User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 21

Another move request

Sorry to bug you again. As noted in Talk:Refraction error, the term "refractive error" is much more commonly used than "refraction error" (by a ratio of nearly 30:1 when using a Google test). Would you mind redirecting Refraction error to Refractive error if you believe this to be a noncontroversial move. As always, many thanks! (Good job on Aprotinin, by the way!) -AED 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will be done. Give me stuff like aprotinin any day. Coagulation is interesting. JFW | T@lk 06:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CD

Saw you were around. Could you have a peek at Crohn's disease when you get some time? Would appreciate your comments and additions. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 06:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, perhaps italics would be better. The article originally had bolding of symptoms, and I just kept along with it. The article needs some de-jargoning I think and a pic of erythema nodosum would be nice... will bring digital camera to work tomorrow. Thanks for looking at it and for your comments -- Samir धर्म 07:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS as featured article main page appearance

hi there. in case you missed it, i thought you might like to know AIDS is appearing on the main page as a featured article on June 15th (this month). if you could, it'd prolly help to have someone keeping an eye out for vandals specifically on that date, since as of right now there is at least one vandalizing a day since it's FA status. now would also be a good time to copyedit it before the big slam on its main page day. :) JoeSmack ^Talk 16:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd - is canvassing for support on external forums permitted ?

I have been asked privately by another editor about an AfD, for which the proposer has apparently used an external blog site to solicit those with a particular point of view to sign up to wikipedia and cast their votes (details apparently also included a suggested list of comments to attach to the cast votes). Is this permitted ? If not then:

Which wikipolicies does this break ?
How should the editor proceed to have the AfD vote notified (?nullified as attempt at POV pushing ?)
How is appropriate action taken against the AfD proposer ?

David Ruben ^Talk 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

There has been a vandal at work on the disscusion page of Immune System. I am a new wikiholic, and I am unsure how to solve this problem. I saw your discussions there and thought I would bring the issue to you. Admiraldowdy 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore above. System admin responded. Admiraldowdy

CAH

Why in the world would you remove a link to http://CongenitalAdrenalHyperplasia.org from the Adrenal Insufficiency article?!? Dannycarlton 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is about a subtype of adrenal insufficiency which has its own page, namely congenital adrenal hyperplasia where it is much more appropriate. Have you read our external links policy yet? JFW | T@lk 23:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless the link is valid because CAH is a major source of Adrenal Insufficiency, and many people researching CAH will look first to Adrenal Insufficiency. Perhaps you are simply in a bossy mood and wanted some links to remove to make you feel important. The fact is it is indeed a valid link, and you really shouldn't edit subjects you very obviously know little about. Leave that to people more educated. Dannycarlton 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DNFTT. JFW | T@lk 02:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thanks again for the nom. Thought about it and your kind words, and have accepted. -- Samir धर्म 23:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prodding... sure looks promising now (knock on wood) -- Samir धर्म 19:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

Just what exactly should I be censored for? And why don't you discuss it with me or find out what has already taken place? I truly don't understand your hostility.MollyBloom 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, stop challenging every keep vote in AFD. JFW | T@lk 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a personal attack (in what way did I attack you?) Instead, I wish you'd stop attacking every keep vote. Also, I'm voting as a Wikipedian here; admins have no special powers when voting on AFD and should not receive different treatment for this reason. JFW | T@lk 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding. The 'vote' is for an Rfd, not as to whether to 'censure' Molly. I have no problem with your 'Keep Vote', and indeed I left in on the front page without comment. I think you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. This is not a vote for the Rfd: Censure Molly for using AFD to WP:POINT.

This is inappropriate. If you have a problem with me, take it up somewhere other than the main page of the Rfd. As a doctor, you should be smart enough to have seen this. In fact, I suspect you knew exactly what I meant. I have gotten to the point that I don't care what happens to this article. I have withdrawn the Rfd, because this is no longer a discussion about the merits of an Rfd. IN fact, it hasn't been for some time.MollyBloom 03:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a doctor I know how to distinguish people from their behaviours. I have no problem with you as a person, but I believe your behaviour on that AFD should be addressed. There is nothing ad hominem about commenting on people's behaviour. I'd be thrilled if you stopped caring about what happens to that article; perhaps you'd stop making such a colossol fuss over it, and stop pretending to WP:OWN both the article and its AFD. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did nothing for which to be censured, and will not continue this discussion. Moreover, a doctor gives you no special aptitude to distinguish people from behaviors. Your behavior in publicly 'voting' for 'censure' with the 'vote' for Rfd was inexcusable. Nobody WP:OWN any article. IT is expected and reasonable to explain one's reason for creating an Rfd. I suspect your comment about own is more applicable to its author Oliver, who has argued every single 'delete', including yours. Look at his comment to you. Oh, by the way, I did ask two board certified plastic surgeons about Maxwell. One said she had not heard of Maxwell and the other had, but somewhat sarcastically said "He only thinks he IS plastic surgery". Not great endorsements. MollyBloom 14:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple spam link addition

Hi - I see you too cottoned on to User:71.16.43.178 multiple ad-farm links. Is there anyway to revert quickly multiple article (rather than have to individually open each one, select history, open the previous version, edit and re-save) ? Or is this an admin's tool ? David Ruben ^Talk 16:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solution

The solution to the GFDL problem would be to put your draft on a subpage that states that all contributions to that page are released into the public domain. - Nunh-huh 00:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

compromise?

Hi there, I have apparently been successful at generating a potential compromise regarding biopsychology article. (at the RFC)Perhaps you will go look at it, thanks. Prometheuspan 03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemo brain

Hey man, the article on Chemo Head is very weak and unsubstantiated, but the term chemo brain describing the same entity is used in the lay parlance frequently: [1] PMIDs (albeit all junk articles): PMID 16635046, PMID 16381547, PMID 16320418 -- Samir धर्म 08:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the GHits are unrelated slang, though -- Samir धर्म 08:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed entirely. -- Samir धर्म 09:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you picked the Toronto article for the reference in chemotherapy... -- Samir धर्म 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Tannock, the first author on the ref grunted at me once (I wrote a lukewarm review of a book of his when I was a med student). Grunts promote WikiLove and certainly that one made my day better. Spread the WikiLove by grunting at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. -- Samir धर्म 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

evolution of aging

Hi, Doctor-
I get a mixed message when I hear "welcome to Wikipedia - thank you for your contribution" and "your article was marked for quick deletion".
This is a contentious field, which I've tried to summarize fairly, but I have strong opinions on the subject, and expected that others with strong opinions would add their, or even edit mine. I don't understand the basis on which my material was removed, and until I understand that better, I'm not likely to make further contributions.
Is this about style or content? Was the material removed by someone who knows more about evolution of aging than I do? Do people use their names in this game?
Thanks for any guidance you can give me.--Mitteldorf 03:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC) -Josh Mitteldorf[reply]

Hello

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 13:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jfdwolff Vandalises Prayer Page

Jfdwolff, stop deleting links that don't comply with your POV on the prayer page or I will have an administrator block you. Your links were left intact, yet you removed others.Spicynugget 16:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My links? I never added an external link to that. JFW | T@lk 18:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHS stubs

Hi there! After a lot of rattling sround, my attempt to validate the use of {{NHS-stubs}} and reclaim Category:NHS stubs from the name 'UK medical organisation stubs' (given to it when hardly anyone was looking' has now reached the subs proposal list, here. One contributor has suggested it ought to be named Category:National Health Service stubs, which is fine by me. If you are in favour of either version, which would give us a clear 'dedicated' list of stubs which the WikiProject could attack, please go to the proposal article and vote accordingly. All best regards - --Smerus 04:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Amyloid degeneration; Pemetrexed; Achard-Thiers syndrome; Purpura; Dysplasia; Fibrosis; Verapamil; Chondroma; Croup; Hepatorenal syndrome; Quinidine; Urinary catheterization; Leiomyosarcoma; Sotalol; Health profession; Alkylating agent; Liposarcoma; Co-codamol; Hypertensive heart disease

Cleanup: Disease management (health); Turner syndrome; Healthcare in Romania
Merge: Petzetakis' disease; Sleeping sickness; Group B Streptococcus
Add Sources: Ibuprofen; Laxative; Testosterone
Wikify: Chico, California; Coacervate; Hubert
Expand: Universal precautions; Permissive hypercapnia; Zygomatic bone

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tzaraath

Funny you moved Tzaraas to Tzaraath on the basis that it was one particular tradition, yet you moved it to a different one, sounds like bias to me. If you insisted on moving it to anything, it should have been to a Modern Hebrew spelling. Next I expect you'll be moving Brit milah to Berith? SF2K1

When it comes to naming Hebrew articles, we should be using either archaic academic spelling or something approximating Modern Hebrew. I'm more in favour of the latter. If you don't like tzaraath (which is clear from the tone of your message), please submit a move request or start a discussion on the article's talkpage. Perhaps we should discuss the whole naming issue again in the Judaism WikiProject, as it touches on many other articles. JFW | T@lk 07:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edit summary

Jfdwolff, it is simply inappropriate to summarize your recent edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism as "meddling by user who is not a member of the WikiProject." Moreover, the passages you'd restored are themselves inappropriate. We're not here to band together in factions against perceived rivals, or to spread negative feelings or assumptions about editors with other religious beliefs, and if we are, we shouldn't be here.Timothy Usher 11:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talkpage, and would encourage you to discuss this the WikiProject's talkpage first before making the same edit again. JFW | T@lk 11:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You made me smile. Thanks! Jakew 12:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pancreatic Cancer

I am interested in your thoughts on the Pancreatic cancer article, and would like to discuss your most recent edit. Thanks EricNau 04:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asbestosis

Did you write this article? It is outstanding. You have quibbled with me in the past, so I thought I might try to 'mend fences'. Also, I genuinely thought this article was very good, and I am hard to please. ;-)

The only thing I found a little off was one note - that mesothelioma requires prolonged exposure ....unless you meant by generalized something else? I have researched mesothelioma at length about 20 years ago, and ever since then. It started when I was working as an engineer, and discovered my father had been diagnosed with mesothelioma. I spoke to the oncologists, and called cancer researchers at the university where I then worked.

I discussed this on the talk page. I only made one slight change. I changed the parenthetical about mesothelioma to omit the 'prolonged exposure', saying only that it was a very rare disease but the frequency has increased over the last 40 years as people who were exposed to asbestos age. The real numbers still make it a rare disease. However, the rate of increase has been significant in the last 40 years. The majority of asbestos was used for building puposes after WWII. This is consistent wtih experts believing the rate will begin to level off within the next decade.

