User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 31

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Thanks and congratulations! It's in fact you who had worked the hardest.

I have the right kind of info for lymphatic system but don't know how to start with it.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 06:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a couple of others are already around on the talk page. I'm sure they can help. I'm concentrating on the SAH featured article nomination, but when that's sorted I will help out with lymphatic system. JFW | T@lk 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I I'd talked about lymphatic system, in general, as it is the MCOTW, not with expectation of you to intervene. Well, I'd come across this objection in the GA-review of ascending cholangitis:

"In "Pathogenesis": "It is important in this mode of proposed pathogenesis that the obstruction be partial, and not complete as the latter would not allow the bacteria to ascend upward and contaminate the biliary tree." Reference 1 is quoted. Is there actually any evidence for this? Axl (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done Kinney seems to be speaking from experience. Any sentence beginning with "it is important" needs revision anyway. I will remove it, because the remainder of the paragraph speaks for itself. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)""

I'd put the point about the obstruction being partial. I don't remember if I'd cited it but the reference was Schwartz's Principles of Surgery. So, if you want you may restore the statement (with modified language). Also, apart from having a source, it also sounds "logical". The GA-review procedure was so quick I didn't even realize that it was on. Sorry that couldn't contribute to it. —KetanPanchal^taLK 06:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who put in the comment about partial obstruction. No worries about not contributing - there were no major problems. JFW | T@lk 08:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter, but it was me who'd emphasized on the obstruction being partial and not complete (Edit difference; I'd by mistake put Kinney as the reference instead of Schwartz's). —KetanPanchal^taLK 09:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinney says the same thing. JFW | T@lk 13:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton

Hi, JFW. I see that you are in correspondence with Mr Grundy. Are you working in Southampton? Axl (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I bumped into Paul Grundy online. I work elsewhere. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CA19-9

Nice work on the cleanup. Much better now. I would gladly have done the mechanical work myself, but I was worried about inadvertently changing things factually. Tlesher (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. JFW | T@lk 06:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity Article

The article on obesity needs some clean up. I have made a few comments in the discussion part of things but am not sure how to edit the main page. How would I get access to do that?

Thanks James Heilman MD, CCFP, M.Sc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh649 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified semi-protection and autoconfirmation on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Laws of Noah

The version I was looking at does include legal marriage (different terminology) and also includes castration. My edit was just a revert of what I (incorrectly) thought was a POV edit, my apologies; I have restored the other two. The other one on the list however that I don't see elsewhere is the prohibition on kidnapping, where does this come from? Black Platypus (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and so

Well, you were not helpful, and I am surprised since you have been editing since 2004! Surely you are aware that the vast bulk of Wikipedia articles is lacking citations, references or even recommended works that one may read to substantiate created articles. I'm sure you are also aware that anyone can edit Wikipedia, including the readers, which is how they become editors. Given that the desire to add cited references is not foremost on the minds of most people who contribute, and that neither I nor you have the capacity to reference all the articles that currently need to be, what is a better idea: a) to leave an article unreferenced, and therefore subjected to the {{unreferenced}} template that screams lack of authority to the reader, or to b) include a subtle means for the reader to find such references as may be available online themselves, thus contributing to the quality of Wikipedia, and maybe even inviting another editor to the Wikipedia community.

In any case, the findsources template was never created with any restrictions, but its documentation never envisaged another use, which I have created for it. So far as I see there is no need to invent such a restriction in any case. For the record I find it helpful, should I need to cite a sentence or a paragraph in an article, to use the find rather than opening another window on my desktop. I will be putting the findsources template back to the articles you removed it from. Happy referencing--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually looked at the original version of the template, you would see that it was explicitly designed to be used as a comment in deletion discussions. It was not intended to be used in mainspace, and this was made very clear in template talk:findsources last February. It would seem that the right course of action would be to stop and discuss the template rather than engaging in an immediate bulk revert. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment misplaced on an archive

Hi, just wanted to point out that a user seems to have accidentally left a note on Archive 34 instead of on your main talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm aware of it. If the user wants me to comment, he can move the message himself. JFW | T@lk 16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, the issue of Proteopedia has already been dealt with by the people at WP:MCB. JFW | T@lk 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SERM section on the osteoporosis page

Sorry for the mistake on the osteoporosis page. You were right about your comment. I am about to add the paragraph I planned to add earlier today. I would be glad to hear any comments from you. --Korazim (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the appropriate sources, and content reflecting the sources, I cannot imagine there being a problem. JFW | T@lk 20:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temazepam

I have just polished over the Temazepam article. Could you take a look and comment? 70.137.181.232 (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you watching this?

I think he's tested the patience of the project in several countries. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edit warred with that user enough (on chronic fatigue syndrome and Simon Wessely) to not be an impartial voice. Also, I'd rather get urticaria the natural way. JFW | T@lk 17:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: OTM

You certainly may not!

I kid, I kid. Yeah sorry it completely swept my mind today whilst at the library to actually take down a page number, I realised when I filled in the reference. When I go back, i'll get it (maybe tomorrow). Hope you're okay. — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 21:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to own a copy but at roughly £100 per volume it's not really a viable option for this poor college student! Perhaps if I get into medicine, i'll buy a set with my student loan. Anyway, should be going back to the library tomorrow so i'll check then. — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 22:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks again will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh649 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the ketogenic man

Thanks for the barnstar and the congrats. Very much appreciated. Colin°^Talk 08:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Reply to your comments on my talk page

Your explanations on my talk page make a lot of sense. BTW, I would offer to continue this discussion on the osteoporosis discussion page in the future. Replying specificaly to your comments, I would say that: 1. It is neccessary to rewrite the section I deleted according to your offering, i.e. to contain more about how to identify those at risk and what guidelines say about when to give them treatment. Would you be willing to do that? 2. I will add SERM scientific citations proving the concept within a few hours. 3. I am not familliar with the fact that SERMs aree better for axial skeleton than for hips. Do you have a citation for that? Best --Korazim (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just completed adding SERM clinical trails

See new section Physical Therapy under Archive 3

I added a new section. unfortunately I inadvertently placed it under archive 3.DoctorDW (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to move it here so I can comment on it. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Below is a discussion I have been having with Cyclonenimrod. I have outlined the reasons his request to you to change the long held title of the article from Physical Therapy to Physiotherpy was not a good idea. Please revert the title of the page to Physical Therapy. Thanks DoctorDW (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You moved and redirected the Physical Therapy page to Physiotherapy. The page has been named physical therapy for many years. It was awfully quick of you to make such a major change. I ask you to revert your move. The world body governing the profession uses physical therapy not physiotherpay. The wiki page should be consistent with what over 100 countries have agreed to. thnks [index.php?title=User:DoctorDW&action=edit&redlink=1 DoctorDW] (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)"

Unfortunately, I will not be carrying out your request to revert the move. Page names should always be what is most likely to be looked up by an individual searching for the subject. The amount of countries refering to it as physiotherapy is far greater than those refering to it as physical therapy. Physical therapy, infact, is almost an entirely U.S-used term which means we're failing to give proper international perspective. This also makes it far more likely that physiotherapy will be searched rather than physical therapy. That said, if someone from the U.S.A. decides to search for physical therapy, they will simply be redirected. It is no big deal. Feel free to contact me if you have any further concerns. — CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 06:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are incorrect. "Physical Therapy" is the adopted term by the World Confederation for Physical Therapy which represents 101 countries. "The World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) is an international non-profit professional organisation founded in 1951. The Confederation is supported by subscriptions from its 101 Member Organisations and through them it represents over 300,000 physical therapists worldwide.

