User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 17

Aaron-Zalman Conflict and Satmar

Hello, I have been asked for advice concerning problems at the Satmar article, please see User talk:IZAK#Aaron-Zalman Conflict and Satmar. Thanks. IZAK 05:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your mediation is probably useful there. JFW | T@lk 06:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TShilo12 has been helping from the admin end. IZAK 13:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After 20 days of quiet, one of the mass-deletion proponents on the Satmar article is back. Interested in any suggestions you might have. Should I request another page lock? Last time he went off and sulked until the protection was removed, and now today he's tried to change the article several times in just a few hours. He doesn't seem interested in reaching a compromise or using the talk page to iron out disputes. Would be very appreciative of any advice you can offer. ShalomShlomo 21:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rheumatic fever

Howdy, would you mind taking a look at my edits on Rheumatic fever? I am getting tired and need more eyes on that article. :) --DocJohnny 05:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some suggestions on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 06:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

HeHe, I like youre minsweeper flags... 68.39.174.238 06:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sjogren syndrome

If you know the molecular basis for Sjögren's syndrome please fill it in the article. Otherwise it aptly has no etiology. Perhaps Category:Syndromes of unknown etiology or Category:Medical syndromes of unknown etiology would be more to your liking. I recognize that some listed are recognized by their International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems code and others are pure pseudoscience. Are you objecting to the mixing of the two, or do you know the molecular basis for Sjogren syndrome? Oh, and happy New Year! How is your genealogy project going? Do you get to go to Drug Rep dinners? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 09:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, Alzheimer's disease belongs on the list as you point out. I think I understand your objections to mixing the alleged pseudoscience diseases with the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems ones. I will leave it to you to suggest a name for the two categories, if you approve. I find the category of "unknown etiology" useful for myself. Are you objecting to it being useful? I imagine people like myself looking for a research topic would appreciate knowing which diseases do not have a known "molecular basis". Syndromes start off as a common group of symptoms, then the molecular basis is understood in some, but not all. We went from [AIDS] to [HIV], but my category shows which ones may get you a Lasker prize if you find the causitive agent or the genetic basis. If you disapprove of the category appearing on your entries, would you object to me making a list such as List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies

Will all due respect, I think this "unknown etiologies" business is a fruitless effort. There is almost no disease that is completely understood at its molecular level, there are always disagreements and inconsistencies. I really think both the category and the list are completely unnecessary. JFW | T@lk 17:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews: Sixteen reasons why this should become a fixed Wikipedia policy

Hello Dr. Wolff: Best wishes with your increased work-load. Finally, a discussion of possible policy changes has begun. Please see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession#Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews: Sixteen reasons why this should become a fixed Wikipedia policy. Thank you for your input and help. Best wishes for a Happy and Prosperous 2006! IZAK 13:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riemer and Nuesner

Please comment on my comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch#Source_for_statement_by_Riemer_and_Neusner --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article appropriate for Wikipedia?

A theological student named FDuffy has just created a new article called A wife confused for a sister which is totally based on bible criticism. Would you kindly look at the discussion page which I started on that article and add your comments? Thanks, Yoninah 09:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that basing an article entirely on academic knowledge of a subject rather than pious guesswork is NOT a bad thing, and entirely the right thing to do. --User talk:FDuffy 20:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page and the AFD. Francis, you completely misunderstand WP:CITE. Please read it. Please also read WP:NOR. If you follow these two scrupulously people might one day stop putting your writings up for AFD. JFW | T@lk 17:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to read the article's reference section and the AFD. You say you will change your vote if a reputable biblical critic can be found supporting it. Would you care to read Wetman's vote, for example, which is above yours - he points to Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version (1992), where he discusses this phenomenon pp 407ff. --User talk:FDuffy 02:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So have you actually changed the article to reflect this? No, and this is where your ignorance of Wikipedia policy shows. At the moment, it reads like an essay reflecting your own investigations. You should be saying: "Lane Fox, in his The Unauthorized Version, suggests that all three narratives have a common source" or something like that. Until the article is changed there is no way of knowing whether this is your own analysis with Lane Fox as a source (which may not be notable) or elaboration of an idea proposed by Lane Fox (which is potentially notable).