The first wrongful death asbesots lawsuit was in 1929. Interesting, don't you think? I also agree that the articles on mesothelioma and asbestosis should not discuss the legal or political issues. These are resources for information about the illness. In 1986, I was using a DOS based PC, and there surely was no WIkipedia as a ready resource. I surely wish I had all the internet resources then! I had to go digging, I read the reports to the senate subcommitte on asbestos related diseases, and talked to dozens of doctors and oncologists about it. It was an obsession for some time, I loved my dad very much, and I guess that was my way of dealing with grief. I knew he was going to die, but I watched him hope against hope that some new drug would help him survive. I watched him go from a robust happy man who loved his work (geolgoist), loved to hike and loved the outdoors to a shadow of his former self, racked by pain and severely depressed. He had just retired when he was diagnosed. He had planned on traveling the world wtih my mother. They never had that chance. I encouraged my mother to find a lawyer on this, but she didn't have the heart. And I would not push her. She, and the entire family, had more than enough to deal with. But I never forgot the things I read and heard. They stuck like glue. MollyBloom 05:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks on call

Dear JFW, I can't thank you enough for nominating me for adminship! Your nomination came as a very pleasant surprise (I was even more surprised that it succeeded). Thanks for the encouragement in proceeding. It's a genuine pleasure working with you and I look forward to many more collaborations! (I look forward to playing with the shiny buttons when I get back to Toronto...) Thanks again! -- Samir धर्म 07:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

grrr

I'm so aggravated...I ended up deleting about 2/3 of my post, but you might want to look in on defusing things at Talk:Judaism#Orthodoxy:_Founded_vs._Maintained. Tom e r ^talk 07:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Cell Signaling to the Cell Biology and Protein projects

Hi... I've been adding in several pages in my field, which involves protein growth factors and the cell signaling pathways they mediate. I noticed that there doesn't seem to be a lot of emphasis on cell signaling as an organizing theme for the proteins.

I think it would be helpful to use signaling to contextualize groups of proteins, since it would put them in their correct functional setting.

For example, the pathway which initiates cell division, or apoptosis can be a distinct page, and proteins which participate in these pathways can be mentioned.

This seems like a more useful way to organize things than just structural similarities (and it's not mutually exclusive - it would be an addition rather than a change of anything that is existing.)

Would it be okay for me to get going on this project? Could you help fold me into the cell biology, protein projects?

Thanks. Gacggt 23:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan to make major modifications, always discuss on the talk page. Make sure your work is properly referenced and not wildly divergent from the accepted viewpoint. That's all. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re User:Anon!

Hi, wonder if you could offer some advice as to how I should best proceed re User:Anon!. They are a new user who added links to Metoclopramide for Milk fetishism and Category Milk & Breast fetishism, see here - apparently the drug used to promote or induce lactation. Similar links & categories were added to a number of botanic pages Milk thistle, Blessed milk thistle, Blessed thistle & Cnicus.

The main issue has been over Milk fetishism and whilst I have no specific knowledge of the topic, considerable uncited, unverified "how to" information was added (see here_) on use (presumably without prescription and thus illegal supply of drugs) of metoclopramide and domperidone including a discussion of dosages to be used, as well as what amounts to personal opinion as to types of electric pumps to use. This user then subsequently on 12th June restored a whole load of external links to yahoo groups (original inserters of these had been a variety of URL anons - may or may not have been editor susquently registered as Anon!).

Myself & User:Tregoweth have tried to remove the uncited, unverified, conjecture/personal opinion on several occassions with full edit summaries explaining why, requests to discuss on the talk page (where there is considerable explanation of policies required to support acceptable material) all trying to engage this new user. The response is repeated revertions claiming vandalism.

I reported to 3:RR but this was correctly discounted as I had miscounted the number of reverts as of 19:06, 13 June 2006, and I appologised for this on the article's talk page. But then they did 4 reverts between 14:21, 13 June 2006 and 12:53, 14 June 2006. It was at this point I chose to post a hopefully pleasant post on Anon!'s talk page. Since when they have failled to engage and merely undertaken a single daily revert.

I would not be surprised if some drugs are misused in such a manner, but personal suposition is no basis for material in wikipedia. Having posted to article talk page, user talk page and repeated requests for engagement on edit summaries - what should be the next action?

Is it now too late to try report 3:RR and I feel would probably be bad faith on my part, given on their user-talk page I said I would give them the benefit of the doubt for being a newbie ?
Does their reverts stating "RVvandalism" amount to failure WP:AGF, given the repeated requests to discuss the material & forum directory listings on th earticle talk page, and so for contact to WP:AN/I ?
Or is this still just a content dispute for which either WP:Mediation or WP:RfC needs be made ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry should prompt a checkuser request and summarily banning by WP:ANI. Never trust editors who edit only about their preferred [noun]-philia. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admǜin request: Tired of chronic fatigue

Dear nice admin:

Not 24 hours after I tried to clean out a lot of silly patient bias (note that I am a patient myself) and stuff from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (and lost my final version to over-write, but fortunately other people fixed my typos), somebody has come along and added a ton of edits which reflect patient bias, removed the codes/disease infobox, and undone a lot of my standardization to the US terminology (CFS not ME, spelling and so on; I've gone with US because the article is called CFS and the discussion pages seem to reflect that this is what people feel the article should be). There may be some useful info that User:carl.stock has added, but I am too fatigued to wade through all of his stuff. If you have time, could you have a look? I'd be tempted to revert to 18:03, 16 June 2006 version myself, then add in anything necessary due to the recent news of a British coroner having called "cause of death" as ME on one person in the UK. (I don't think one call is sufficient to say that all cases of CFIDS/ME are fatal; maybe I'm an optimist, but I'm a live one.) Anyway, an admin's eye would be a big help. Thanks for all your work keeping this article sensible!

Feyandstrange 10:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's several ways of doing this. You can revert until you're blue in the face. Alternatively, you can ask Carl nicely to provide sources for his assertions. CFS as a cause of death is a complete abberation and should not under any circumstance be mentioned in this article. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LASIK

User:63.246.164.173 keeps inserting the same bit of linkspam into the LASIK article. I was wondering if you might put this on your watchlist for a few days to help us deal with it. Thanks! -AED 03:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AED, I have no watchlist anymore. Try to have the URL blacklisted on meta. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COELIACS - The Good News

Response: thank you for that. I think there is validity in your points here, and I should have been less emotional. However, I think the truth lies somewhere between these positions. It is hard to be "neutral" in the case of medical conditions. How can we balance the bad points about cancer with the "good" points? Shouldn't the reader reasonably assume the writer is anti-cancer? That being said, I repeat that your points are sound and I shall mull. Again I make the point that most work on coeliacs ignores the social impact, and yet this is perhaps the most obvious symptom! I shall try to get some source material on this aspect, as it is a significant area, but I accept and appreciate the opinions raised by Jfdwolff and jpgordon which are positive and helpful. wikwobble

Nobody expects the writer to choose sides. NPOV applies to diseases just as much as politicians. One cannot say "cancer is a horrible disease" (which is POV) but one can say "cancer affects 1 in 3 adults at some point in their life and may lead to a marked decrease in quality of life" (which is neutral, especially when supported by references).

If you can provide solid references (e.g. by psychology researchers) how coeliac disease affects people in social settings, then I do not see why this cannot be included. Please discuss on the talkpage first, so we can see the merits of specific material. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

I wonder how many more admins I'll have to apologize to before the day is over! As I explained to Freakofnurture earlier today, I didn't realize that such page moves are illegal. Unfortunately I had already done two cut and paste moves before I was instructed properly. Thanks for fixing the problem. --DLand ^TALK 01:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pancreatic Cancer

I believe that a list of famous suffers mkes the article more interesting, although I do understand you point that it was getting a bit too long, and that pehaps it should not contain lists of relatives of famous people especially relatives of Jimmy Carter. However, I live in the United Kingdom and do not whhich Americans are worthy of admision to the list and take on trust the views of others.

Many Thanks,

Franz-kafka 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

URLs

Hello, I prefer to cover as many articles and fields of knowledge as possible by adding external links. I leave to others who have more time and interest in a particular area to perhaps extract information from those links and embed it into the respective main text. Thank you, Smithbrenon 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I would consider posting new links in the discussion pages if the external link section is too long. Thank you, Smithbrenon 22:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that discussion of new information is vital for the development of Wikipedia. Unfortunatelly, I do not have the time needed for writing; besides, I see value in external linking, too (otherwise there would not be external links sections in so many articles); I am careful to choose sources that provide substantive and trustful information. Thank you, Smithbrenon 00:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Parkinson's disease

Hi JFD, we've spoken before on other neurological illnesses. I've tried to start work on the Parkinson's disease article but have run into stiff opposition. I'm not asking you to weigh in on either side but you've been a big help in the past and I'd appreciate your views.

Thanks

--PaulWicks 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happened upon the User:General Tojo situation at WP:AN/I and undertook to read a bit about it. This comment to Paul's talk page, in which you suggest that his martial arts skills may help to resolve the impasse at Parkinson's disease engendered a good chuckle from me. Thanks for making my day a bit better (now, if you could, notwithstanding the Hippocratic Oath, injure a few Ghanan and Czech footballers, I'd be much appreciative... :) Joe 06:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jfd, thanks for all your help in sorting out Parkinson's disease. I've had a few emails of support from fellow professionals saying they're glad we've got a chance to get back on track with this article now. Thanks in no small part to your input. You're a star. --PaulWicks 16:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, in response to multiple anonymous reverts I have requested a semiprotection for the page. Do you think it is worth running a checkuser on some of these suspicious accounts or should semi-protection knock it on the head? --PaulWicks 21:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that General Tojo has an agenda, namely promoting his product Dopevite. He's subtler than most spammers, but he's still a spammer. The deal is, he invented the stuff, and he's sure he's right, so he's got religion, he's not just a pitchman. In response to your query on my page, JD, sure, I'm happy to help. I need breaks during my day, and this gives me a few minutes of entertainment. I'm not so willing to put good stuff up, though, and have it immediately go away again and get nonsense spewed over me. --Dan 03:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains Tojo's forcefulness. But he is of the type that is not cut out for Wikipedia. Doing random deletions because you don't agree with something is sure to annoy the hell out of many seasoned contributors.