Membership

WCPT is a confederation of national physical therapy associations. Only one national organisation per country may be in membership."[1]

Clearly the representives of over 300,000 PTs worldwide have decided the preferred term is physical therapy and physical therapist. It is not "almost entirely US-used term."

Google "physical therapy" and 19,100,000 hits return. Google "physiotherapy" and 6,650,000 hits return.

Physical therapy is the preferred and most commonly used term. Please revert your edit.DoctorDW (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well unfortunately i'm not an administrator, so I cannot move the page back. If you genuinely feel it is the best option, ask an administrator to move it back. Preferably though, put a discussion on the talk page first as it the original move was discussed and agreed upon. — CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 21:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DoctorDW"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfdwolff/Archive_3"

Please also see talk on the Physiotherapy/Physical Therapy page DoctorDW (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Just a quick question. Why would one want to site secondary analysis of the research rather then the primary research?

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh649 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hostory of BMI

I just figured that the history of BMI is on the page relating to BMI. I do not see how having it on the page related to obesity adds to the article. Just my opinion. If you have strong feeling that it should be retained no problems replacing it.

Agree completely that systematic reviews are a better level of evidence. They however are not available for many topics and other forms of evidence must be used.

Also in the section on health effects. Wondering if we should divide it into subsection. One on mortality, one on morbidity, and one discussing the obesity paradox ( ie the literature which shows why decreased mortality in certain patient populations with higher BMI's )

Jmh649 (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean bulleted list

Yes bulleted list is what I mean not subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh649 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myasthenia gravis

I've found a fair bit of information about myasthenia gravis during pregnancy and want to place it in the article. That said, i've had a look and am a bit confused of where I should put it. Any ideas? — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 13:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wanting to improve the myasthenia article for quite some time. I've got the most recent Lancet review waiting on the ironing board until I've got a few hours of uninterrupted time.

Generally, pregnancy improves conditions like myasthenia, but the difficulty is that myasthenic symptoms will interfere with the second stage of labour, and the child may be hypotonic and require respiratory support. Many anti-myasthenia drugs are discouraged in pregnancy (unsure if pyridostigmine is safe) and I'm unsure if plasmapheresis is done in this setting. It is a difficult clinical conundrum. JFW | T@lk 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What i've done is inserted, per Delldot's advice, a section below 'Epidemiology' and above 'Notable people' called 'In pregnancy'. I fully intend to expand that with a bit more detail once I find a few more reviews. Unfortunately the OTM didn't have all that much on the subject. — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 06:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that is the best way, but at least the information you've researched is now available. PMID 17940925 is a recent review on neuromuscular diseases and pregnancy. I suspect the information should be dispersed between "signs and symptoms" and "treatment". JFW | T@lk 16:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was simply a matter of getting the information into the article. I'll move it soon. Thanks for the PMID too. — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 16:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. It appears that article isn't free, so i'll have to leave it to you if you have access? — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 16:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'll have another look for a free article. JFW | T@lk 17:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Well I am starting to getting into Wikipedia and this is a lot of fun. Today I added my first picture. A few questions about copy right of pictures and what documentation should be provided. I took a photo with a camera of a knee off of the x ray monitor at work leaving out of course the patients information. This I presume can be provided as is?

For pictures of patients I will put together a form giving me permission to take and use there photo. Have you put anything like this together?

And how about taking graphs, charts, and photos from journal articles or from web pages such as those of the WHO, NIH, etc?

Many thanks for the guidance. James --Jmh649 (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Symptomatic

I have nominated Symptomatic, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symptomatic. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding photos and graphs to the page on obesity.

I have come accross some graphics that would be good for the page on obesity. They pertain to obesity and morbidity / mortality. Not sure about adding them due to copyright. These two are from Uptodate. But the data was derived from the NEJM.

http://www.uptodate.com/online/content/image.do;jsessionid=4884F820FA324C1D57ABFDD8E23978D1.1002?imageKey=card_pix/obesit1.htm&title=Obesity%20and%20mortality http://www.uptodate.com/online/content/image.do;jsessionid=4884F820FA324C1D57ABFDD8E23978D1.1002?imageKey=endo_pix/rel_ri1.htm&title=Rel%20risk%20disease%20increase%20wt

I am sure you have uptodate but if you do not let me know and I can send you a one month trial. Doc James (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lupus

Diff - this seems persistent so you might want to bring it up with the specific editor. Also note that User:TimVickers edited in response to a request from me. It's not discussed on the talk page that I can see, is it elsewhere? WLU (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

message. Does not appear willing to let the UVA go, and there's no real discussion on the talk page. WLU (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, please, let's talk about your constant removal of my references to UVA1 phototherapy....

An effective "off-label" treatment which is slowly but steadily gaining acceptance uses ultraviolet UVA1 radiation - long UVA wave lengths that do not promote sunburn and which actually block inflammatory immune factors by promoting apoptosis (cell death) in T cells. Several studies, both in the U.S. and Europe, have shown that UVA1 phototherapy lowers disease activity in SLE.

it'll well beyond the experimental stage...how many references do you want? this method is being used off-label today (which by the way is how the vast majority of drugs used for SLE in US are being employed)........what's holding up wide spread use is the lack of low-dose (6 joules) UVA1 equipment ...the UVA1 devices they use today for skin disorders crank out 130 joules....the low-dose equipment is being planned/made as i type this....i know 'cause i'm working with a medical device manufacturer to develop his stuff...and by "working with" i mean volunteering my time & experience...

i can understand pulling references to the 2004 book i published on this subject, "Lupus Underground," but not the method...

by the way, i've posted the most important parts of that book as password protected PDFs which people can read for zip ...you can access that info here: http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/LUpdfs.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.35.45 (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps - your "Clearance deficiency" info nicely explains the UVA1 action, but it is unproven, yet you've been able to post it ...why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.35.45 (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are promoting an off-label treatment that you've written a book about. That means that perhaps you ought to review WP:COI before you proceed. Mind if I call you Anthony? Anthony DeBartolo (2004). Lupus Underground: A Patient's Case for a Long-Ignored, Drug-Free, Non-Patentable, Counter-Intuitive Therapy That Actually Works - UVA1 Phototherapy. Hyde Park Media. ISBN 0-9763428-0-4.

I have asked you to provide evidence (e.g. from a medical journal) that this treatment is in widespread use. We can't just mention all treatments being used off-label for lupus, because they are numerous. Someone's personal website doesn't really qualify.

I have not inserted anything about "clearance deficiency". That must have been another editor. I will review it, and if necessary remove it. JFW | T@lk 15:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

promoting, no .... informing, yes. i've been using this therapy for 5 years with great success...and i'm not alone.

