the same Old Git as previously ...

My dear Old Git, if we didn't have you. I agree that these contributions need some context... At least it seems 152.2.36.90 got bored and left it for us to tidy up. I'm glad you were happy with angina. JFW | T@lk 15:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon view of the House of Joseph

Hello Dr. Wolff: I am trying to create a NPOV for Mormon view of the House of Joseph. You may want to take a look at the mish-mash that was there. IZAK 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann's RfA

Hi, Jfdwolff! I want to thank you for voting to support me in my RfA. I know I'm very late thanking you, but I've been a bit caught up with college work. I hope I'll live up to the expectations of those who voted for me. I look forward to working with you as a fellow admin. Heel erg bedankt, en tot ziens! Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 19:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is [MY] real name Kenneth by any chance?

You asked me that on a talk page. Close -- Kenneth was one of 3 names my parents considered for me before I was born. But, no, it's not. It would have been the name of my little brother, but he was stillborn. -- Jason Palpatine 23:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd Googled you. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try the archives of the Science Fiction Weekly Leeters section. On of my letters to them was posted. ;-) -- Jason Palpatine 02:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Welcome

Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia (December 6). Its great to be here. Verne Equinox 01:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Enjoy. Like your username, btw. JFW | T@lk 01:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Oh well. I wanted to keep it out of the headlines... Thanks for your support after the fact. :-) Tom e r ^talk 02:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Immunology

I'm not an immunologist, I am preparing for exams in the subject by reading the Tizard. I cross read wikipedia along the way, and try to fill in some information, but this won't be even half the stuff I have to learn. But thanks for the encouragement! AndiK (talk · contribs)

Do keep on adding stuff to articles. With your face in the books you will be able to contribute more than a peripherally interested specialist author. JFW | T@lk 12:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note to myself

Cooper et al PMID 14758409.[4] JFW | T@lk 12:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Tanakh

Hello Dr. Wolff: Please see and vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 12#Category:Hebrew Bible where it is beeing suggested that the word "Tanakh" is "not neutral", and I am trying to explain to them that it is in keeping with NPOV to convey the way Judaism uses certain terms to describe the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. Thanks. IZAK 15:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Akiva Eger

OK fine, but I didn't move it because I believed him, rather because most sources list both spellings as correcy. thanks Martin 16:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bobov

Hi JFW; Thank you for welcoming me. As you can see I'm new here; and I came here reluctantly. Seeing that the Bobover sichsuch (dispute) has taken an ugly twist; that people write here outright lies and falsify the facts with only one thing in mind; to be able to claim that the Encyclopedia agrees with them. I had no choice but started editing. First I just placed a few words here, a few words there, to make what was already written as factual as possible. Then I started organizing the article, to a meaningful paragraph by paragraph of facts. Unfortunately, I don't have too much time to write and to learn how to better utilize the tools supplied here. So I am learning as I go. Regarding the article of Rabbi Ben Zion Halberstam, it was constantly being edited with misleading information; with total disregard for the other point-of-view. So I tried accommodating by leaving the new additions but clarifying the points of disagreement. In short I kept reacting to the latest edits by adjusting what others were writing, to reflect both points of view. But today, I see that "Chasid" simply deleted the article and replaced it with a false article, not even bothering to explain. This is totally unfair and not right. "Chasid" was already put on "notice" for deleting entirely the article on "Kartshin". It seems that all he can do is delete articles and replace them by the ones that make his point. I trust your good judgement (which I have seen in your comments) and please, you be the judge and decide how to proceed. If it will be necessary; I will spell out the falsities that have been planted here. BTW, what does UTC mean? Reagarding your signature; I used your comment with the signature as a template, thinking that this is the format here. Thank you, Issac (talk · contribs)161.185.1.100 17:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Issac, thanks for getting in touch. As the Hamodia is completely silent on this whole issue I have no way of knowing which view is correct. But that is not the crux. Wikipedia needs to be able to present both sides in a calm manner, as per WP:NPOV, and with adequate outside sources (as per WP:CITE and WP:NOR).

If you are completely dissatisfied with an edit, revert it to a previous version and explain your action both in the edit summary and on the talk page. Reverting is discouraged, and may not be done more than three times a day.

If Chasid (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserts information without discussion you can try requests for comments to attract other users to the discussion, or the administrator noticeboard if there is no discussion to be had. Finally, if the other user violates >3x per day on the same article, please report this.

Yes, it's a lot of information, but this is the accepted way of dealing with difficult articles. Let me know if you get any results. Oh, and UTC is "Coordinated Universal Time", as Wikipedia uses a time system independent of your timezone. JFW | T@lk 17:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JFW, The last few hours, I was contemplating what to do; unable to come to a solution. To modify the current version, with a few words to at least remove the brazen lies; is not really a solution because at the best it still stays an unprofessional article which anyway has to be edited to make it grammatically correct; which becomes even more jumble with the insertion of words. But we don't really have to wait for that, because the article will be changed in no-time. To revert the article, is also not a solution because then I have to write in the discussion page why I did it; which I am sure will trigger a vicious response; which will require me to air all the dirty linen of Bobov before the world. I would rather cut off my fingers then to write one bad thing about Bobov, and cause others to violate the untarnished name of these holy Rebbes. If you look in Hydepark, you will know what I mean. Even what I have already written, I still do it in trepidation. (I hope it never comes easy to me, to write about such subjects). Before I submitted my first edits, I read it and reread it many times and couldn't get myself to push the trigger (save button) until I called my wife & read it to her, & she gave me valuable advice on how to change certain words, so as not to belittle anybody personally. And then, I still couldn't press that save button; but I thought to myself; King Solomon says "There's a time to talk and a time to be quiet"; I finally chose to talk. I'm still not sure that I did the right thing because in the course of editing, I still had to bring out (as subtle & vague) that "circumstances" & other unpleasant things were the cause of this conflict.

I would appreciate if you contact me directly by email. Thank you User_talk:Issac --161.185.1.100 20:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Article content disputes are difficult. That is why every page has a "talk" page appended to it. One should hope a neutral and well-referenced version can be agreed between yourself and the other editor. JFW | T@lk 20:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]