Rest assured that methodology pages will not attract trolls of that sort, and if they do you can call me, Dr Trollbuster. JFW | T@lk 07:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coeliac disease

Next GI collaboration? Hope all is well -- Samir धर्म 03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tTG is great! I put it on the WP:DYK suggestions list. Did you know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? -- Samir धर्म 09:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

Delivered for the arbitration committee as a clerk (I don't take part in making these decisions). --Tony Sidaway

3RR and Parkinson's Disease

G'day Jfdwolff,

I've taken a look at Parkinson's disease, and come to two conclusions: 1) you did not violate the three-revert rule, and 2) there's no red-hot revert war going on at the moment, so even if you did, it would be counter-productive for me to take any action about it. For the same reason, even though by my count General Tojo (talk · contribs) has touched the famous 3RR electric fence, I don't intend to do anything about it. I'll watch the Parkinson's disease article, if you two would like, as much as my schedule allows.

For what it's worth, I am disappointed that you used rollback in one of your reverts. I know it's very tempting to just hit that link, but, as you know, it's considered rude to use it in content disputes. Happy editing, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 12:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Endo

On June 24, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Akira Endo, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Little known fact... my dad was on his Japan Prize nomination committee. -- Samir धर्म 04:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article, Tissue transglutaminase, was selected for DYK!

On June 24, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tissue transglutaminase, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism

Dear Jfdwolff! I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please put it on your watchlist, and please add relevant AfD's as you find them. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist? What's that? JFW | T@lk 22:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tojo etc

As the other accounts have existed for some time, I didn't feel comfortable indef blocking them as sockpuppets. Once I get an answer from somebody with checkuser rights, we'll hopefully have all of his sleepers and it should be easier to deal with new socks if and when they appear. I thought that full protection was the best action in the interim. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/General Tojo FYI. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that. Protection is needed until checkuser has run, but this troll has been a massive waste of time and a more collaborative editor (PaulWicks (talk · contribs)) has been on the verge of quitting because of him. JFW | T@lk 16:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been sitting back & waiting till Tojo goes away or something. He blocks us from putting up anything other than worshipful agreement with him, even when he's flat-out wrong, eg the epidemiology section, a field he clearly does not understand. I have friends from my Peace Corp days who are the Korean version of Ninjas (mwahahaha) --Dan 18:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, he's not gone yet. Like a fool I went and put up my incidence of PD section, then deleted some of the most irrelevant toxins. New user General Tojo!! has informed me that indeed those do cause PD. ~sigh~ --Dan 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it shortly after he posted it [2]. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got confirmation back on my checkser request and blocked/tagged all of them appropriately. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd warfarin change

Hi JD. Any chance you could please have a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warfarin&diff=60763428&oldid=60408424

- You have LESS platelets so a GREATER risk of DVT/PE. Really? Doesn't sound right to me but then I am not a Dr. Thanks! 138.37.199.199 08:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey. Well you learn something every day. Thanks so much for sorting this out and clarifying it. 138.37.199.199 12:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cholesterol image

Thanks for the suggestion about resizing the cholesterol image. I scaled down the original image and tweaked the image size in the infox. Hopefully it looks good now. Interestingly, with my browser/monitor combination, I can't see the difference in terms of blurring and aliasing that you referred to (either with my original image or with the new one I just uploaded). So maybe you could make a quick check and let me know how it looks for you now. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic POV in Judaism article

Hello Dr. Wolff: Kindly see Talk:Judaism for some debates about POV issues concerning the article. Thank you. IZAK 04:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some category namings

Hello Dr. Wolff: Please see:

Thank you. IZAK 04:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MCOTW

Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was selected.
Hope you can help…

NCurse_work 20:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK indeed

Hi

I am in the UK now, after 4 great weeks in NZ! Hopefully editing can help with my revision, rather than hinder it... Will have to choose topics judiciously! Cheers Iain Joncomelately 22:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet - the whole application process is still up in the air, with huge debates about how exactly we're going to be ranked and then assigned jobs. It looks like it might be a 'first past the post' kind of system, where if you fail to get into your first choice job then you'll get whatever is left at the second choice (assuming you get accepted) and not dislodge anyone, even if they're ranked lower than you; basically, if you don't get in to your first choice job then you'll end up with a job that nobody wants. So thinking carefully about where to apply seems paramount. We've got until October to decide.

I apologize for putting the link on the three articles, however I do not think you should have deleted the whole things. It is a matter of fact that thousands of people are wrongfully denied disability insurance every year and do nothing about it. This is why there are so many lobbyists trying to reform ERISA, because insurance companies are taking advantage of it and doing horrible things. So maybe I shouldn't have told them where to seek help, but they should know to seek it.

Hmmm, not sure why Koalabyte feels that is relevant, but hey...! Joncomelately 16:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch

Please watch amygdala. Thank you. Koalabyte 01:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wimple" & "Wimpel"

Hi Dr. Wolff and Gutt Voch!: You are something of an expert in Yekkishe topics could you please take a look at a new article: Wimpel created by User:Rabbi-m it strike me as being written as somewhat "tongue in cheek", and should perhaps be re-directed to another article. Thanks, IZAK 09:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

desiccated thyroid extract

Please take another look at the desiccated thyroid extract article and see if I have done justice to the controversial issues. I replaced the refs you asked about. Discuss on the article talk page if you have suggestions or comments. alteripse 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gluten free beer

I noticed you made a comment on the Coeliac disease talk page in 2004 indicating an awareness of the subject of gluten in beer. In May of this year a new user Wikwobble started a Gluten free beer article. He repeated sections of the text in other articles, mainly, at this stage, enthusing about a website glutenfreebeerfestival. I edited the article and removed over enthusiastic comments about the website which could be seen as promotional. I also removed similiar inappropriate enthusiasm in the other articles. I send Wikwobble a welcome message User talk:Wikwobble/Archive1 and a note about what I had done. We then settled into a long dispute about the best way forward. Debates can be seen on his talk page, my talk page archive and regular talk page, plus Talk:Gluten free beer. Recently Funex? has joined the debate and some conversation can be found on his talk page. Two admins, Johntex and ClockworkSoul have looked into the matter and feel all is unfolding as it should, though neither are close to the subject. My concern is that I may be pushing so much for a balanced view (NPOV), and being so concerned to tone down the enthusiasm for the glutenfreebeerfestival website (spam free!), that I may not have a balanced view and I may, in fact, be biased, blinked, unfair, etc. The debate is going into areas that are testing my understanding, and I am getting concerned that accusations that my editing is dangerous may in fact be true. If you feel that this matter is now best served by going to mediation then please let me know. Regards. SilkTork 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I care less about gluten free beer than about the same user spilling beer on coeliac disease. JFW | T@lk 18:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome

No problem - I can't stand those creeps. I mean, really – who spends their Sunday morning bitching like that? He was going at it hot and heavy for about 15 minutes on yours and a couple of others. The jackass even accused me of vandalism in an edit summary because I reverted one of his rants on another user page. Thanks for the thanks - I needed some! :) - Baseball,Baby! ^{take a swing} 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and note about the cancer article

Greetings Jfdwolff! I'm always happy to remove vandalism from user pages.

Could you also keep an eye on this? [3] Since it is out of my area of expertise, I'm not the one to judge the merits of the anonymous contribution, and I received this [4] on my talk page this morning as a result of my reversions: it contains quite an elaborate appeal to authority. I responded on his talk page with this [5]. I'd be very interested to know if the development in oncology he refers to is actually being discussed in the medical community, but I find nothing on Google. Take care! Antandrus (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully endorse your approach and have left a notice on Talk:Cancer. JFW | T@lk 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move request for terbinafine

Hi Jfdwolff, just wondering whether you'd mind moving terbinafine hydrochloride to the INN terbinafine. Thanks. -Techelf 11:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ashkenazi Jews

Hi Dr. Wolff: Your input would be welcome at Talk:Ashkenazi Jews#"Related Ethnic Groups". Thanks. Be well. IZAK 09:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aortic dissection

Please have a look at this. Aortic dissection is a featured article candidate. Thanks. NCurse_work 14:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kartchin

per the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfdwolff/Archive_14, please note i have asked for deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartchin_%28Hasidic_dynasty%29

shalomJJ211219 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should copy the discussion from the talkpage archive to the AFD page. JFW | T@lk 16:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your insults

I saw your comments, and am singularly unimpressed with them. Why don't you leave your personal insults and gossiping for your MD project talk page. If you bothered to check, you will see that the major changes of late on the BI article were not mine, but Dr. Zuckerman's. You ignored her, however, to insult me. If you want an NPOV, JFW, the way to do it is not to insult editors.jgwlaw 18:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Tojo on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hi Jfdwolff,

I've opened up a case file on General Tojo at WP:ANI#General_Tojo. Having dealt with him before, I was wondering whether you have anything to add.

-- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 18:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aprotinin

This is a confusing and poorly structured sentence, in your discussion of Aprotinin. Perhaps, JFW, you could rewrite to be a bit more comprehensible? "Anaphylaxis occurs at a rate of 1:200 in first-time use, but serology (antibodies against aprotinin) is not advocated to prevent anaphylaxis on reexposure due to metholodological problems[2]." From this sentence, it appears that the writer means that serology is an antibody, and that it is not advocated.... Wikipedia should be written for the general population, not medical professionals. Even if the audience were medical professionals, the sentence is still awkward.jgwlaw 02:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll rephrase it to satisfy your concerns. JFW | T@lk 14:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better. At least now, someone can understand what was being said. Thanks.jgwlaw 19:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree wtih your comments to the lawyer who tried to make this article an advertisement (as well as his own user page). I commented to him about that on his talk page, but he deleted your comments as well as mine.jgwlaw 01:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignorant about Parkinson's Disease

You were one of the idiots that though that everybody with Parkinson's Disease had tremor. You were displaying your gross ignorance. The other trolls on the PD pages are as ignorant as you asthat's what they thought as well. Neither you nor they are fit to add to it. You obviously don't care about readers being given the facts. Instead you support the ego deficient like yourselves in your mutual delusions about their knowledge of the subject. What are you doing adding to a subject when you don't even knowbasics. Don't you have any sense of shame or embarrassment. I guarantee that every single part of what they add will be interminably reversed. General Tojo

Tojo, let me tell you this: your sublime intelligence is not done justice by your use of sockpuppets and abusive language, which generally leads to blocking. I challenge you to show your social intelligence by making a number of sustained edits (the ones that don't get reverted immediately) - with a sockpuppet of your choice - without being blocked immediately for behaving like you have in the past.