"We can't just mention all treatments being used off-label for lupus, because they are numerous." .....first of all, i doubt the accuracy of that statement - and second of all, it's not like you'd run out of space... as i pointed out in an earlier post which you also removed, there are only 3 drugs approved by the FDA to treat lupus - the majority used are in fact used off label...yes, yes, i know you want to be an international site, but the FDA is a major player, so why go out of your way to avoid them.?

as i said, UVA1 is not in wide spread use for lupus...it's in wide spread for use for a few skin disorders (it's approved by the FDA for that) - that's why it can be used off label... as i also said, it won't be used widely until the equipment is produced...that's happening now... both patients & docs now using it are employing converted tanning equipment.

if you want, come up with another heading under 'treatment' to include UVA1 ... if you don't want to call it off-label, call it 'promising' or 'INVESTIGATIONAL' as the new york times health guide does - http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/systemic-lupus-erythematosus/treatment-for-severe-sle.html but call it something....by the way - who are you? - do you have any ties (grants, etc) from the pharma industry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.35.45 (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a tool to promote one treatment over another. I do not dispute that there is empirical support for UVA1 use in SLE, but at the same time you have been unable to show me that this is as widespread as - for example - hydroxychloroquine or even cellcept. It would be thrilling if a non-pharmacological treatment for lupus was found to be so effective that it could reduce the need for immunosuppresion and its inevitable problems. But would you expect to open an encyclopedia, and find a section that rattles off all treatments being investigated for a condition?

I do not have ties with the pharma industry. Again, having a conflict of interest does not disqualify you from editing, but there are some general caveats that need to be borne in mind. Please let me know if this is at all unclear. JFW | T@lk 16:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note how MEDRS deals with newspaper articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Reliable_sources#Newspapers. The NYT is not a good source for anything except UVA being an investigational treatment, but a better source would be pubmed journals that discuss the investigation. WLU (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you look under the entry for the chicago fire of 1871, i believe you'll find a theory of it's cause posted by me - in the form of a couple of articles i wrote for the chicago tribune....this is theory, not proven fact - in an encyclopedia! i don't see any difference.

i also don't see why the use of UVA1 needs to be 'widespread' to be included here...i would think the fact that it exists at all would be reason to include it in any encyclopedic entry about SLE - at least one that hopes to be comprehensive & of value.

as for my book, i don't see how anyone can even suggest i'm benefiting by posting a link where people can read it for free.... including "Appendix B -- A Reference for Lupus UVA1 Research, 1987-2003" http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/lupuslight/LUb.pdf (password = lupuslight)

have you even bothered to look over all of the controlled peer reviewed research that has shown this method to be both safe & effect? if you're looking for a non-pharmacological treatment for lupus to get excited about, do some reading man - it's here....i was able to stop both prednisone & plaquenil with the use of UVA1.

if nothing else, UVA1 needs to be included under "Treatment research," since what many of the trial drugs are attempting to do, we already know UVA1 does. will you agree to that? if not, please explain why, and offer some detail...thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.35.45 (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1871 Chicago Fire? Interesting. Except that is a theory on an event that has passed cannot be tested (as is not falsifiable). In the lupus case the theory is perfectly testable, and until such trials have been performed the treatment remains experimental.

COI is not just about benefit in monetary terms. Please read the policy, then criticise it if you wish.

It is not my task to "look over all of the controlled peer reviewed research" to support a theory that you are advancing.

The "treatment research" section wasn't discussing any specific modalities under study, and frankly I found the whole paragraph a waste of time (e.g. when is stem cell treatment coming to lupus).

I suggest you continue the discussion on Talk:Systemic lupus erythematosus, so that other contributors can participate. JFW | T@lk 16:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a message on Talk:SLE but reviewing my arbitration hearing, that's risking me getting blocked. Anyway, there's a huge difference between a theory and a proven fact (particularly given the policy of verifiability, not truth) but a huge consideration is undue weight as well as notability - that something exists is not a reason to have an article or section on it. You may want to consider not posting links to your home page all over the place either, as that could be perceived as spamming. COI isn't just about money, the amount of attention wikipedia gets means self-promotion is a huge concern. WLU (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research

Primary research

Hello

With respect to primary research. It can often add prospective on the topic being discussed. If you feel that it has not been sufficiently put into context then please do so rather then deleting the references added. I am working on explaining the does repose curve between exercise and obesity. Feel free to join in.

Thanks Doc James (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lymphatic system—the progress

Hi! The work on this article is far from over. I'd to make two new images that had taken up quite a bit of time, but, I think the article has had a major expansion, and may be improvement, too. Now, what mainly remains is adding the clinical aspects, like various disorders, the various kinds (texture and consistency) of lymphadenopathies (in the article on lymph node), which I think you might be in a better position than me to add. But, more important, may be now is the right time for you to go through the article and make it GA-worthy. Some potential sources for the article are in the talk page of the article.

I'm not saying that it is GA-worthy as of now, but then with your involvement, it should not take more than a few days to become that. (This confidence in your ability comes from the speed with which ascending cholangitis "ascended" to GA ;-) )

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 05:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 28	7 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan	Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MCOTW

Niet vergeten te subst: ! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Berci heeft dat in het verleden niet gedaan, en het gaat maar over een aantal templates. JFW | T@lk 13:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats...

On Subarachnoid hemorrhage making FA ;) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. JFW | T@lk 22:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer

Are you the one who did this? --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What makes you think you can use rollback on a good faith edit with an edit summary? JFW | T@lk 21:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. My mistake. What I saw in the diff was the lead paragraph being deleted along with a lot of text. But now I also see that you left the article in the same state I left it some four days ago. Never mind. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this anon a suggestion regarding his addition, on which he seems to be insisting. In any case, as I am currently aiming to get the article Prayer at least to GA status, I will be monitoring his efforts. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

I agree completely about using secondary sources. However the article I quote does follow the guideline. What I have written reflexes the research. It does not contradict the meta analysis presented but supports its conclusions. Doc James (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable primary sources should be used with great care because of the potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Where primary sources are cited, they should be presented in a manner which hews closely to the interpretation given by the authors or by published, reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion which is not clearly adduced by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above (see Wikipedia:No original research).

[edit] Using primary sources to "debunk" the conclusions of secondary sources

Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim (see Wikipedia:No original synthesis). Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints.

The study in question was a small series, hardly illustrative or generalisable. JFW | T@lk 17:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Hello JFD. I appreciate your ongoing editing of the article on obesity. Doc James (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Won't be working on it tonight, but I'll help out again from tomorrow. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoactive drug - Thoric's chart is back

Hi, once upon a time you contributed to a discussion concerning a chart on the Psychoactive drug article, which was a Venn diagram depicting a classification system for psychoactive substances created by User:Thoric. I was under the impression that the community had spoken and that the chart had been deemed original research, and indeed the chart has been absent from the article for almost a year, but it has recently re-appeared and its creator is lobbying heavily for its inclusion. I would greatly appreciate your comments in the renewed discussion. Thanks! Steve Carlson^Talk 00:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve. JFW | T@lk 06:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in on the discussion and for removing the chart from the article. I didn't want to get into a revert war with Thoric by myself, but if you and other editors participate, I think we can win this one! Steve Carlson^Talk 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. No comments since mine. Consensus trumps cosmetically pleasing but intrinsicially wrong content. Good. JFW | T@lk 05:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So when can we slap a big fat Conclusion template on the talk page to record this decision for posterity and make it very clear that this is no longer open for discussion? I would be happy to do the legwork, I just don't want to do it prematurely and piss off Thoric even more. Steve Carlson^Talk 05:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it another 24 hours or so, but I think we can safely close that perennial issue. JFW | T@lk 05:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good idea.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi, I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. How about you stay behind to some editing? JFW | T@lk 15:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity

Hey JFD

You keep a close eye on the obesity site and remove many well referenced applicable sources without discussion. The one on exercise in recruits was a good example of what extremes of exercise can achieve. Well fiddler on the roof provides a historical view of obesity. I do feel this page is much improved from when I started on it. Anyway it is all your.