And for Heaven's sake fix your signature. At the moment people have to manually type your userpage/talk page into the "search" box to get to your talk page. JFW | T@lk 10:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice on possible image upload

Hi, since you're the only admin that's also a doc (that I know of anyway), I'm asking you this. I want to add an image to the wiki. This image is a vector-trace (i.e. for the most part, I traced it over the original) of a cross section of the heart, showing the SA-node, AV-node etc. I find it very suitable for articles that discuss these cardiac electrochemical pathways. I got the image from a powerpoint presentation which doesn't include the source of the image. Would you advise not to upload it because it was traced (not an original work)? Or is the drawing that shows the cross section of the heart considered something un-original which doesn't disclose any "classified" info and can I upload it to the wiki and mention it is traced from another image? Hope you can help, A. Rad 17:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who drew the cross-section that you traced? If it's very old (say >100 yr) there is no problem at all. If it's from the Netter atlas then it's a bit different. Mentioning the traced image as a source may be adequate, but I'm not really an image copyright expert. JFW | T@lk 19:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know who drew the original. It's just an image in a powerpoint presentation about cardiac conduction ;) It doesn't look old (looks basic, probably drawn on a computer with PS or something similar; Netter's drawings look more like hand-drawn, I think). The ppt file is part of a lecture we got at univ which was placed on the univ's blackboard (dunno if you've heard of it. Students have to log in to access files etc.), so it's not on a public place I can show you... :S I can mail you both pics if you want to see them for yourself or if you know anyone who knows more about these things you can point me to that person or so. Greets, A. Rad 09:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes...

Thanks, Wolff...

I saw that "Concept:" prefix thing somewhere else, and thought it was a convention...my mistake.

I've already made substantial changes to the Non-BP page (wrote it, actually), and the Clinical Depression page. The research to which you are referring was contributed by User: McMan, with whom I am having a bit of a war of words (well, it's his war...I'm just smiling and nodding) regards POV, rather than legitimate source. Talk to him. I included it tonight just to keep him off my back, as he is directing his anger at being edited at me, personally. I'll take it out, but he might have links to source before we go there. Again, talk to him.

The Depression pages need so much work that I haven't even ventured over to the Bi-polar stuff, and the Borderline pages just scared me...for now. Thanks for the suggestion, though...and for ruining what I had intended to be a perfectly good night's sleep...Wiki-aholic!!! :-)

Best --Mjformica 01:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Pearlstine

How is he being Jewish irrelavent?? Robert Taylor 02:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that he sees his Jewish background as part of his public persona. Is that enough for you? JFW | T@lk 08:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chickenpox

If your cup is not too full already, there's POV-ness afoot at chickenpox - and since I have another dispute elsewhere with the guy, it might be better that someone other than me try to make sure he doesn't completely unbalance the article. - Nunh-huh 22:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers used instead of blogs

I would like your feedback on the use of newspapers as a source instead of blogs. In the case of the Robert Clark Young article, I have found newspaper sources that cover much of the same material as the blogs that have been used in the article. When I replaced the blog sources with the newspaper sources, Alabamaboy reverted every single one of my edits. Also, very strangely, he accused me on the discussion page of being Mr. Young himself!

This is the Wikipedia Guideline I am trying to follow with my edits:

"Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources."

Thus, I have replaced the blog sources with newspaper sources. Again, let me stress that this has not led to much change in the text of the article itself--what I'm trying to do here is change the nature of the sources so that they themselves comply with Wikipedia Guidelines.