I am willing to entertain any reasonably stated notion on a talkpage (e.g. whether all PD patients have tremor, which is something I never said). But I will not tolerate large undiscussed unilateral edits, serial reverts, abusive language, and personal attacks. Also please consider the fact that you do not own the PD article. JFW | T@lk 17:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the username General Tojo facetiously and almost randomly during a discussion of Japanese history. General Tojo was the Prime Minister during WW2. I was informed that my username General Tojo had to be changed within 48 hours by an administrator who had a heavy involvement in Japanese history and who was annoyed by the fact that General Tojo had also been subsequently convicted of war crimes. I started discussing the issue with the administrator who was quickly being shown to be inconsistent in his reasons. So instead of discussing or waiting 48 hours he tried to avoid being seen to be inconsistent by immediately banning me permanently. He later admitted to overreacting. He tried claiming racism as a reason despite not a single exchange even suggesting this, and despite the fact that I am a life long anti racist. So my banning was totally unjustified.

I used another name, which was banned solely because a different name is considered a Sock Puppet. So I had no choice of creating more. "Sock puppets" are therefore my only means of adding anything. You obviousy don't want me to add anything, as Sock Puppets or adding nothing are the only two available options to me. That's no problem for me as I can create 5 a minute. It takes far more effort for everyone else to keep up with them.

Everything I add is reverted because the novices on the PD pages want their views to prevail. However, given that only PD novies presently inhabit the PD pages they can not compete with me in discussions, and so want me out of the way. My reverting what they add is solely doing exactly what they do.

You challenge me to mke a sustained edit without reverting. I will make one tomorrow as "My hovercract is full of eels". It will be justified, and supported on the discussion page. You will then see for yourself what happens. It wil be immediately reverted. Once you see hard evidence amd justification of my actios I will resume as before.

As for personal attacks, it is not half of what has been put in my direction. You obviously have double standards in this respect as you haven't criticised a single aprt of it.

I don't own Wikipedia but neither do you and neither do they, yet some of them think that they do.

General Tojo

You are deliberately changing the facts. You had every right to start a new account to stop being General Tojo, because many editors felt that name was inappropriate. You then used new accounts to engage in edit warring on Parkinson's disease, an article where your presence was being felt in the negative sense of the word. Through WP:ANI it was then agreed that you were trolling, edit warring, being abusive (especially towards Paul Wicks, who has nothing to do with you being blocked).

Your attitude towards the "novices" is extremely harmful. If you cannot convince these people with rational arguments and reliable sources it is you who is at fault. Not them.

There are double standards. Editors who edit nicely are treated a lot better than those who make a fuss at every juncture. You are perceived to be in the latter category, and if you don't understand why I strongly doubt you will ever edit Wikipedia constructively.

My challenge involved more than one edit, and not necessarily the Parkinson's page. Start with something you are not so deeply involved in, like the geography of your hometown, a Dutch band, or even some public school. JFW | T@lk 18:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not checked the facts. General Tojo was objected to by only two people, neither of whom even added to the PD pages. There was no way they were going to see it. General Tojo has an entire article to himself. Yet there is no objection to that at all. Their objection was therefore irrational and inconsistent. The discussion that I was happy to take part in was cut very short when the inconsistencies became obvious.

I then added as NeuroProf discussing what I altered. There was nothing contentious in "his" alterations, yet he was also banned merely for having been General Tojo. Every other name I have added since then has been treated exactly the same way, and everything reverted for the same reason. It's not vandalism when they do it, but it'svandalis when I do it. Double standards again.

Although I am a Londoner, I know no more than anyone else about its geography.

I had never heard of that Merchant Taylor school until some buffoon suggested that I taught there. The thought of me lasting even one week as a shool teacher is laughable.

I have (as Mitrah) previously added to El Djem the large photograph at the bottom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Djem .

I have just added to the Focus site as Yatre6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus

I also previously added to the Django Reinhardt page. Paul Wicks who had probably never heard of Django Reinhardt reverted it solely due to it being by me. Somebody else (who is not me and nothing to do with me) thought it of particular interest and so effectively reverted what Paul Wicks had done.

I have already proven that I add constructively. I am still responsible for most of the PD page despite it being decimated by amateurs.

Some of the naive editors on the PD page know that their ignorance and inadequacies will soon become apparent if I am around, so they have continuously tried to rid me using the Sock Puppet excuse.

Unfortunately they have picked on the wrong person to mistreat because I will revert everything they ever add, and there is nothing they can do about it.

General Tojo

I am not going to revisit your blocking history. You have proven to be impossible at collaborating at Parkinson's disease, and about 10 administrators have seen little problem with blocking you for your persistent reverting and personal attacks. The username issue was the final drop, and your aggression at El C would have been enough for me personally. Live with it. It's history.

I never suggested that you taught at MT, but you should not immediately refer to the person who did suggest that as a "buffoon". This is the kind of behaviour that can get you blocked; NPA is big stuff.

Django Reinhardt was a brilliant guitarist. His remastered recordings are sublime. Despite being from Holland I'm ignorant enough not to ever have heard of Focus, although some members (especially Van Leer) had very succesful solo recording careers.

If you ever want to be taken seriously as a Wikipedia editor you'd better get the idea of reverting others out of your head. It will get you banned quicker that it takes to brew a cup of tea. Also, please consider ditching boldface as your trademark. It is enough to give any seasoned internet user a bad case of hives. JFW | T@lk 21:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the person that devised the patents for the Parkinson's Disease supplement happened to be the same name as a teacher at that school. It is also the same name as an Ambassador in the West Indies, and also an American motor racing driver, and also the author of a book on measurement, and also...... The person who claimed that I worked at that school WANTED to believe that I was only a school teacher, so that they could then claim that I could not know the subject. They are a fool for trying to believe something to be true when they pretty well knew that it wasn't.

I like boldface. It looks better. If somebody has a problem with it that's their problem. It's not my fault they are simply intolerant. I never object to the style of anyone else's writing.

If anyone unreasonably reverts me, I'll revert them and retaliate as well. They will revert because they don't want reasoning, discussion or consistency. Eventually they will regret it, and until they do every single person that adds anything to the PD page will see it all wiped out. If they want to treat me badly I will treat them even worse.

I was once in a long running civil court case. The judge acted rudely, arrogantly and incompetently. He was running me down thinking that I couldn't do anything about it. It normally takes both Houses of Parliament to get rid of an obnoxious or incompetent Judge, and that has only happened once in 50 years. Yet I ended his career. He was forced to resign in disgrace. In conflicts, I always win. It doesn't matter who somebody is.

General Togo

While I trying to communicate with you you've managed to edit the PD page as Andrew 37. I will not attempt to mediate with you if you continue.

It's not intolerance that people ask you to ditch the boldface. It's common internet courtesy. Your threats of retalliation show that my comments have not reached your neocortex but are hanging somewhere in the limbic system. Are you not interested in ending this silliness?

The difference between a courtroom and Wikipedia is that there are 500 administrators happy to block an offensive editor if necessary. It's not about winning. It's about writing an encyclopedia. If your personality is too big for this project then you will remain blocked. JFW | T@lk 07:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You had not suggested anything constructive at all. So there is no reason why my tactics should have changed.

Your only suggestion was that I effectively did not use any identity of any kind, as any pseudonym I use has been proven to be considred a Sock Puppet of General Tojo. Even Mitrah which I used to add only to El Djem has been reported as a General Tojo Sock Puppet.

Boldface is a matter of choice and taste. There is not the slightest rational reason why somebody should object to it, and nobody has explained one. It is not common courtesy to tell people which type font they should use. It is common courtesy to allow people to make their own personal choices. It was as if I was repeatedly using words like "Nigger" or "Faggot".

Whilst some editors and so called "contributors" (or naive decimators) continue to be treat me badly I will continue to use the same tactics. After only two weeks, it has become apparent that the guilty are giving up. Lengthy discussions about me on various pages came to nothing. Methodsof getting rid of me came to nothing. Recent "contributors" to the PD pages have stopped adding. Those still interested can be seen by their list of contributionsto have become constantly worried by me. Virtually all they ever do cocerns me.

There has been a concerted attempt to treat me badly. Unfortunately for them, they grossly misjudged me.

The simply choice is that I be treated reasonably and according to the Wikipedia Guidelines or that nothing whatsoever that anybody adds to the PD page will ever remain there.

General Tojo

My suggestion was to edit constructively without provoking edit wars; that sounds constructive to me. I will not comment further on your use of boldface, as you seem to be ignoring my arguments. Your ongoing harrasment of other editors will guarantee that you will remain blocked, and your ISP may be contacted. Your approach violates the policies as well as the spirit of Wikipedia, and your responses here only serve to show that you have no desire to adapt to the rest of the community. I wish you a good day and hope you will one day understand why everybody has lost their patience with you. JFW | T@lk 12:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tojo, I know that Chris 73 has preemptively banned User:My hovercraft is full of eels, but seeing as you didn't disruptly edit Parkinson's disease and no one else medically knowledgeable has yet discredited your edit, I have appealed the ban for you. [6]. Please consider this an act of good faith that you should be given one last chance to repair your reputation as a contributor to Wikipedia. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 13:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netsnipe: I agree that clear Tojo accounts shouldn't be banned automatically. That said, acts of good faith are probably wasted on this editor, even after assuming good faith much beyond the letter of the policy. JFW | T@lk 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Sigh- General Tojo just sockpuppeted as User:PaulWicks.. Look Tojo, it you want to be accepted back into the fold you too need to de-escalate your hostility too. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted GT's latest edits on the PD page not for their factual accuracy but on principle of fact that his latest sockpuppet impersonates my name. I labelled the non-PD related usernames as sockpuppets because they are; they're separate accounts with a different user name set up to conceal the user's identity. I labelled them so that if they were to wander in to the PD debate "by happenstance" as a new party we would all know who they were. Just because your account has been tagged (correctly) as a sockpuppet, it does not mean it will automatically be banned. So far the only accounts that have been banned are those that violated the rules. If GT wants to reinstate his useful edits on the PD page under a username that is more constructive than my name with a full stop at the end, he's welcome to.

Really I suppose we should all be thankful that we are graced with the presence of a nobel prize nominee who has read everything that has ever been written about PD and has had a high court judge sacked and is worshipped as a god on the island of bunga-bunga and has great abs and... hang on a minute. Is GT Chuck Norris? http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/

Personal attacks are in breach of Wikipedia guidelines Wimpy. So shall we ban you for making a personal attack, or do rules only apply to other people ???

The arrogant Judge was one of a number of scalps. I never tolerate mistreatment from anyone, and unfortunately there are too many people that are ready to mistreat.

Is the following meant to be poetry ??? Stick to the day job. Second thoughts, judging from your naivety concering Parkinson's Disease don't even do that.