Doc James (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re Barnstorrage

re now need a solution for barnstarrage, two observations:

I always had assumed that barns are generally what are used for storage of other things... :-)
You should be so lucky to have so many that you have a problem :-)

Why not just create a subpage and add a link in the current userbox-table that you have ? David Ruben ^Talk 11:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww no, I want my barn-storage proudly on display. I'll probably put them in a pretty table of sorts. With a bit less whitespace my barn-constellation will be taking up less space. JFW | T@lk 12:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I disagree that secondary sources should be exclusively used with primary sources being excluded. The best writing on topics is based on both primary and secondary sources. Take for example the series " American Best Science and Nature Writing" or Uptodate / Emedicine.

I could quote from Uptodate, a great secondary / tertiary source, or from textbooks but many would be unable to easily access them. Also when you quote from secondary sources you are two steps removed from what was actually said and this increases room for misinterpretation / misrepresentation. Rather I could go to the primary sources and then people could easily read what is being referenced and see what the conclusion drawn by the CDC /WHO are based upon.

By the way I came across the study about weight lose in military recruits on Uptodate.

Doc James (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciliopathies

Hi JFW. Thanks for the kind words on the effort I've been making on the ciliopathy article. To your comment about the addition I made to the obesity article, you said:

Hi, well done on writing ciliopathy and sourcing it quite so well to a good recent review. I'd be careful, however, in dropping this in too many articles unless there is really good reason to do so. On obesity, for instance, you suggested that obesity is a symptom of ciliopathies; that is simply incorrect for the majority of diseases listed on the ciliopathy page. I don't think it is possible to mark out specific symptoms of ciliopathies; the link between these diseases is not in the realm of symptoms, but on a molecular level. I can offer you a couple of other examples of diseases that are molecularly related yet share few symptoms (e.g. the serpinopathies). Hope this clarifies why I removed your addition from obesity. JFW | T@lk 05:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would of course agree that it would be absurd to suggest that, as you said, "obesity is a symptom of ciliopathies" -- that is why I made every effort to avoid saying anything like that. I added just this single sentence to the obesity article: "Obesity is one symptom reported in a newly discovered class of genetic diseases known as ciliopathies" which I sourced from this journal article: Badano, Jose L. (September 2006). "The Ciliopathies : An Emerging Class of Human Genetic Disorders". Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics. 7: 125–148. doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.7.080505.115610. Retrieved 2008-06-15. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) What I was trying to say is that there is now, as of some fairly recent developments in the genetics literature, at least a plausible hypothesis that one potential cause (underlying molecular cause, or underlying genetic cause) for some particular cases of clinically observed obesities is ciliopathy. Perhaps my use of the word "symptom" was a mistake; but I thought "one potential genotype for the obesity phenotype is ciliopathy" to be rather too esoteric. Perhaps the entire sentence needs to be rewritten. But I do think it is an appropriate addition to the Obesity article. I will of course appreciate any help you can give for fitting a correct and encyclopedic statement of this into the article. I'll start a discussion of it on the Obesity talk page. Thanks again for your comment, and for your obvious concern for an encyclopedic Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Of course, you're most welcome! I t might sound weird, but I could've almost apologized for awarding that so late (considering your contribution to Wikipedia)! And, yes, you do need to tidy up the barnstar part of your user page (as a ready excuse I could say I didn't award you a barnstar as it was so untidy!).

I had posted a few comments on the suggestion of pancreas in the MCOTW, which involve larger issues than the nomination itself. Also, I'd proposed a two-collaboration-a-week MCOTW on the talk page, which was supported by cyclonenim, too. But, since both didn't invite any comments from you, I'd to let you know here. Sorry about that.

Enjoy (the barnstars!)

—KetanPanchal^taLK 08:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin-coaching?

Would you please like to give me admin-coaching. I know you've not listed yourself in the list of admin-coaches, and that you tend to keep pretty busy, but I believe you'd be convinced that I'd be a fast learner (considering my experience with Wikipedia) and not a PIYA [that's pain in your a**/a*** (depending upon whether you like it American or British) ;-)]. As it is we've been in communication quite a bit. So, you won't have to take much trouble to train me. If you cannot be my formal coach, do you mind at least enlisting what all policies, processes and practices I need to learn that people ultimately end up making mistakes in? Thanks in advance.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I lack the time to formally become your admin coach. I think the admin coaching page has some pretty good advice on how to become a safe adminship candidate. You have already shown a fair degree of community participation and collaborative editing, and you appear to understand the basic policies. JFW | T@lk 07:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Yes, I think going through the link you provided would be useful. How much does admin-coaching help, or is likely to be useful particularly in my case? You may go through these edit counts, if you feel they may be helpful in any way in commenting:

Thanks again

—KetanPanchal^taLK 08:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that we didn't have admin coaching back in my days. I'm sure some positive comments on an RFA from someone who's seen you at work for a bit would be very good for your chances of success. JFW | T@lk 08:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think it'd be alright if I nominate in next two to three weeks? —KetanPanchal^taLK 08:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in but thought i'd give my two cents on the matter. Admin coaching, to a certain extent, is a good thing and most people look favourably upon it. This suddenly changes, however, when a candidate has spent too much time trying to learn the ways of RfA, rather than concentrating on becoming a good admin. Basically, if you feel you need admin coaching to ensure you make a better admin when you pass RfA, go for it. If you feel you need admin coaching to ensure you'll actually pass RfA, I'd recommend against it—just participate in RfA's themself and you'll soon learn those techniques :) —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 09:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I also ask why it is you think you need the mop? I'm not questioning you, I think you'd make a great administrator, but you will be asked several of these questions. —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 09:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I don't mind your butting in. Not sure of JFW though. After all it's his (associated-with-him-but-not-belonging-to-him-talk page—am I learning fast?) talk page. The doubt is if you (both you and JFW) feel I'm prepared for it? —KetanPanchal^taLK 09:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not play in JFW's backyard lest he shouts at us for disturbing his peaceful existence. We'll play in your backyard ;-). —KetanPanchal^taLK 10:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. Wrt Ketan's specific question when to nominate... I'd wait a few more weeks. You have demonstrated to me that you will handle the tools responsibly, but you have to ensure that you can impress the rest of the electorate. JFW | T@lk 11:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for butting in. —KetanPanchal^taLK 13:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factor Xa Article

Hello Jfdwolff,

In my opinion an article exclusively for Factor Xa is required, because of the current developments in the anticoagulant area. Factor Xa is going to be an interesting topic for all Health Care Professionals in the thrombosis area. Furthermore a good encyclopedia, as Wikipedia is, should offer crisp articles to the searched terms.

With respect to your opinion a lot of the articles on Wikipedia would need to be merged. E.g. Chinatown, Manhattan should be merged with Manhattan and Manhattan should be merged with New York and so on.

Best regards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.228.99 (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine why we can't deal with content about factor Xa on the factor X page. Can you explain why there is a need for a separate page, considering they are about the inactive vs the active version of the same protein, and both articles were both well under the size limit? JFW | T@lk 11:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the fact that I created rivaroxaban, I think there is no need to lecture me on the importance of factor Xa for "Health Care Professionals" (do you mean doctors?) JFW | T@lk 11:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell!