Could Alabamaboy and I get some feedback on this? I wonder if you could go over to the Robert Clark Young history and compare both versions of the sourcing--the one using newspapers, and the one using blogs. Thank you. Berenise 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that there are three reasons the article was reverted: 1) Berenise made the changes despite a lack of consensus and my objections on the Talk:Robert Clark Young. In short, the online references are refered to in the newspaper and print articles, making the online sources primary sources. The article also has many print sources which complement and add to the online sources. 2) The edits made the article less NPOV b/c they removed opposing viewpoints. While these references may be online, they are from credible named sources who are considered experts in their respected areas. 3) There is a strong possibility that Berenise is Robert Clark Young. Young previously edited the article about himself and most of Berenise's edits since coming to Wikipedia have been to the Young article. I'm trying to clear this up with Berenise; once she proves she is not Young I'd love to get opinions from other editors about this situation. For full details, see Talk:Robert Clark Young. --Alabamaboy 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with standard drug template

While attempting to edit the ribavirin and viramidine articles I've noticed a problem the standard drug template which includes external links for things like CAS number, Pubchem, chemID and so on. The ChemID works fine because it plugs back to the http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/ database. However, the CAS# external links don't work because they attempt to plug the CAS# into the European ECB-ESIS database, and they naturally are not recognized. I think that the nih pubchem database would take CAS numbers, and would work fine if the link attempted that. So this CAS# external link needs to target to the NIH site. Sbharris 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should really be addressed to Arcadian (talk · contribs), who has modified the template to allow these functionalities. He may have more information on why the ECB-ESIS databank was chosed over Pubchem. JFW | T@lk 20:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject on Sign language, Deaf culture, and deafness

Hi, I am writing you in regards to a proposed WikiProject I am a part of: User:Ntennis/Deaf WikiProject proposal. You have previously contributed to/ expressed interest in Deaf related articles and thus we thought you might be interested in participating in our WikiProject. If you are, please add your name to the list at either User:Ntennis/Deaf WikiProject proposal or Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List of proposed projects#Deaf and give your input! Thank you! Gaep13^(talk) 04:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illnesses of Ariel Sharon

Hello Dr. Wolff: I have nominated Illnesses of Ariel Sharon for speedy deletion because it's sheer bunk. Anything of value is already in the main Ariel Sharon article. IZAK 05:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaken baby syndrome (SBS) & anti-vaxers

According to your comment here, you may not be aware of the supposed connection. A very high profile case is of the child murderer (his own baby son), Alan Yurko. This criminal (from his youth), abused his baby so violently as to break bones and cause cerebral hemorrhage (if I recall correctly). The International Chiropractors Association gave him hero status, and along the way the anti-vaxers have decided that many people like him, who have been convicted for SBS, have been the victims of false accusations (they conveniently forget the real victims - the babies).

For more information:

-- Fyslee 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defibrillation

A long overdue reply. Many thanks for rephrasing the caption. Apologies that my edit to the caption was not exactly the most helpful way of correcting the problem. Terra Green 01:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trendelenberg gait

Hi. Looking for some admin help. I moved trendeleberg's gait to Trendelenberg gait (being the correct name of the eponym), and wrote a quick blurb. Lo and behold! I can't seem to link to the page (see my user page) or search for it but can access it directly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trendelenburg_gait) or through my contribs page. I guess I've stuffed up somehow, but can't figure out how, why, or what to do to fix it. Any insight you can provide is most appreciated, with thanks. Mattopaedia 04:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. You may have used the wrong spelling (-berg instead of -burg) in your links. I corrected the link to the -burg spelling on your userpage, and it bluelinks now. Let me know if this is OK. JFW | T@lk 19:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I obviously couldn't see the forest for the trees. Glad it turned out to be simple. Cheers! --Mattopaedia 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Klausner

This article seems particularly POV, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Would you mind taking a look? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been edited by IZAK since I dropped the note on your page (I dropped a note on IZAK's page as well), so you might want to look at the diff[1]. Until today it opened by describing Klausner as "a brilliant Jewish scholar". It still says (unsourced) that "His grasp of the Talmud, and Midrashic literature was remarkable. Also, without naming the book, it states that he "wrote a book about Jesus of Nazareth, which was so informative that Herbert Danby, an Anglican priest, translated the work from Hebrew into English so that English scholars might avail themselves of the information contained within this book." I thought that the highlighted phrases, and the way of writing them, were POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those qualification are not backed up by anything. I'll do a little rephrasing. JFW | T@lk 20:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee

And I'm touched that you liked the coffee userbox so much! Happy brewing, my friend! --Mattopaedia 07:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I'm restricted to instant. Brewing for one person is just a bit too much... But I agree a good percolated cup still massively outweighs Nescafe. JFW | T@lk 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's sad, really sad. Singularity is no excuse for self-deprivation. Indulge! Indulge often!! Indulge until you induce a SVT!!! --Mattopaedia 02:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your welcoming note

Shavu`a Tov Jfdwolff/Archive 17! Thanks for your words of welcome on my Talk page. Have an easy Tsom tomorrow. r' Yirmiyahou hasofer 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HaPanterim HaSHkhorim

The article is translated (or pretty much translated) from the Hebrew Wikipedia. SH is one letter in the Hebrew alphabet. Toya 08:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Is canvassing allowed? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JzG. It feels underhand somehow, but since SW is quiet at present you might not be watching my page. Oh, and I changed my account name to make it easier to type. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 12:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IBS

In response to your question (wasn't sure if it would go in your talk or mine): Yes, there is an ongoing clinical trial specific to the Eating for IBS dietary guidelines (and prompted by the lead gastroenterologist's success with alleviating his own IBS symptoms through the dietary measures). The trial was designed by a bio-statistician, has over 600 paients diagnosed with IBS according to the Rome II Guidelines, is being led by Dr. Noel Hershfield of Calgary, and is continuing as of 2006. Dr. Hershfield's preliminary results show success with both diarrhea and constipation as well as abdominal pain (he emails to update me regularly).

The other aspect is that general IBS diet studies (and there are now quite a few of them), whether they pre-date or post-date Eating for IBS, have explicitly confirmed the benefits of my dietary guidelines (reducing fats, avoiding red meat, avoiding fructose, being careful with insoluble fiber, etc.). I added some of those studies to the IBS page in the diet section and references. The benefit to giving people with IBS the Eating for IBS guidelines as a whole is that this is a much more accessible form of dietary management information for them, in that the guidelines are comprehensive and also written in a way as to be applicable to daily life when living with IBS.

The anecdotal support information (which is substantial - an entire community of tens of thousands of people has formed around the diet) I have added to the IBS discussion page. Hvan 23:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment on Talk:Irritable bowel syndrome. JFW | T@lk 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS on WP:MCOTW

You voted for AIDS, the current Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dysphagia

Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Dysphagia? It can't be that User:Kd4ttc is unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Verifiability, because he's been here for years. But he seems unwilling to listen to anyone who is not a doctor. This issue is over this edit.--Arcadian 18:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven has been away for about a year and may not be used to the recent rigorous application of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CITE. I've left a comment on Talk:Dysphagia. JFW | T@lk 21:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Arcadian 22:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JFW: You do such a nice job of smoothing things out! Thanks, Steve. Kd4ttc 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthopod

Yes, well I must have let that slip somewhere, because they say that depite looking like one, I have some features rare amongst orthopods that makes me hard to identify as such. I've only been doing the job 2 & a bit years, and they haven't finished with my ideological reprogramming yet.

Why aren't there many orthopods here? We're too busy fixing iatrogenic NOF#s -- too many physicians with too many antihypertensives!

Rare orthopod features:

polysyllabic speech
aware of >1 antibiotic
able to interpret ECGs
knows which end of a stethoscope goes where
able to secure IV access
able to differentiate self from God

Orthopaedic aphorisms:

You can lead a 'pod to slaughter but you can't make it think
Me like bone ... bone is friend

--Mattopaedia 06:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't start me off on the orthopod jokes. OK, just one... "What's a double-blind trial? Two orthopods looking at a chest X-ray!" JFW | T@lk 09:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image Trolling.

ok. Again, the amount of articles were I help far outweigh ones which I might be a nusiance, by lets say, 99.999999%? On my record, this is twice only, even though u seem to be ragging on about it like I do it every god damn day. Take a look at my other work for once, and don't focus on some silly pictures, please? - Boochan 14:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 14:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kol Nidre