General Tojo

I thought the poetry was actually pretty amusing. But I think it will be hard to take your edits seriously if your antics of reverting, incessant sock puppeting, and impolite comments continue. Surely this behavior doesn't match up with your knowledge of Parkinson's disease. Andrew73 17:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Tojo's tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals General Tojo allows to live.

When General Tojo falls in water, General Tojo doesn't get wet. Water gets General Tojo. --PaulWicks 13:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A ceasefire for 96 hours because you ran out of socks? Are you expecting me to accept that as your act of good faith or as mockery? How can you expect any acts of good faith from anyone here when you keep making threats? You treat Wikipedia like a personal game of pride. If so, you can't win. For me, Wikipedia is project with a great aim and I feel bound by a sense of civic duty to uphold its integrity by enforcing its policies. Please take a longer break from Parkinson's disease, your ego from fighting a war that has no consequence is clouding your judgement. Make twenty substantial contributions to articles that have nothing to do with medicine. See how it feels to be working together with others on Wikipedia rather than against them. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know Tojo, you could have avoided a lot of ill-will if you had followed procedure and protested to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee the first few times you felt wronged. Instead, you declared war on just about every editor you've ever crossed paths with on Wikipedi and when you start shooting at the bystanders, then its no real surprise when they too start distrusting your every move on sight. Just let go of your anger and move on. If you start building some good faith around here, we will return it. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 17:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Jfdwolff - Sorry for hijacking your talk page once more to communicate with Tojo! -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 17:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, Netsnipe. But any Tojoisms that do not indicate a fresh start are removed, as the edit history will indicate. JFW | T@lk 17:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed the original objections to the name General Tojo. My reasoning made the objector look inconsistent and intolerant so he instead immediately banned the name - later admitting that he overreacted. I then did discuss and object to his actions on the appropriate pages. My objections could not be answered. Instead, I was banned repeatedly. It is all on record. It can't be disputed. There was then a concerted and failed attempt to get rid of me. The numerous censors, oppressors and perpetrators have one by one found that I do not make a good enemy. It is they, not me that have had to realise that it is better to treat me well rather than treat me badly. As one British Prime Minister once said of one his more contentious Cabinet Ministers "I'd rather have him on the inside of the tent pissing out, than on the outside of the tent pissing in". General Tojo

"Censors, oppressors and perpetrators"? Careful there Tojo, you might be developing a nasty case of paranoia. I would be much more bemused if you had labelled me (don't know about the others) a Bureaucratic F*** instead, because that's how I see myself here. As long as you respect WP:3RR, WP:NPA and WP:V I'm pretty sure you would never had to have resorted to sock puppetry in the first place. Dwelling on the whole General Tojo issue is crying over spilt milk. Even you have admitted that you chose the username in jest, so it's not as if the name is truly part of your identity anyway. I hope we can all turn over a new leaf here, so please play nice from now on DiamondPlus. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you email me? --PaulWicks 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the curious situation of agreeing with Jfdwolff on one set of issues and disagreeing about another. But this is the most over-the-top personal attack I've ever seen, to the point that I have to wonder if General Togo/Tojo is deliberately trying to discredit his side of things. --Leifern 14:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leif, I have no idea what you are getting at. In what sense do you disagree with me? JFW | T@lk 23:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on my talk page

Thank you. If you look at my edits as a whole, I have added quite a bit of good and encyclopedic information. We can agree to disagree about the risks of silicone implants, but there will be no wholesale changes until consensus is reached - as you suggested. The way the article had gone previosuly was outrageous and infuriating. Also, insults are never a good way to collaborate - in or outside of Wikipedia. As to NPOV, we can discuss it on the talk page, in specific portions of the article, as is starting to happen. That has not happened before. jgwlaw 22:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver again...

He's made major deletions and changes without any discussion on the talk page. One of those was to virtually dispense with the section on local complications (which are not controversial). BUt he made many other changes as well. I reverted to your last version, and stated that we need to discuss these on the talk pages. (It's about the 10 millionth time I have requested that, but...)

You stated on my talk page that you would not support this. I wish you would let Oliver know this, not that it will make much difference since other editors have as well. But maybe it will - it's worth a try. I am willing to collaborate but negotiation and collboration are not unilateral actions made without discussion or comment or input from others. Thank you. jgwlaw 01:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg

Hello Dr. Wolff : Could you please take a look Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sheynhertz-Unbayg. Editors of Hebrew and Yiddish pages have come across User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg's work over the years. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt in the current RfC. Your views would be appreciated as this appears to be a cultural miscommunication too. Thank you IZAK 04:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for yeshivas

Hi Dr. Wolff: An important discussion is taking place at Talk:Telshe yeshiva that concerns issues relating to naming conventions for yeshivas. Your comments and observations at Talk:Telshe yeshiva would be very helpful. Perhaps it should become part of a broader discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Naming conventions for yeshivas. Best wishes, IZAK 06:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Thank you. I thought it wasn't possible to move pages the proper way when there already is a page where you want to move them... Velho 12:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration against GT

Hi Jfdwolff, I've requested arbitration be opened against GT and have nominated you as an involved party by virtue of your work on the Parkinsons disease page. Hope that's ok. Paul --PaulWicks 16:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have left some brief comments. JFW | T@lk 23:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Information on CHD

I have come across two pieces of information that have forced me to change my mind, with respect to writing to you, concerning CHD. I think it is important for you, as an administrator of Wikipedia, to think about a person's input, whether referenced or not before you decide to delete any material or make personal remarks about them "seems to be of the idea that his opinion is automatically notable, " You can review my response to that statement on the Wikipedia opinion page of Atorvastatin. I am also writing my User Page and not hiding behind any false or "cute" usernames. I use my real name and state my credentials. It is what professional researchers routinely do. I don't understand why it is not required byWikipedia.

The first piece of information that has evolved in the Lipitor (and statin) story along with the Zetia story is that the FDA has required rewording of the package inserts for the medications. The myopathy and rhabdomyolysis effects have been moved from adverse side effects to "Important Information Section". But even that does not adequately inform the patient. Have you noticed that Pfizer, in describing myopathy effects, uses a different definition for this word than is normally accepted. Please see the Wikipedia definition of myopathy and then look at the Pfizer definition: "Myopathy, defined as muscle aches or muscle weakness in conjunction with increases in creatine phosphokinase (CPK) values >10 times ULN, should be considered in any patient with diffuse myalgias, muscle tenderness or weakness, and/or marked elevation of CPK." There cannot be two different definitions, in scientific use for myopathy, wouldn't you agree? Is it possible that Pfizer is redefining the word so that the number of cases reported is decreased? You are a doctor, what do you think about this difference in definitions? How can you let these different definitions be used within Wikipedia?

When I used the Wikipedia definition of myopathy and analysed the Lipitor data, I developed the 3% number. This is not original research or opinion. It is a rereading of the same Pfizer data, using the general definition as reported in Wikipedia. Notice that now Pfizer reports that slightly less than 3% of patients had to discontinue Lipitor therapy. I would call that "notable".

Second, in the June edition of the American Journal of Cardiology, there is an Executive Summary of the work of the SHAPE Task Force containing "Newly Proposed Guidelines for Patient Screening for CHD". This is now referenced work. The new guidelines call for Lipid Profiles, Calcium Scoring or Carotid Artery Ultrasound Imaging, as first steps in assessing a patient for the risk of CHD. It is also well known that Carotid Artery Ultrasound Screening is a very effective test in determining (actually observing) the degree of atheroma (plaque) development in an individual. I don't think that a reference is needed for this.

So I would ask you to review the above material, the inconsistencies, and read the journal article. It is available on the WEB. Then we can discuss whether the present Wikipedia material should revised and by what amount and in which articles.

I await your response --Jtclemens 05:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on Talk:Atorvastatin. Oh, and Wikipedia is not just for researchers. It's an encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 23:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I have no desire to address every single point in this epistle. Contrary to yourself my only qualifications are a lowly medical degree, but your approach to medical science is not quite standard and Wikipedia is certainly not the vehicle to publicise this approach. Please review our most vital content guidelines: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. If you have calculated a myopathy risk of 3% this is WP:NOR. We're not a discussion board. I'm delighted to discuss medical science, but not at the expense of writing encyclopedia articles. JFW | T@lk 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)"

Thank you for your response. Now let's discuss how we shall proceed to discuss medical science, since you are delighted to do so. Please note that I have not revised any Wikipedia pages since my early postings. I followed your advice.

I only posted messages on discussion pages and Talk pages. This is where discussions are to proceed, or am I mistaken. So in a respectful tone how do we discuss medical advances, is there a mechanism withhin Wikipedia or do we use another venue, such as private e-mail? -Jtclemens 03:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all frankness, I do not claim expertise in the areas in which you show much proficiency. But what I do know is that the points you made on Talk:Atorvastatin, while possibly valid, are not quite suitable for inclusion into this general encyclopedia. You may wish to present specific points that you would like to include in the atorvastatin article, but at the moment much of your investigations would still count as original research, not having been published in a reliable source previously. Sometimes even verifiable points may not be suitable for inclusion if they are below the notability horizon. JFW | T@lk 20:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MCOTW

Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was selected.
Hope you can help…

NCurse_work 14:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Template:Oral hypoglycemics

Dr. Wolff, I have recently merged glyburide into glibenclamide, as the former is simply the USAN of the latter. I see you have contributed quite significantly to Template:Oral hypoglycemics, and I intend to remove glyburide from that template, since glybenclamide is already on it. If you have any objections to this change, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 00:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If merely USAN of INN, then not needed as separate entry on template - so I have removed :-) David Ruben ^Talk 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I generally dislike having all the ATC codes beside each drug's entry in the template (perhpas just for each group heading - one can always then follow the wikilink to see the full group classification) - it makes the table messy when it is supposed to be a simple list of the drugs to enable quick jumping between articles on the various members of the groups. Can we remove these ? David Ruben ^Talk 00:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in, since I was the one who added those codes to some of the templates. My goal was to sort them by code instead of sorting them alphabetically, because ATC has a very logical system of grouping drugs both by indication and by chemical structure. But if you think this is causing more trouble than it is worth, I won't object to their removal. --Arcadian 01:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever approach we take, though, I'd recommend that we standardize the format of the templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs#Navigation-_medications. I can see the benefit of switching to commas at Template:Antifungals, but now we have four different types of separators (commas, brackets, pipes, and dots). Any one of those would be fine with me, but I'd like to make them all the same. --Arcadian 01:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Arcadian on standardizing the templates. As for the separators, I'm actually partial to the dots (interpuncts), as in Template:Statins and Template:Antivirals; to me, they are the least distracting. Fvasconcellos 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The templates should certainly be standardised, and there may even be a way to automate them (or assign a CSS class so templates would automatically form the same style). JFW | T@lk 20:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DM bunkum

As a clnician, you are undoubtedly spared a good bit of it. And if you're not a Type, you'll not have encountered much in your non professional life. you might try using up some patient time and asking them to bring in stuff they've come across they've been too abashed to bring to your attention.