I'm off on holiday from the 19th July—3rd August :) Best of luck with the MCOTW's whilst I'm away! Happy editing, mate. —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 20:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, incidently, Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency currently has the most votes for MCOTW. Could I request that it's kept on standby until I get back from holiday? I'd really like to work on it as a collaboration :) —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 23:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. We've got another week to decide. Sorry I haven't been doing much work on thrombosis. While it is an area of my interest, I find the topic a bit forbidding and am waiting until I find some good sources (such as an explanation why arterial thrombosis in the absence of atheroma is actually quite rare). JFW | T@lk 12:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

obesity picture

These are picture of FatM1ke. I have brightened them and asked it he has any underlieing reason for his obesity. Cushings is one of the underlying causes of obesity. This page is not just about the ideopathic form even though that is the most common.

Doc James (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know as per your request of higher quality pictures, I have uploaded a couple of new ones. I have lost considerable weight since the first set of pictures, but still would be classified as "obese". Already in the obesity category, links are at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ObeseManFrontView.jpg - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ObeseManSideView.jpg . - FatM1ke (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table for morbidity

Wondering what you think about cleaning up morbidity. Maybe putting together a table. One column for system, one column for disease in that system, and one call for degree of effect from obesity. I think it would be a good idea to quantify by how much each of these conditions are greater in the obese. Doc James (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is a primary source that we could use for the numerical data, this is an excellent idea. Perhaps we should limit ourselves to the most common causes of death in obesity, rather than breaking it down to organ system. JFW | T@lk 07:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I truly appreciate the info you sent to me. Will spend some time to go thru the files. It is great to know that the editorial help is readily available. Thanks again, Dr. JFW. --New haven86 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh

howdy - i noticed that you've made several additions to the Vincent van Gogh wikipage. i have no experience editing pages and it looks like it's protected anyway. i posted a comment in the discussion about a month ago with a link to a font that i created that mimics his handwriting. i'd like to share it with other van Gogh fans by putting a link to it on the van Gogh page. can you help me with this? thank you. cheers. 64.202.255.15 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC) c.j. Email address refactored to save trouble from spambots[reply]

I'm sure you've spent an awful lot of time working on that, but are you sure this meets the Wikipedia external links guidelines? You might be better off finding online noticeboards on Van Gogh topics and posting a link there. JFW | T@lk 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

morbidty

Hey JFD

Put in a new table on morbidity. I was thinking a column indicating the percent increase of each of the conditions would be useful. What do you think?

Also do you feel any further images are required or should we remove the requests image logo.

ThanksDoc James (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The percentage increase would need to be sourced for each individual condition. I'm concerned that the data may not be generalisable, e.g. that the risk of MI is much higher in Asian populations than others and that therefore a single number will not give the reader an accurate impression of the risk.

I think we can remove the image request tag (how many fat people do we need to display), but some more figures are always useful. I would have no problem with an image of leptin or a microscopy slide of adipose tissue (including its resident macrophages that have been implicated in much of the adipocytokine release). JFW | T@lk 08:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macular degeneration

Jfdwolff, what do you think of this addition to Macular degeneration [1]?

I think it's spam. I keep reverting it, and the other editor keeps restoring it. Nbauman (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than spam, it is blatant self-promotion along with the same editor's other contributions. I have removed said content, voted on a related AFD, and left a non-WP:BITE message on his talkpage. JFW | T@lk 08:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyelonephritis

Dr. JFW: Indeed, Cipro is the first-line for pyelo here in the States, whether in the setting of outpatient (PO) or in-patient (IV). If the patient is pregnant or allergic to Cipro, I would give Ampicillin/Gentamicin as the next choice. If the patient is allergic to Penicillin and pregnant, the 3rd choice will be Ceftriaxone. Nothing is wrong to start with Ceftrixone, but, if I do, I would need to find a justification because the good medical students around me will question that choice. --New haven86 (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that we need to provide an adequate source for the various protocols. When I have some time I will dig up the recommendations from the British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC, Homepage). JFW | T@lk 08:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Guidelines

"The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it." "The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale.""New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors if you wish. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article." While I have proposed edits, and ways to improve the article, the only comments you have provided have been negative and non-constructive. Please stick to the talk page guidelines with critiquing new proposed changes, brought to the talk page to avoid edit conflicts on the main page, and please provide concise and constructive critiques directed at altering perceived errors.PB666 ^yap 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked to stick to particular sources. You have failed to do that. You continue to flood the talkpage with enormous amounts of information. You have been asked to provide secondary sources that confirm your perspective. You failed to do that too. I don't do "critiquing", and all my responses have been directed at altering perceived or real errors such as the ones I listed.

I have asked TimVickers (talk · contribs) to comment on the situation. I will ask him to mediate now. If you are not happy to have him mediate, I suppose we'll have to go for a request for comments. JFW | T@lk 13:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And my responses were directed at an error in the review which is the basis of your critique. The terminology describing DQ is changing, for obvious (and censored) reasons. For this reasons new papers are using DQ2.5 and we should use DQ2.5 also as not to confused DQ2 responses from DQ2.2 and DQ2.3.

Why? Ann Med. 2006;38(8):578-91. PLoS ONE. 2008 May 28;3(5):e2270. J Immunol. 2005 Jul 1;175(1):254-61. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Oct 14;100(21):12390-5. Epub 2003 Oct 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdeitiker (talk • contribs)

Who says it's an error? If that "who" is not a secondary source, then please note my comments on Talk:Coeliac disease that this may not be scientific consensus yet. I note that there have been no letters to the editor directly "critiquing" Van Heel & West's representation of the pathogenesis. Even recent "new papers" stick with the old terminology.

You have now finally thrown me some sources that seem to support your perspective (PMID 17438672 is much better than the others, PMID 18509540, PMID 15972656 and PMID 14530392 - how kind of you to provide the PMID codes). Why on earth has it taken you more than a year to provide this? JFW | T@lk 14:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Musgrave

There was a gap in the history section running from 2500BC to the present day, and I was aware of a little information which, though by no means fills the gap, provides more information than before. You will see from Musgrave's wikipage that he was highly thought of at the time. Whether he had any permanent influence in the field I do not know. The verbation from ODNB is below

Musgrave himself made many contributions to Philosophical Transactions. He had carried out experiments on digestion at Oxford, and wrote inter alia on the lacteals, palsy, and respiration, in which he quoted his Exeter colleague (and later patient), Dr Malachi Thruston. His important medical works were on arthritis, and its many associated effects: De arthritide symptomatica in 1703, and De arthritide anomala in 1707, an updated version of each appearing in 1715. His view of arthritis ranged over a huge clinical spectrum; De arthritide symptomatica (2nd edn, 1715, 65), for example, gives the first scientific description of the ‘Devonshire colic’, referred to later by John Huxham and George Baker. In the same work, dealing with melancholic complications, he describes with sensitivity and respect his distinguished patient, Dr Malachi Thruston, who died insane in 1701. The manuscript of an earlier treatise was found after Musgrave's death and sent to the Clarendon press by his son, who did not live to see it in print. This was De arthritide primogenia et regulari, published at Oxford in 1726, and reissued by Samuel Musgrave, Musgrave's great-nephew, at London in 1776. That it had been written before the two main works is confirmed by William Stukeley (Stukeley, 1.157), when he visited Musgrave's son at Exeter in 1723.