See Talk:Kol Nidre and Talk:Release of An Oath. Andrewa 18:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I've got something for you to look at when you get a chance, here. Tom e r ^talk 04:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

update Tom e r ^talk 23:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Age

Hello Dr. Wolff: Please take a look at Messianic Age it looks kind of like an orphan. Have a Good Shabbes. IZAK 06:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic genealogy

I have an interest in genetic genealogy (and mt-DNA haplogroup K <g>). I don't know if you have any interest in the subject, but if you do, I thought the recent paper on the four Ashenazi "Eve's" might be of interest [2] - Nunh-huh 23:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this interesting

Deletion of "improper comparison" -- Fyslee 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting to contribute useful links

I am unclear on why these very helpful links were removed. The site is authored by my mother who is a Pharmacist and medical writer as well as my father who is a Psychiatrist. The site also includes a support forum which is about to be launched. Could you please explain how this is not a useful contribution with unique value to the reader? The content is also unbiased, and there are no ads on my site. Thank you for your time and advice.

Sincerely,

Ryan

We've crossed paths before. I've responded on your talk page why I and several other users think your links are inappropriate. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renal Tubular Acidosis

Any reason why you removed RTA types II and IV as causes for metabolic acidosis? JFW | T@lk 21:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I meant to explain myself in the discussion page, but got kicked off by my ISP..The reason I did so was not to remove RTA as a cause of a normal anion gap acidosis, just to clarify that all types cause it, not just types 2 and 4.Felix-felix 13:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizer won't let me insert sources

JFW, you wrote: So why not insert those sources into the article to avoid further chaos? JFW | T@lk 20:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but even after a month Eliezer is still doing non-stop reverts. He is so angry that he reverts every single edit I make, even when we have already agreed that my edits are NPOV and sourced. Today Eliezer even deleted pro-Chabad' comments! He is so caught in knee-jerk reversions that he doesn't even read what I wrote. Most disturbing, however, is his incorrect claim that you and he agreed that the sources you asked for should not be included in the article. He claims that even pro-Chabad voices, such as Daniel Moscowitz, regional director of Lubavitch Chabad of Illinois, cannot be quoted "as discussed in the Discussion page" Well, that agreement simply never happened. In fact, both on this forum and elsewhere, we both determined that some quotes were necessary to illustrate the range of views, as long as they were fully sourced. But Eliezer is now speaking for you, and incorrectly claiming that the lack of any quotes is already decided. That just ain't so, and is the direct opposite of what you wrote. RK 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezer also seems to have badly mislead you. He removed points of view from Rabbi Jack Riemer and Jacob Neusner, flatly claiming that they didn't actually criticise Chabad as neo-Christian. In point of fact they made precisely such claims, and I today I added detailed quotes. But Eliezer is simply doing non-stop reverts, and denying that their own words exist. It is difficult to see him as editing in good faith, as he simply does mass reverts, and censors all quotes which do not support a messianic view of Chabad. Please help, and check out the actual quotes. I can e-mail you the full text of any documents you wish. RK 20:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn almost completely from that article. A sudden influx of anonymous editors all spouting Yinglish made communication almost impossible. Eliezer actually made an honest attempt at examining the sources. If he made a mistake, you should correct him in a civil manner. If he reverts unreasonably, do a request for comments. Perhaps you should get in touch with Daykart (talk · contribs), a user with a Chabad background who is IMHO not entirely unbiased but certainly interested in a fair coverage of Chabad. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read what he wrote, and it was already discussed on the talk page why this pro-Chabad paragraph should not be there. About Neusner, see the quotes that RK brought from Neusner, and it does not say there what the article had quoted him as saying on the contrary from the more recent article that I brought Neusner is saying the opposite, and reguarding Riemer see my original comments to the talk page of chabad. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be able to mediate this one, I'm affraid. As long as you both remain WP:CIVIL, some form of compromise must be possible. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nephrologist

Are you a nephrologist then? JFW | T@lk 12:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid so..Felix-felix 13:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDL particle size references

How about these:

1. Austin MA, King MC, Vranizan KM, Newman B, Krauss RM. Inheritance of low-density lipoprotein subclass patterns: results of complex segregation analysis. Am J Hum Genet. 1988;43:838-846.