There is a rich tradition in DM, as I gather there is for most (all) of the uncurable -- only manageable to some extent -- conditions. And richer as we go back in time since it (they) were so varied and nisunderstood. But it still exists in re DM, as you can see with the chromium business. In the US anyway, there are still folks marketing ancient Indian (ayurvedic (sp?) or ancient Chinese or ancient Tibetan or whatever). A recent one is cinnamon, for which I gather there actually is some not entirely fanciful research. And then there are the persistent claims that this sort of exercise or food is especially good (though without credible research support as nearly as I've ever seen)

And, did you know that repeated 'high colonic cleansing' is especially helpful for digestion and therefore for diabetics? Count your belssings for not having being dipped in this river of bushwa.

And thank you for your contributions. They've been excellent and well worthwhile. ww 17:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Your Edits

I appreciate your thoughts and comments.

However, I am going to make you aware of the following:

I personally add information (including solid references) in an ongoing fashion, not in one shot.

Many physicians practice as Galland does; many, like Galland, possess such "mainstream" (or make that world-class) credentials from universities including Harvard.

Apparently, there was a terrible failure here to review Galland's work in particular. Galland alone cites a multitude (150 +) of MAINSTREAM medical references (apart from his professional experience). Let me point out one such related and plainly obvious reference--which thousands of physicians either practice, or are intended to practice--http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4725054.stm.. Note the source is right in your own backyard. And another, related but completely unaffiliated--http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/departments/colorectal_surgery/clinical/patient_guide/healing.html. Wikipedia is not about willful ignorance, nor criminal negligence.

The edits you are trying to have trouble with are in articles where there "currently is no treatment" (certainly not true), or there is a drug prescribed to patients, which, in promoting one pharma company or other, provides too far a slant--or advertisement. Wikipedia is not a drug journal, nor a medical society gazette. It is there for "every person to have access to the sum of all human knowledge" (what Jim Wales, Wikipedia's founder, wishes it to be). You can add "mainstream" therapies (...if they exist...), yours, the Man in the Moon's--in an appropriate spot--on the same page of the article in question, as other Wikipedia medical articles have done. What you have done is not erase my work--you are erasing the work of colleagues of yours.

Never forget this is the people's encyclopedia, not any one racketeer group's.

(If this were the case, you would need to keep all types of professional legal information out of Wikipedia. But take note that everything including "Alternative Dispute Resolution"--legal practice outside of mainstream legal work--is covered by Wikipedia. Should Mathematics be censored here because people could learn from other than a professional mathematician? Are you concerned that Wiki News hurts working journalists ? And, nothing mechanical should be covered by Wikipedia, because usually no two tradesman agree on repairs...)

As important as any of the above, I have seen what I have written work first-hand, or I wouldn't have written it (but that's just me). It's also pretty much the way science is done.

Thanks again anyway. The above being the case, your edits are best undone, as these and other articles will continue to be updated.

Res q68 20:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another move request

Sorry to bug you again. As noted in Talk:Refraction error, the term "refractive error" is much more commonly used than "refraction error" (by a ratio of nearly 30:1 when using a Google test). Would you mind redirecting Refraction error to Refractive error if you believe this to be a noncontroversial move. As always, many thanks! (Good job on Aprotinin, by the way!) -AED 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will be done. Give me stuff like aprotinin any day. Coagulation is interesting. JFW | T@lk 06:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CD

Saw you were around. Could you have a peek at Crohn's disease when you get some time? Would appreciate your comments and additions. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 06:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, perhaps italics would be better. The article originally had bolding of symptoms, and I just kept along with it. The article needs some de-jargoning I think and a pic of erythema nodosum would be nice... will bring digital camera to work tomorrow. Thanks for looking at it and for your comments -- Samir धर्म 07:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS as featured article main page appearance

hi there. in case you missed it, i thought you might like to know AIDS is appearing on the main page as a featured article on June 15th (this month). if you could, it'd prolly help to have someone keeping an eye out for vandals specifically on that date, since as of right now there is at least one vandalizing a day since it's FA status. now would also be a good time to copyedit it before the big slam on its main page day. :) JoeSmack ^Talk 16:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd - is canvassing for support on external forums permitted ?

I have been asked privately by another editor about an AfD, for which the proposer has apparently used an external blog site to solicit those with a particular point of view to sign up to wikipedia and cast their votes (details apparently also included a suggested list of comments to attach to the cast votes). Is this permitted ? If not then:

Which wikipolicies does this break ?
How should the editor proceed to have the AfD vote notified (?nullified as attempt at POV pushing ?)
How is appropriate action taken against the AfD proposer ?

David Ruben ^Talk 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

There has been a vandal at work on the disscusion page of Immune System. I am a new wikiholic, and I am unsure how to solve this problem. I saw your discussions there and thought I would bring the issue to you. Admiraldowdy 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore above. System admin responded. Admiraldowdy

CAH

Why in the world would you remove a link to http://CongenitalAdrenalHyperplasia.org from the Adrenal Insufficiency article?!? Dannycarlton 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is about a subtype of adrenal insufficiency which has its own page, namely congenital adrenal hyperplasia where it is much more appropriate. Have you read our external links policy yet? JFW | T@lk 23:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless the link is valid because CAH is a major source of Adrenal Insufficiency, and many people researching CAH will look first to Adrenal Insufficiency. Perhaps you are simply in a bossy mood and wanted some links to remove to make you feel important. The fact is it is indeed a valid link, and you really shouldn't edit subjects you very obviously know little about. Leave that to people more educated. Dannycarlton 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DNFTT. JFW | T@lk 02:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thanks again for the nom. Thought about it and your kind words, and have accepted. -- Samir धर्म 23:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prodding... sure looks promising now (knock on wood) -- Samir धर्म 19:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

Just what exactly should I be censored for? And why don't you discuss it with me or find out what has already taken place? I truly don't understand your hostility.MollyBloom 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, stop challenging every keep vote in AFD. JFW | T@lk 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a personal attack (in what way did I attack you?) Instead, I wish you'd stop attacking every keep vote. Also, I'm voting as a Wikipedian here; admins have no special powers when voting on AFD and should not receive different treatment for this reason. JFW | T@lk 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding. The 'vote' is for an Rfd, not as to whether to 'censure' Molly. I have no problem with your 'Keep Vote', and indeed I left in on the front page without comment. I think you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. This is not a vote for the Rfd: Censure Molly for using AFD to WP:POINT.

This is inappropriate. If you have a problem with me, take it up somewhere other than the main page of the Rfd. As a doctor, you should be smart enough to have seen this. In fact, I suspect you knew exactly what I meant. I have gotten to the point that I don't care what happens to this article. I have withdrawn the Rfd, because this is no longer a discussion about the merits of an Rfd. IN fact, it hasn't been for some time.MollyBloom 03:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a doctor I know how to distinguish people from their behaviours. I have no problem with you as a person, but I believe your behaviour on that AFD should be addressed. There is nothing ad hominem about commenting on people's behaviour. I'd be thrilled if you stopped caring about what happens to that article; perhaps you'd stop making such a colossol fuss over it, and stop pretending to WP:OWN both the article and its AFD. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did nothing for which to be censured, and will not continue this discussion. Moreover, a doctor gives you no special aptitude to distinguish people from behaviors. Your behavior in publicly 'voting' for 'censure' with the 'vote' for Rfd was inexcusable. Nobody WP:OWN any article. IT is expected and reasonable to explain one's reason for creating an Rfd. I suspect your comment about own is more applicable to its author Oliver, who has argued every single 'delete', including yours. Look at his comment to you. Oh, by the way, I did ask two board certified plastic surgeons about Maxwell. One said she had not heard of Maxwell and the other had, but somewhat sarcastically said "He only thinks he IS plastic surgery". Not great endorsements. MollyBloom 14:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple spam link addition

Hi - I see you too cottoned on to User:71.16.43.178 multiple ad-farm links. Is there anyway to revert quickly multiple article (rather than have to individually open each one, select history, open the previous version, edit and re-save) ? Or is this an admin's tool ? David Ruben ^Talk 16:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solution

The solution to the GFDL problem would be to put your draft on a subpage that states that all contributions to that page are released into the public domain. - Nunh-huh 00:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

compromise?

Hi there, I have apparently been successful at generating a potential compromise regarding biopsychology article. (at the RFC)Perhaps you will go look at it, thanks. Prometheuspan 03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemo brain

Hey man, the article on Chemo Head is very weak and unsubstantiated, but the term chemo brain describing the same entity is used in the lay parlance frequently: [7] PMIDs (albeit all junk articles): PMID 16635046, PMID 16381547, PMID 16320418 -- Samir धर्म 08:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the GHits are unrelated slang, though -- Samir धर्म 08:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed entirely. -- Samir धर्म 09:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you picked the Toronto article for the reference in chemotherapy... -- Samir धर्म 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Tannock, the first author on the ref grunted at me once (I wrote a lukewarm review of a book of his when I was a med student). Grunts promote WikiLove and certainly that one made my day better. Spread the WikiLove by grunting at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. -- Samir धर्म 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

evolution of aging

Hi, Doctor-
I get a mixed message when I hear "welcome to Wikipedia - thank you for your contribution" and "your article was marked for quick deletion".
This is a contentious field, which I've tried to summarize fairly, but I have strong opinions on the subject, and expected that others with strong opinions would add their, or even edit mine. I don't understand the basis on which my material was removed, and until I understand that better, I'm not likely to make further contributions.
Is this about style or content? Was the material removed by someone who knows more about evolution of aging than I do? Do people use their names in this game?
Thanks for any guidance you can give me.--Mitteldorf 03:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC) -Josh Mitteldorf[reply]

Hello

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 13:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jfdwolff Vandalises Prayer Page

Jfdwolff, stop deleting links that don't comply with your POV on the prayer page or I will have an administrator block you. Your links were left intact, yet you removed others.Spicynugget 16:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My links? I never added an external link to that. JFW | T@lk 18:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHS stubs