Lucian Sunday (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in History. Whether medical history or not I am always an amateur! Lucian Sunday (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Article Trophy

HLA systematics

Part of the problem of the discussion is actually hinged on semantic issues. I take no responsibility for HLA nomenclature (I don't think anyone can). One must keep in mind that HLA nomenclature is entirely born out of tissue transplantation immunochemistry, entirely different from HLA function. DQ1, defined by reaction to the alpha chain, was dropped in favor of DQ5 and DQ6 that react to the beta chain. There has been a strong bias, up to about 5 years, particularly in the medical establishment, to assume that all or most of the 'affinity' of HLA-DQ is produced by the beta chain, this is why there has been past bias in the research. They confuse transplation histochemistry with DQ restriction in antigen presentation. I did not create the bias, but both researcher and non-researcher have to deal with its lingering consequences.

In the last 10 years in autoimmune disease, this bias was called into question, as specific DQA1* DQB1* combinations were linked to disease. You are correct, the old serotyping terminology has not been lost, and I have referred papers asking the authors to revise their nomenclature to reflect modern understanding. Therefore I find it is important to use unambiguous designations whenever possible to bouy the biochemical concept of the structure-function relationship. It is true that new papers stick to the old terminology, but in the case of coeliac disease, if you will recall, you forced me to clarify DQ involvements in the genetics section. In doing so I had to deal with the obvious problem created by Karell et al, which sampled objectively over large regions of Europe. Overtime, I extended my reading to see what work had been done on DQ2.2. There are 2 'DQ2 heterodimers' involved, and in realizing that the nomenclature still frequently used 'the DQ2 heterodimer' becomes problematic'.

The point I want to leave is that from 1969 to present the nomenclature has evolved and will continue to evolve, it generally begins as a necessity in one publication, and different terminologies for the same thing evolve in parallel until one favored nomenclature is selected. Instead of arguing about nomenclature lets us strive to find the best nomenclature for the present and future that is suitable for the venue. In writing a wiki article the desire is to convey simplicity, but also don't create longlasting errors in the reader. I have a spectrum of different nomenclatures in the dozens of articles dealing with HLA genetics in coeliac disease, there are no outstanding best choices. The problem in using alleles is that alleles like *0501 are both used in alpha and beta allele designations. Even by strict definition of isoforms which is best way to describe the DQ8 heterodimer, DQ8, DQ8.1, DQ α³β⁸,DQ α³β³⁰², or DQ α³β^3.2 (adding style α³,α3, α₃) there are no uniform guideline present for this nomenclature, and some of the papers I have read provide far less pleasant (confusing, meaningless) alternatives. It becomes hair-pulling even to write one sentence. Take some compassion on the point that the editor, unfortunately, needs to word this 'assorted nomenclature' in a way that seems most appropriate.

Sorry about not providing the Pubmed links above, I was headed out the door for carpool on the way to work. PB666 ^yap 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get your points, and I understand why this may have hampered our communication on the subject. If the terminology is so fluid, how can we possibly present it fairly for the general reader?

Until IHW and IMGT/HLA get about standardizing the nomenclature in this area there is no concrete way of presenting this.

I just don't know. What I do know is that even several recent clinical reviews stick with the "old" terminology, and I am therefore not in any position to make an informed judgement. There are situations where "neat, plausible and wrong" solutions (with apologies to H.L. Mencken) may still be the right ones. Are you aware of any immunology contributors who could offer their opinion? JFW | T@lk 19:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Tim could be the judge on what is the most suitable. Just to clarify the error in VH&W, the omission of DQ2.2 (DQA1*02, DQB1*02) was a small error, the statement that (DQA1*05 without DQB1*02) was a "partial DQ2" is an error. To understand why this is an error one has to read PMID 10777105 which basically found that all DQA1*0501 previously type in Europe split 2 ways, DQA1*0501:DQB1*0201 and DQA1*0505:DQB1*0301 (I was scolded by a referee for not knowing this and not knowing DQA1*0505 and DQA1*0501 were process to DQA1*05) DQA1*0505 is part of the DR5-DQ7 haplotype, therefore in assigning DQA1*05 without DQ2, it is a DQ7.

The "neat, plausible and wrong" solution will only work up until DQ2.2 hits the reviewed literature, then it needs to be dealt with. At 4% of all coeliacs it may never reach that level of appreciation.PB666 ^yap 20:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dysentery

Thanks for removing that strange trivia section, I know I should have done it but being a newbie and all.... Coachuponnow (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

title of obesity page

Moved your comment on the title to the discussion page on obesity.

I agree that obesity is used commonly to refer to adult obesity in the scientific literature. However I think there would be a few benefits to the title change.

adult obesity would be construed less as an insult making this page less prone to vandalism if it was to ever become unprotected again
would highlight the page on obesity in children contrasting it to the page on obesity in adults and make it appear equal in importance to editors and readersDoc James (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to discussion, but this kind of moves requires consensus. That is what requested moves is meant for. JFW | T@lk 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morbid obesity

Hey JFD I think the page on Morbid obesity should be deleted and redirected to the page on obesity. Any thoughts?Doc James (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that sounds like an uncontroversial move to me. This can be merged & redirected, with information on the fattest people diversified to List of the heaviest people. JFW | T@lk 22:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Thanks on the reference advice. Will do.--Doc James (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re discussion of P'tcha at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism

Sorry, I didn't intend to be rude. It's frequently difficult to judge how things on the Internet are intended. In practice, people misjudge the intended emotional tone of emails 50% of the time. - http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70179 . Have a good one. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, sorry for sounding pedantic or brusque. JFW | T@lk 13:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jfdwolff/Temp

I was looking through some old deleted contributions (I love going deep into the history of Wikipedia), and I found your old talk page history at User talk:Jfdwolff/Temp. Could you undelete that page? I understand that standards for userspace page deletion were much more relaxed in 2006, but user talk pages should only be deleted if they contain personal information, or under the right to vanish. Deletion of user talk pages also deletes other people's contributions and makes it harder for a person to search for a message in their own contributions. Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user talk pages? agrees with me that user talk page deletion is frowned upon - that must be a recent addition to the guideline as I didn't know about it before. Thanks, Graham87 11:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a temporary save of my talkpage while I was on a wikibreak. All content is to be found in the archives of my talkpage (see box above). I therefore don't see the point in undeleting those 2000 edits. I otherwise reserve the right to delete pages in my userspace.