2. Roheim PS, Asztalos BF. Clinical significance of lipoprotein size and risk for coronary atherosclerosis. Clin Chem. 1995;41:147-152.

3. Austin MA, Hokanson JE, Brunzell JD. Characterization of low-density lipoprotein subclasses: methodologic approaches and clinical relevance. Curr Opin Lipidol. 1994;5:395-403.

4. Campos H, Blijlevens E, McNamara JR, et al. LDL particle size distribution: results from the Framingham Offspring Study. Arterioscler Thromb. 1992;12:1410-1419.

User:MAlvis 16:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. Could you make an effort to WP:CITE these when necessary when editing articles? JFW | T@lk 21:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, JFW!

I have recently managed to pass Part 2 (written) of the MRCP exam.

Well done! --FloNight 18:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many congratulations ! Do you know yet what specialty you wish to follow ? No doubt the future will hold further hurdles to confront and overcome (specialist accreditation, departmental budget meetings & appraisal, endless interference by government in setting targets etc etc) - so enjoy the momement for now and don't use all of your previous revision time upon WP :-) David Ruben ^Talk 18:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! --Arcadian 19:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazal tov, Jfdwolff! Now you can start making some money! BTW, I edited your brand new (and excellent, I must say) page on frozen section procedure.Emmanuelm 20:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive. This is how I find out who's got my userpage on his/her watchlist! Thank you, everybody. JFW | T@lk 20:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me as well! (Yes, I'm a stalker too.) Hope you'll still be able to be as active on Wikipedia! — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto from me (save for the stalker part -- I prefer to be called your number one fan ;-) --David Iberri (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gefeliciteerd! Goed werk. AvB ÷ talk 16:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

add my late and modest congratulations. i hope you don't depart just as i'm arriving. you (and knowledge seeker) have been the best in terms of both encouragement and also substantive criticism. so what of specializations? barb Bldavids 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Pick the speciality which has the patients you enjoy working with the most. Kd4ttc 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! Strike up the band! - and call Me Mr Admin ;-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. KHM03 19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! ddlamb 07:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three types of Semicha

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, folio 5a.

re paradigm shift in pd

thank you for the encouragment to pursue the idea along its course. i believe i can document this. intellectual company and encouragment is a welcome thing. Bldavids 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

diphtheria

Hi - I was doing some edit work around Eleanor Roosevelt, whose mother died of diphtheria, and I saw your unanswered queries about diphtheria.

To my knowledge, initial treatment of diphtheria is a dose of horse serum antitoxin, ampicillin (or another antibiotic appropriate for Gram-positive rods), and aggressive respiratory support. I learned that little nugget in microbiology class, not as part of my formal nursing education, mainly because diphtheria is (thankfully) so rare in the United States. When I give TD booster immunizations, I always make sure my patient understands what the 'D' stands for, because tetanus gets much more attention, and how important it is not to forget what diphtheria is and how it kills.

If you already got an answer to your question... well, nevermind then. :-)- ddlamb 07:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks! JFW | T@lk 10:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intensive care medicine link deletion?

An odd link was place in the external link section of the Intensive care medicine article. It is a link to care of brain dead patients in an ICU. The poster was without a user page. Interesting setup of an ICU in China. Talk about a great way to spread infections. Delete the link? Kd4ttc 14:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. I saw the edit but was not in the mood for a big discussion, but your opinion counts. JFW | T@lk 17:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright problems

erm, i don't know how much you know about nuclear fusion, but i've just added a lot of theory to the JET and ITER articles, pretty much doubling the length of the JET article. however i am worried about copyright. i based my writings on a HowStuffWorks article, even sort of "stealing" a photo. i hope that, as a educational website, they will have no quarrel with me. can you help with the copyright? i'm out of my depth, and you're the first administrator i met, so i come to you. mastodon 18:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minyan article