Hi there! After a lot of rattling sround, my attempt to validate the use of {{NHS-stubs}} and reclaim Category:NHS stubs from the name 'UK medical organisation stubs' (given to it when hardly anyone was looking' has now reached the subs proposal list, here. One contributor has suggested it ought to be named Category:National Health Service stubs, which is fine by me. If you are in favour of either version, which would give us a clear 'dedicated' list of stubs which the WikiProject could attack, please go to the proposal article and vote accordingly. All best regards - --Smerus 04:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Amyloid degeneration; Pemetrexed; Achard-Thiers syndrome; Purpura; Dysplasia; Fibrosis; Verapamil; Chondroma; Croup; Hepatorenal syndrome; Quinidine; Urinary catheterization; Leiomyosarcoma; Sotalol; Health profession; Alkylating agent; Liposarcoma; Co-codamol; Hypertensive heart disease

Cleanup: Disease management (health); Turner syndrome; Healthcare in Romania
Merge: Petzetakis' disease; Sleeping sickness; Group B Streptococcus
Add Sources: Ibuprofen; Laxative; Testosterone
Wikify: Chico, California; Coacervate; Hubert
Expand: Universal precautions; Permissive hypercapnia; Zygomatic bone

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tzaraath

Funny you moved Tzaraas to Tzaraath on the basis that it was one particular tradition, yet you moved it to a different one, sounds like bias to me. If you insisted on moving it to anything, it should have been to a Modern Hebrew spelling. Next I expect you'll be moving Brit milah to Berith? SF2K1

When it comes to naming Hebrew articles, we should be using either archaic academic spelling or something approximating Modern Hebrew. I'm more in favour of the latter. If you don't like tzaraath (which is clear from the tone of your message), please submit a move request or start a discussion on the article's talkpage. Perhaps we should discuss the whole naming issue again in the Judaism WikiProject, as it touches on many other articles. JFW | T@lk 07:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edit summary

Jfdwolff, it is simply inappropriate to summarize your recent edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism as "meddling by user who is not a member of the WikiProject." Moreover, the passages you'd restored are themselves inappropriate. We're not here to band together in factions against perceived rivals, or to spread negative feelings or assumptions about editors with other religious beliefs, and if we are, we shouldn't be here.Timothy Usher 11:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talkpage, and would encourage you to discuss this the WikiProject's talkpage first before making the same edit again. JFW | T@lk 11:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You made me smile. Thanks! Jakew 12:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pancreatic Cancer

I am interested in your thoughts on the Pancreatic cancer article, and would like to discuss your most recent edit. Thanks EricNau 04:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asbestosis

Did you write this article? It is outstanding. You have quibbled with me in the past, so I thought I might try to 'mend fences'. Also, I genuinely thought this article was very good, and I am hard to please. ;-)

The only thing I found a little off was one note - that mesothelioma requires prolonged exposure ....unless you meant by generalized something else? I have researched mesothelioma at length about 20 years ago, and ever since then. It started when I was working as an engineer, and discovered my father had been diagnosed with mesothelioma. I spoke to the oncologists, and called cancer researchers at the university where I then worked.

I discussed this on the talk page. I only made one slight change. I changed the parenthetical about mesothelioma to omit the 'prolonged exposure', saying only that it was a very rare disease but the frequency has increased over the last 40 years as people who were exposed to asbestos age. The real numbers still make it a rare disease. However, the rate of increase has been significant in the last 40 years. The majority of asbestos was used for building puposes after WWII. This is consistent wtih experts believing the rate will begin to level off within the next decade.

The first wrongful death asbesots lawsuit was in 1929. Interesting, don't you think? I also agree that the articles on mesothelioma and asbestosis should not discuss the legal or political issues. These are resources for information about the illness. In 1986, I was using a DOS based PC, and there surely was no WIkipedia as a ready resource. I surely wish I had all the internet resources then! I had to go digging, I read the reports to the senate subcommitte on asbestos related diseases, and talked to dozens of doctors and oncologists about it. It was an obsession for some time, I loved my dad very much, and I guess that was my way of dealing with grief. I knew he was going to die, but I watched him hope against hope that some new drug would help him survive. I watched him go from a robust happy man who loved his work (geolgoist), loved to hike and loved the outdoors to a shadow of his former self, racked by pain and severely depressed. He had just retired when he was diagnosed. He had planned on traveling the world wtih my mother. They never had that chance. I encouraged my mother to find a lawyer on this, but she didn't have the heart. And I would not push her. She, and the entire family, had more than enough to deal with. But I never forgot the things I read and heard. They stuck like glue. MollyBloom 05:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks on call

Dear JFW, I can't thank you enough for nominating me for adminship! Your nomination came as a very pleasant surprise (I was even more surprised that it succeeded). Thanks for the encouragement in proceeding. It's a genuine pleasure working with you and I look forward to many more collaborations! (I look forward to playing with the shiny buttons when I get back to Toronto...) Thanks again! -- Samir धर्म 07:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

grrr

I'm so aggravated...I ended up deleting about 2/3 of my post, but you might want to look in on defusing things at Talk:Judaism#Orthodoxy:_Founded_vs._Maintained. Tom e r ^talk 07:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Cell Signaling to the Cell Biology and Protein projects

Hi... I've been adding in several pages in my field, which involves protein growth factors and the cell signaling pathways they mediate. I noticed that there doesn't seem to be a lot of emphasis on cell signaling as an organizing theme for the proteins.

I think it would be helpful to use signaling to contextualize groups of proteins, since it would put them in their correct functional setting.

For example, the pathway which initiates cell division, or apoptosis can be a distinct page, and proteins which participate in these pathways can be mentioned.

This seems like a more useful way to organize things than just structural similarities (and it's not mutually exclusive - it would be an addition rather than a change of anything that is existing.)

Would it be okay for me to get going on this project? Could you help fold me into the cell biology, protein projects?

Thanks. Gacggt 23:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan to make major modifications, always discuss on the talk page. Make sure your work is properly referenced and not wildly divergent from the accepted viewpoint. That's all. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re User:Anon!

Hi, wonder if you could offer some advice as to how I should best proceed re User:Anon!. They are a new user who added links to Metoclopramide for Milk fetishism and Category Milk & Breast fetishism, see here - apparently the drug used to promote or induce lactation. Similar links & categories were added to a number of botanic pages Milk thistle, Blessed milk thistle, Blessed thistle & Cnicus.

The main issue has been over Milk fetishism and whilst I have no specific knowledge of the topic, considerable uncited, unverified "how to" information was added (see here_) on use (presumably without prescription and thus illegal supply of drugs) of metoclopramide and domperidone including a discussion of dosages to be used, as well as what amounts to personal opinion as to types of electric pumps to use. This user then subsequently on 12th June restored a whole load of external links to yahoo groups (original inserters of these had been a variety of URL anons - may or may not have been editor susquently registered as Anon!).

Myself & User:Tregoweth have tried to remove the uncited, unverified, conjecture/personal opinion on several occassions with full edit summaries explaining why, requests to discuss on the talk page (where there is considerable explanation of policies required to support acceptable material) all trying to engage this new user. The response is repeated revertions claiming vandalism.

I reported to 3:RR but this was correctly discounted as I had miscounted the number of reverts as of 19:06, 13 June 2006, and I appologised for this on the article's talk page. But then they did 4 reverts between 14:21, 13 June 2006 and 12:53, 14 June 2006. It was at this point I chose to post a hopefully pleasant post on Anon!'s talk page. Since when they have failled to engage and merely undertaken a single daily revert.

I would not be surprised if some drugs are misused in such a manner, but personal suposition is no basis for material in wikipedia. Having posted to article talk page, user talk page and repeated requests for engagement on edit summaries - what should be the next action?

Is it now too late to try report 3:RR and I feel would probably be bad faith on my part, given on their user-talk page I said I would give them the benefit of the doubt for being a newbie ?
Does their reverts stating "RVvandalism" amount to failure WP:AGF, given the repeated requests to discuss the material & forum directory listings on th earticle talk page, and so for contact to WP:AN/I ?
Or is this still just a content dispute for which either WP:Mediation or WP:RfC needs be made ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry should prompt a checkuser request and summarily banning by WP:ANI. Never trust editors who edit only about their preferred [noun]-philia. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admǜin request: Tired of chronic fatigue

Dear nice admin:

Not 24 hours after I tried to clean out a lot of silly patient bias (note that I am a patient myself) and stuff from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (and lost my final version to over-write, but fortunately other people fixed my typos), somebody has come along and added a ton of edits which reflect patient bias, removed the codes/disease infobox, and undone a lot of my standardization to the US terminology (CFS not ME, spelling and so on; I've gone with US because the article is called CFS and the discussion pages seem to reflect that this is what people feel the article should be). There may be some useful info that User:carl.stock has added, but I am too fatigued to wade through all of his stuff. If you have time, could you have a look? I'd be tempted to revert to 18:03, 16 June 2006 version myself, then add in anything necessary due to the recent news of a British coroner having called "cause of death" as ME on one person in the UK. (I don't think one call is sufficient to say that all cases of CFIDS/ME are fatal; maybe I'm an optimist, but I'm a live one.) Anyway, an admin's eye would be a big help. Thanks for all your work keeping this article sensible!

Feyandstrange 10:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's several ways of doing this. You can revert until you're blue in the face. Alternatively, you can ask Carl nicely to provide sources for his assertions. CFS as a cause of death is a complete abberation and should not under any circumstance be mentioned in this article. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LASIK

User:63.246.164.173 keeps inserting the same bit of linkspam into the LASIK article. I was wondering if you might put this on your watchlist for a few days to help us deal with it. Thanks! -AED 03:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AED, I have no watchlist anymore. Try to have the URL blacklisted on meta. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COELIACS - The Good News

Response: thank you for that. I think there is validity in your points here, and I should have been less emotional. However, I think the truth lies somewhere between these positions. It is hard to be "neutral" in the case of medical conditions. How can we balance the bad points about cancer with the "good" points? Shouldn't the reader reasonably assume the writer is anti-cancer? That being said, I repeat that your points are sound and I shall mull. Again I make the point that most work on coeliacs ignores the social impact, and yet this is perhaps the most obvious symptom! I shall try to get some source material on this aspect, as it is a significant area, but I accept and appreciate the opinions raised by Jfdwolff and jpgordon which are positive and helpful. wikwobble

Nobody expects the writer to choose sides. NPOV applies to diseases just as much as politicians. One cannot say "cancer is a horrible disease" (which is POV) but one can say "cancer affects 1 in 3 adults at some point in their life and may lead to a marked decrease in quality of life" (which is neutral, especially when supported by references).