Agree that digging into deleted edits can be utterly revealing. I have little to hide, through :-). JFW | T@lk 13:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the content I'm concerned about. I'm more concerned about the history than anything else. For example, to pick a random section, it's nearly impossible to tell who wrote this bit without using admin tools. (It helps that Denni identified himself, but it's still impossible to tell when the message was written). The message is unsigned, and there is absolutely no record of who said that message. Making the history available is far easier than adding hundreds of instances of {{unsigned|Randomness|00:00, the twelfth of never (UTC)}}. One of the basic ideas of the GFDL, which Wikipedia is licensed under, is that everyone is given credit for each contribution they make. For me it's also an issue of equality of admins. If I was a non-admin and wrote {{delete|I'm back from a wikibreak}} on my user talk page or one of its archives, the speedy would rightly be declined. But admins have a lot more power. We can, theoretically, delete anything we want - we can theoretically history merge our talk pages with a few random articles and the software won't complain, but the sysop bit wouldn't last much longer. Of course anyone has the right to have any of their user subpages that *they've* worked on deleted ... a simple {{delete|I don't need this anymore}} or the flick of the delete button usually does the trick. But user talk pages and their history have many more contributors, and that's why there is more hesitation to delete them. Graham87 15:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a very specific question, I am not sure what the point of this exercise would be. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a closer look. You are correct that the edit history for this talkpage stops in 2006, and that the remaining 2 years were indeed in that deleted temp page. I have undone the deletion and merge the page histories, of course extirpating two edits that contained personal information. JFW | T@lk 16:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the history merge. Deleting and restoring thousands of revisions at a time is not fun at all. Graham87 16:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

The references on the obesity page have gone haywire. Not sure how to fix them. Doc James (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. I added a duplicate <ref> tag that wasn't balanced. Fixed now. JFW | T@lk 17:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture activation

men | T@lk 20:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)could you do me a favor and link the picture i uploaded on my article basophil activation ? I dont have the permission yet.[reply]

men | T@lk 20:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)hmm... i uploaded it on wiki commons, and it actually worked (someone activated it i think), but then i accidently deleted the article, and no the pic permission is gone again. the filename is "Basophlie activation.JPG" iknow spelling is wrong :)[reply]

men | T@lk 20:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC): i uploaded it again[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Basophile_activation.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Basophil_activation.JPG

men | T@lk 20:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC): Thanks for keeping cool with these newbies ;)[reply]

Recommendation re Evolution as theory and fact‎

Hi. As you can see on Talk:Evolution as theory and fact‎ I have a disagreement regarding it POV. It is specifically aimed at discrediting creationists without stating their point of view. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. --Ezra Wax (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have you back, Ezra. That article, by its vary nature, attracts POV and original research. It is the kind of thing that is very hard to change, and the only thing that helps is: (1) Find out what you're actually disagreeing about, (2) Make a bold change that you think might reflect consensus and see how it fares (WP:BRD). Dispute resolution is a dreadfully slow process, and I've never seen an RFC change anything apart from chase editors away from an article. JFW | T@lk 23:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

Hey JFD

Someone is advertising on the obesity page. See edit

(cur) (last) 01:12, 25 July 2008 Drdonzi (Talk | contribs) (79,872 bytes) (→External links) (undo)

grrr Doc James (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was also found advertising on other pages as well. I have removed his edit from overweight. I think all his edits should probably be removed and his IP baned as he has done this before.

Doc James (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grumpy message left. Well spotted. JFW | T@lk 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacet Review

Have printed off a copy. Started reading it. Looks like a good review. Might help add some stuff to the history of obesity. The culture parts still needs some cleaning up and maybe the section I wrote on diet drugs should be moved to diets.

Doc James (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that review, the history section is not particularly strong. I don't have the Robert Pool book, but the content you have sourced to that work is very good. JFW | T@lk 06:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need clearer criteria for the "notability" of academic books?

If you have time could you read over and comment on this discussion? I think the policy needs to be revised. After a tentative proposal, I realized I do not have enough of a perspective to make a good one. But there has been a lot more discussion since I first raised the issue, and I think one way or the other your contribution would be positive. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral.

I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images.

If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page!

Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebral vasculitis DYK

On 28 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cerebral vasculitis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep medicine

Hi! I've given up trying to make a draft of a new article at the bottom of Sleep disorder. (I'll go back and fix it, shorten it considerably, rewrite it before too long.) Meanwhile! I've started over here, as yet just a good half done. Wouldn't mind comments (I think), if you have time. :) --Hordaland (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity in Art

Here is an article, but I have not figured out how to get access to it.

PMID: 18230908 Doc James (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very popular journal... Can always try emailing the author & say that they will be famous. JFW | T@lk 14:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is part of it via google books. http://books.google.ca/books?id=nXRU4Ea1aMkC&pg=PA271&lpg=PA271&dq=Obesity+in+art:+a+brief+overview&source=web&ots=G2ofZTj__r&sig=7HbW8aAnoQ-RIwt09ocD3xOHJZU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA271,M1

Doc James (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't get to the Canadian Google Books from my present login... JFW | T@lk 14:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P'tcha to you too!

Dear JFW, Thanks so much for the barnstar -- and for the fine translation of the mishnah. I feel very honored. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 15:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WPMED tags

It turns out the |class must be lower-case for the template to work. I fixed it at Talk:Liver biopsy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! How on earth did you find out about this so quickly, apart from some gentle wikistalking? :-) JFW | T@lk 21:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I check Category:Unassessed-Class medicine articles about twice a day. Anything misformatted or unassessed turns up there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Thanks anyway. JFW | T@lk 06:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meningitis

Dear Dr Wolff, I am querying your edit of the 7th September 2007, when you introduced the following paragraph:

In bacterial meningitis, the CSF glucose to serum glucose ratio is < 0.4. The Gram stain is positive in >60% of cases, and culture in >80%. Latex agglutination may be positive in meningitis due to Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis, Haemophilus influenzae, Escherichia coli, Group B Streptococci. Limulus lysates may be positive in Gram-negative meningitis.

Not being a specialist I would like to verify if I am interpreting this correctly. Are the %-ages probability figures, eg. when the Gram-stain test is positive then in more than 60% of the cases bacterial meningitis is the cause, and the same for the bacterial culture ? Further: does the next sentence means that the latex agglutination test positively confirms that the causative agent is one of the bacteria listed? Do you have any source information? Thank you. LouisBB (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I did in that edit was reorganise the content. I am not the originator of those claims. The numbers, however, are sensitivity figures. That means that if you were to take 100 cases of definite bacterial meningitis, only 60% would have a positive Gram stain and 80% a positive culture. The remainder might be diagnosed on the basis of other features (clinical history, high CSF WCC count and high protein and low glucose). I don't know where the figures are from and I therefore do not know what their gold standard was.

The latex test seems to be specific for the type of organism. This is a page about a commonly used commercial testing kit. JFW | T@lk 06:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, LouisBB (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

We both edited same page at the same time. I'm not sure what is best for wikipedia? Shall I stop my editing?

Please, you do finish whatever you are doing. And if you wish me in that Disseminated intravascular coagulation, Please leave some message.
Thank you. AnThRaX Ru (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your input requested, Mr. the Hutt

Hi, about Talk:Post-traumatic epilepsy/GA1: don't know if I've addressed everything adequately, but will you have a look? Thanks much, delldot talk 17:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I'll do that after dinner. Mwah. JFW | T@lk 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I've done my best to address everything, will you have another look? Thanks much for all the effort you've put into giving a thorough review! delldot talk 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's yours again

Congratulations! You have captured WikiProject Medicine's **Missing Article Trophy** by creating liver biopsy. Enjoy it as long as you can! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steven! I've got some more plans with that article, but it's nice to have a memento. Are we going to rotate this between yourself, Una and me? JFW | T@lk 21:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited Cyclonim, should ask Delldot, maybe others? I check the list of new medical articles from time to time to see if there are other candidates. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feticide

I noticed your concern over edits made by Deuter1000 to Digoxin and Potassium chloride. Use of these chemicals prior to late-term abortions is discussed in Feticide#Use during legal abortion, with multiple references. I'm not familiar with the chemical articles, so I'm not sure if the placement and phrasing used by Deuter was appropriate. But I thought you should know his claims are factual, at least. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. The problem was that these extraordinary claims needed references, and the contributor hadn't provided any. JFW | T@lk 22:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reference on obesity

Hey JFD

The PMID tool is down. Will finish the refs when it is back up.