You might want to take a look at the latest anonymous contribution to the Minyan article, regarding "minyan shivyoni hilchati". It seems to me to be a disproportionate amount of attention devoted to a minor phenomenon. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor indeed. I've removed it all and left a ponderous note on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 00:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islets of Hope user and LADA

I responded to your question on my talk page, but there is an even bigger copyright issue, maybe both ways. alteripse 02:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time zones

UK of course :-), and you ? I've not got work tomorrow morning (yet I'm off to bed shorty now), you are either a night-owl like me, or are on duty and ought to be mopping the forheads of all your patients :-) David Ruben ^Talk 02:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I liked the Coronary care unit article you started, seems pretty comprehensive for an encyclopdia entry to me. David Ruben ^Talk 02:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MS/Mercury; the GFDL

Hey, jfd. You pointed out that the mercury amalgam issue was already covered, but in fact the statement that was introduced into the article was 'mercury may lead to MS'. That wasn't covered anywhere in the article. There's a statement elsewhere in the article, extensively referenced, that points out that many studies have failed to show such a causal link. I think it's important to distinguish between reverting an idea that is covered elsewhere in an article, and reverting an idea that's wrong, contradicts experimental evidence, contradicts statements elsewhere made, and is unreferenced to boot :) -Ikkyu2 22:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that making a more factual edit summary along the lines you suggested would have sparked an edit war. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

antisemitism in the German wikipedia

Dear Dr Wolff,

I came over your page while checking the page Friedmann. Maybe you could help me with an advice. I´ve been an active user of the German wikipedia for some months and two days ago I was banned for a week: I had been critizing and changing an antisemitic article about Michel Friedman, who is listed on the English page Friedman als well. I know some people of the German wikipedia community don´t like me, because I do not shut up when coming over an antisemitic page and try to make it public. There are not so few rassists and Nazi boys in the German wiki community and antisemitism has been coming back through the backdoor into German society, as everyone can see who can watch and read. Arguing with the guys I called them assholes and later on I apologized, but nevertheless was banned for a week by an admin calling himself "Jesusfreund". And I was called a "Neo-Nazi", because, as one user argued, a German who speaks for the Jews must be a camouflaged Nazi himself. He was not banned, because he, Berlin-Jurist, is one of the most well known German wikipedia admins and has got his helpers. Could you please give me an advice how to react? Would it be a good idea to give information about this case to Jimmy Wale? By the way: The only German speaking Admin who tried to help me an tried to shorten the banning of my address - but failed - was from Switzerland........It would be nice to get answer from you. Best regards. German user coolgretchen--84.60.101.166 09:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coolgretchen, my German is too poor to be of much help here. If an established user makes a personal attack, it is still a personal attack. I cannot comment on the ban. I've had a glimpse at de:Michel Friedman. What exactly is the issue: the prostitution & cocaine incident? What do you not like about the article? Have you tried to improve it, e.g. by citing sources scrupulously. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, feel better now, thanks--84.60.106.179 00:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)coolgretchen. think I´m a fool. and I apologize for disturbing you, bye.--84.60.106.179 00:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)coolgre. I talked to you, because you were Dutch and maybe understood me. I have been reading about your page and I liked it, so I talk to you in Eglish. But now I am tired. Talk to you tomorrow--84.60.106.179 01:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)coolcrtchen[reply]

Spinal adjustment

I have added comments on this Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spinal_adjustment -- Fyslee 23:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electroconvusive therapy

Hi, a new annon user started adding in POV entries re the side-effects of ECT (of perminant amnesia). The annon user as well as adding their own paragraphs, deleted out previous description of NIMH not finding for this effect, and then failled to discuss in the talk page as requested in the comments of the page reversion edits. The user did however start adding in proper references (rather than just a name & date). With x6 reverts last night, an Admin applied a block on the user URL address.