If you can provide solid references (e.g. by psychology researchers) how coeliac disease affects people in social settings, then I do not see why this cannot be included. Please discuss on the talkpage first, so we can see the merits of specific material. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

I wonder how many more admins I'll have to apologize to before the day is over! As I explained to Freakofnurture earlier today, I didn't realize that such page moves are illegal. Unfortunately I had already done two cut and paste moves before I was instructed properly. Thanks for fixing the problem. --DLand ^TALK 01:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pancreatic Cancer

I believe that a list of famous suffers mkes the article more interesting, although I do understand you point that it was getting a bit too long, and that pehaps it should not contain lists of relatives of famous people especially relatives of Jimmy Carter. However, I live in the United Kingdom and do not whhich Americans are worthy of admision to the list and take on trust the views of others.

Many Thanks,

Franz-kafka 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

URLs

Hello, I prefer to cover as many articles and fields of knowledge as possible by adding external links. I leave to others who have more time and interest in a particular area to perhaps extract information from those links and embed it into the respective main text. Thank you, Smithbrenon 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I would consider posting new links in the discussion pages if the external link section is too long. Thank you, Smithbrenon 22:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that discussion of new information is vital for the development of Wikipedia. Unfortunatelly, I do not have the time needed for writing; besides, I see value in external linking, too (otherwise there would not be external links sections in so many articles); I am careful to choose sources that provide substantive and trustful information. Thank you, Smithbrenon 00:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Parkinson's disease

Hi JFD, we've spoken before on other neurological illnesses. I've tried to start work on the Parkinson's disease article but have run into stiff opposition. I'm not asking you to weigh in on either side but you've been a big help in the past and I'd appreciate your views.

Thanks

--PaulWicks 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happened upon the User:General Tojo situation at WP:AN/I and undertook to read a bit about it. This comment to Paul's talk page, in which you suggest that his martial arts skills may help to resolve the impasse at Parkinson's disease engendered a good chuckle from me. Thanks for making my day a bit better (now, if you could, notwithstanding the Hippocratic Oath, injure a few Ghanan and Czech footballers, I'd be much appreciative... :) Joe 06:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jfd, thanks for all your help in sorting out Parkinson's disease. I've had a few emails of support from fellow professionals saying they're glad we've got a chance to get back on track with this article now. Thanks in no small part to your input. You're a star. --PaulWicks 16:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, in response to multiple anonymous reverts I have requested a semiprotection for the page. Do you think it is worth running a checkuser on some of these suspicious accounts or should semi-protection knock it on the head? --PaulWicks 21:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that General Tojo has an agenda, namely promoting his product Dopevite. He's subtler than most spammers, but he's still a spammer. The deal is, he invented the stuff, and he's sure he's right, so he's got religion, he's not just a pitchman. In response to your query on my page, JD, sure, I'm happy to help. I need breaks during my day, and this gives me a few minutes of entertainment. I'm not so willing to put good stuff up, though, and have it immediately go away again and get nonsense spewed over me. --Dan 03:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains Tojo's forcefulness. But he is of the type that is not cut out for Wikipedia. Doing random deletions because you don't agree with something is sure to annoy the hell out of many seasoned contributors.

Rest assured that methodology pages will not attract trolls of that sort, and if they do you can call me, Dr Trollbuster. JFW | T@lk 07:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coeliac disease

Next GI collaboration? Hope all is well -- Samir धर्म 03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tTG is great! I put it on the WP:DYK suggestions list. Did you know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? -- Samir धर्म 09:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

Delivered for the arbitration committee as a clerk (I don't take part in making these decisions). --Tony Sidaway

3RR and Parkinson's Disease

G'day Jfdwolff,

I've taken a look at Parkinson's disease, and come to two conclusions: 1) you did not violate the three-revert rule, and 2) there's no red-hot revert war going on at the moment, so even if you did, it would be counter-productive for me to take any action about it. For the same reason, even though by my count General Tojo (talk · contribs) has touched the famous 3RR electric fence, I don't intend to do anything about it. I'll watch the Parkinson's disease article, if you two would like, as much as my schedule allows.

For what it's worth, I am disappointed that you used rollback in one of your reverts. I know it's very tempting to just hit that link, but, as you know, it's considered rude to use it in content disputes. Happy editing, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 12:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Endo

On June 24, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Akira Endo, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Little known fact... my dad was on his Japan Prize nomination committee. -- Samir धर्म 04:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article, Tissue transglutaminase, was selected for DYK!

On June 24, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tissue transglutaminase, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism

Dear Jfdwolff! I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please put it on your watchlist, and please add relevant AfD's as you find them. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist? What's that? JFW | T@lk 22:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tojo etc

As the other accounts have existed for some time, I didn't feel comfortable indef blocking them as sockpuppets. Once I get an answer from somebody with checkuser rights, we'll hopefully have all of his sleepers and it should be easier to deal with new socks if and when they appear. I thought that full protection was the best action in the interim. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/General Tojo FYI. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that. Protection is needed until checkuser has run, but this troll has been a massive waste of time and a more collaborative editor (PaulWicks (talk · contribs)) has been on the verge of quitting because of him. JFW | T@lk 16:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been sitting back & waiting till Tojo goes away or something. He blocks us from putting up anything other than worshipful agreement with him, even when he's flat-out wrong, eg the epidemiology section, a field he clearly does not understand. I have friends from my Peace Corp days who are the Korean version of Ninjas (mwahahaha) --Dan 18:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, he's not gone yet. Like a fool I went and put up my incidence of PD section, then deleted some of the most irrelevant toxins. New user General Tojo!! has informed me that indeed those do cause PD. ~sigh~ --Dan 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it shortly after he posted it [8]. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got confirmation back on my checkser request and blocked/tagged all of them appropriately. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd warfarin change

Hi JD. Any chance you could please have a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warfarin&diff=60763428&oldid=60408424

- You have LESS platelets so a GREATER risk of DVT/PE. Really? Doesn't sound right to me but then I am not a Dr. Thanks! 138.37.199.199 08:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey. Well you learn something every day. Thanks so much for sorting this out and clarifying it. 138.37.199.199 12:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cholesterol image

Thanks for the suggestion about resizing the cholesterol image. I scaled down the original image and tweaked the image size in the infox. Hopefully it looks good now. Interestingly, with my browser/monitor combination, I can't see the difference in terms of blurring and aliasing that you referred to (either with my original image or with the new one I just uploaded). So maybe you could make a quick check and let me know how it looks for you now. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic POV in Judaism article

Hello Dr. Wolff: Kindly see Talk:Judaism for some debates about POV issues concerning the article. Thank you. IZAK 04:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some category namings

Hello Dr. Wolff: Please see:

Thank you. IZAK 04:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MCOTW

Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was selected.
Hope you can help…

NCurse_work 20:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK indeed

Hi

I am in the UK now, after 4 great weeks in NZ! Hopefully editing can help with my revision, rather than hinder it... Will have to choose topics judiciously! Cheers Iain Joncomelately 22:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet - the whole application process is still up in the air, with huge debates about how exactly we're going to be ranked and then assigned jobs. It looks like it might be a 'first past the post' kind of system, where if you fail to get into your first choice job then you'll get whatever is left at the second choice (assuming you get accepted) and not dislodge anyone, even if they're ranked lower than you; basically, if you don't get in to your first choice job then you'll end up with a job that nobody wants. So thinking carefully about where to apply seems paramount. We've got until October to decide.

I apologize for putting the link on the three articles, however I do not think you should have deleted the whole things. It is a matter of fact that thousands of people are wrongfully denied disability insurance every year and do nothing about it. This is why there are so many lobbyists trying to reform ERISA, because insurance companies are taking advantage of it and doing horrible things. So maybe I shouldn't have told them where to seek help, but they should know to seek it.

Hmmm, not sure why Koalabyte feels that is relevant, but hey...! Joncomelately 16:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch

Please watch amygdala. Thank you. Koalabyte 01:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wimple" & "Wimpel"

Hi Dr. Wolff and Gutt Voch!: You are something of an expert in Yekkishe topics could you please take a look at a new article: Wimpel created by User:Rabbi-m it strike me as being written as somewhat "tongue in cheek", and should perhaps be re-directed to another article. Thanks, IZAK 09:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

desiccated thyroid extract

Please take another look at the desiccated thyroid extract article and see if I have done justice to the controversial issues. I replaced the refs you asked about. Discuss on the article talk page if you have suggestions or comments. alteripse 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gluten free beer

I noticed you made a comment on the Coeliac disease talk page in 2004 indicating an awareness of the subject of gluten in beer. In May of this year a new user Wikwobble started a Gluten free beer article. He repeated sections of the text in other articles, mainly, at this stage, enthusing about a website glutenfreebeerfestival. I edited the article and removed over enthusiastic comments about the website which could be seen as promotional. I also removed similiar inappropriate enthusiasm in the other articles. I send Wikwobble a welcome message User talk:Wikwobble/Archive1 and a note about what I had done. We then settled into a long dispute about the best way forward. Debates can be seen on his talk page, my talk page archive and regular talk page, plus Talk:Gluten free beer. Recently Funex? has joined the debate and some conversation can be found on his talk page. Two admins, Johntex and ClockworkSoul have looked into the matter and feel all is unfolding as it should, though neither are close to the subject. My concern is that I may be pushing so much for a balanced view (NPOV), and being so concerned to tone down the enthusiasm for the glutenfreebeerfestival website (spam free!), that I may not have a balanced view and I may, in fact, be biased, blinked, unfair, etc. The debate is going into areas that are testing my understanding, and I am getting concerned that accusations that my editing is dangerous may in fact be true. If you feel that this matter is now best served by going to mediation then please let me know. Regards. SilkTork 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I care less about gluten free beer than about the same user spilling beer on coeliac disease. JFW | T@lk 18:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome

No problem - I can't stand those creeps. I mean, really – who spends their Sunday morning bitching like that? He was going at it hot and heavy for about 15 minutes on yours and a couple of others. The jackass even accused me of vandalism in an edit summary because I reverted one of his rants on another user page. Thanks for the thanks - I needed some! :) - Baseball,Baby! ^{take a swing} 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and note about the cancer article

Greetings Jfdwolff! I'm always happy to remove vandalism from user pages.

Could you also keep an eye on this? [9] Since it is out of my area of expertise, I'm not the one to judge the merits of the anonymous contribution, and I received this [10] on my talk page this morning as a result of my reversions: it contains quite an elaborate appeal to authority. I responded on his talk page with this [11]. I'd be very interested to know if the development in oncology he refers to is actually being discussed in the medical community, but I find nothing on Google. Take care! Antandrus (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]