The annon user has now left a message on User talk:Tmalmjursson explaining that they are a new user and so unaware of talk pages, 3RR etc. I assume good faith and have no reason not to believe this new user, so Don't bite the newcomers. (But note clear understanding of NPOV & POV on message on my talk page).

The problem though is that this user is probably the "token" disenting voice on the NIMH Conference and their edits are very POV (as you will see from comment on my talk page, here, dismissing all the other doctors on the committee for being biased with their links to ECT manufacturers). However he/she is clearly better versed in the literature than most, if not all, of the doctors in WP:CLINMED. How can we maintain NPOV ?

I'm happy to try and engage with this user re introducing to WP protocols (eg signing entries, need NPOV and so where there is a dispute to discuss to try to reach a consensus), but I suspect I need some advice and support... David Ruben ^Talk 23:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

86.10.231.219

Yes. Nuisance. Making unhelpful edits in Epidemiology as well I see. Reported. Midgley 01:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydroxyurea Image - Reply

Thanks for the explanation, But, Even if this is true, the Wikipedis project is meant to be used not only by people who are familiar with this way of representation for the carbon atoms in an organic molecule (me for example).

And I believe that childern are using wikipedia as well, since the results are shown by internet search engines.

I believe it would be clearer to represent all the atoms in the image explicitly, so there would be no need to wonder where the carbon atom belongs.

(I believe some people would might see the oxygen atom connected directly to the nitrogen atoms) (I also believe that there are people who would not know that the carbon atom creates 4 chemical connections, and that the oxygen atom creates 2 chemical connections)

I think this should be the rule for all the molecule images, and in a matter of fact, for any image or subject that might be unclear for someone who does not have the necessary education. (I think a thumb rule should be: "Would this be clear to a 10 year old child ?")

Again - thanks a lot for the explanation.

Ten year olds are not the group we aim our articles at. The encyclopedia uses a lot of similar diagrams in other situations. If you disagree with our use of conventional structural formulae, you could consider dropping a note on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Drugs, but I suspect the response will be quite similar to mine.

By the same token, should we be drawing a benzene ring as a circle of six carbon atoms? Methinks not. JFW | T@lk 15:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why not to add the atom name in the drawing on the junction of the polygon (even on the benzene image - there is enough space to write 6 "C"s).

And about the point that you/we do not aim the articles for 10 year olds - I can understand that, and I agree, But . . . I believe that many people who look for information on the web, are not necessarily educated in the area of that information, and do not know all the details about special / shorter representations of things that are well known to a first year student in that area. Som30ne (talk · contribs)

For 10 year olds we have http://simple.wikipedia.org

As for structural formulas, some would be unacceptably large if we were to use a "C" for every carbon. I will not single-handedly deviate from accepted practice. I've given you the place where you could raise this issue.

PS please sign your talkpage posts. JFW | T@lk 18:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anaemia

I would ask you to refer to Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine and Wintrobe's Haematology, for clinical classification based on reticulocyte production index. Balaji Ravichandran (talk · contribs)

Yes, but is that how it's dealt with in practice? I've moved your classification further down in the article. The initial investigations and management are rarely informed by the reticulocyte count, at least in my practice. JFW | T@lk 18:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True... But I said several haematological parameters INCLUDING reticulocyte count, which is a direct qualitative and quantitative measure of haemopoiesis. Balaji Ravichandran (talk · contribs)

I'll be responding on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 18:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Balaji and JFW--I've added some info that I hope balances the different approaches. I do find that many physicians around here-especially hematologists-want the retic count right up front--but my own experience is of course limited. I find even within the single Up-to-Date article on "approach to the adult patient with anemia" a suggestion that retic count should be ordered immediately as well as an algorithm for pediatric pts which suggests that it should just be ordered in normocytic anemia. I suspect that this is a moving target, and the retic count may be more common among docs working in populations where multiple causes of anemia are likely to coexist (for instance, patients hospitalized in tertiary care centers?). Hopefully the changes I've made reflect both of your POVs on this issue? Joewright 21:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is okay, Let's continue the discussion on Talk:Anemia for the benefit of the uninvolved reader. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]