--Doc James (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous. JFW | T@lk 05:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing

I see you on many talk pages where others haven't gone before, but I rarely see you assess articles... I've been doing it a lot recently since I installed some user interface gadgets in my preferences. There's one which you can use to display the assessment when you're viewing an article, to remind you if it needs assessment. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always assess medical articles when I come accross them, but usually other editors have already suitably tagged the article. Which gadgets do you use for assessing? JFW | T@lk 21:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR Listing

Helicobacter pylori has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to help out. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 02:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back!

Thanks for the two messages whilst i've been away—in regards to the deferrence of G6PD and the RfA.

Anyway, i'm back now after arriving back in England at 4a.m. and an illness whilst away (i'll be damned if I know what, i'm going to my GP tomorrow)

Hope all is well! —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 10:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Well to tell you the truth. I just cannot spell. If google didn't corrent my mistakes I wouldn't be able to get anywere in life. Does wikipedia have a spell check for editors? Doc James (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont take barneca's legal advice

It was very wise of you to take the threat seriously. Don't let one opinion change that. You may think its crazy, but better safe than sorry. Better to not file a claim on your insurance policy than take a 99% sure bet to improve your wikipedia standing. 76.4.128.40 (talk)

You did the right thing--stay skeptical, and cautious. I'm a lawyer, reincarnated into a World_of_warcraft addict, but seriously stay smart, dont let consensus sway your judgment. 76.4.128.40 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are contacting me. JFW | T@lk 21:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which did not succeed with 30 in support, 28 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks again for the support!

—CycloneNimrod^Talk? 15:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

page Pharynx, subject Pharyngeal Gaps.

Hi JFW, could you please have a look at this and give an independent opinion?

Basically, a new user appears to have cut and pasted some anatomy into the page. It is basically correct, and probably relevant. However, as it stands, the new prose is pretty meaningless as there has been no integration with the rest of the page and there is no attempt to explain the context or meaning of the text. I deleted it and posted it on Talk:Pharynx, with an explanation of what I felt was needed. The user has simply reposted it.

Am I being unreasonable here?

thanks Jellytussle (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liver biopsy DYK

On 4 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Liver biopsy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, could you have a look at WP:MEDMAT again? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Respected colleague Jfdwolff,
Thank you for your suggestions.

I'll practice/implement your advised techniques/arts. But for me, it looks like, that will take few more hours to know thy Art. Well... I'll try.
I will correct them in my near future.

Thanking you AnThRaX Ru (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prize thingy that you gave me

Sorry the heading isn't useful bur I didn't really know what else to put. what is this priza thing. Sorry if I seem a bit stupid but I don't really understand it! Thanks :D Adam2307 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hypopituitarism

It's getting better, but the source is still very overcited. Having seen the article in question (sciencedirect), it looks like a very good, peer-reviewed review article in a respectable journal. However, even that is somewhat of a tertiary reference, and it's citing 113 papers itself. One would think that some of those 113 papers should be used and cited in the wikipedia as well. Reference #4 is also a bit overcited also. Using citations multiple times (2-5 times) is ok, but if something is a general review article that's citing 113 other papers, it's much, much better to take a look at those other papers and use those (direct) sources in the wiki article, rather than citing the tertiary source you're citing now.

Also, the 'causes' section is still just a single table with no real prose content. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right about them being secondary sources. I'm not going to argue about the difference between secondary & tertiary. I think it's good to use those sources as guidelines for the article. But when it comes to citing, I'd use the primary sources cited by those two references in the wiki article, rather than the two sources themselves. It would make the article appear more reliable and it would look like you looked at more sources and have more comprehensive research, thereby improving verifiability. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello, Jfdwolff. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. |The IP editor who placed the discussion wouldn't be able to notify you, as your page is semiprotected. You can find the conversation here. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. VRSA

I apologize as well, I was upset by something totally unrelated and I was clearly (yet unintentionally) unpleasant in my reaction. Thank you for creating a disambiguation page, that should resolve the issue. Again, I'm sorry. Please keep up your good work. :-) Best regards, Hús ö nd 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: OHAM

Ah I see, looking through there does seem to be a lack of references. The information I added to SAH should be okay, that's one of the few sections that does have references (most of which we have used elsewhere too, like van Jin). The book would be good for clinical use, I'm sure, assuming their personal experience is accurate, but you're right that it's probably not best for Wikipedia-usage, particularly the bits without references. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 07:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've never heard of VRSA until looking at your talk page. That's worrying.. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 07:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to reading it! Have you had a chance to listen to the spoken version of SAH yet? Had a little listen last night, pretty good. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 07:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Serpins

I am a scientist specializing in the field of serpin biology. While I completely agree with you that serpinopathies are not the most common cause of the diseases I listed (emphysema, cirrhosis, thrombosis etc). I hink it is important in the context of serpin biology that the consequences of serpin polymerisation are detailed (please read the review by Carrell and Lomas, together with many others in the field). I therefore think it is more than reasonable to state that rare forms of these illnesses can be caused by serpinopathies. Accordingly, I have reverted your edit, however, in light of your objection I have tried to reword it so that it is clear that most forms of emphysema etc are not caused by serpinopathies. I have also used FENIB instead of dementia. If you have a better way of describing this then I am more than happy to take your suggestions on board, however, please could you not simply delete what is actually a factually correct statement which is properly referenced - it is not a productive edit.

Further to the above, please also note that antitrypsin deficiency is actually more common than many people think, and even people heterozygous for Z-antitrypsin run the risk of developing emphysema early particularly if they smoke

Cheers, James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcwhizz (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 05:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - have a look at what I have just added which is hopefully more descriptive - I will tidy it a bit (and add a link to the alpha one page) - what do you think - does this satisfy your concerns?

There is a debate in the field at the moment in regards to testing for antitrypsin deficiency. One school of thought thinks it should happen, in the hope that it will persuade heterozygotes not to smoke. However, the prevailing opinion is that we should not test, since there is no effective treatment for it. Food for thought anyway.

Cheers

James James Whisstock (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - all now seems excellent re the disease sentences. Thank you so much for your input. I'm hoping one day that the article will be suitable for consideration for FA status - still a way to go though.

Cheers

James James Whisstock (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Huntington's disease

All done--I've checked over all my complaints from the first review and Leevanjackson had dealt with all of them. It's all yours. Peace, delldot talk 15:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cromoglycate.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cromoglycate.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping!

WP:MEDMAT. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS

I haven't been able to keep up lately; it looks like that is all settled. If not, on which page is the conversation being held? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arterial Venous Switch

I left messages in responce to the "inappropriate" deletion of my edit by other editors who try to explain to me something, they lack enough knowledge on. The concept of "Retrograde Cerebral Perfusion" is a very valid medical treatment to brain ischemia and is currently used in many fields including "cardiac surgery/CPB". There is a "plethora" of medical articles in peer review journals "that I can help you find if you can't do it on your own", by Dr. John Frazee, Dr. Judy Huang and others on the subject. Some authots call it "Posterior Cerebral Perfusion or Venous Perfusion". So, the use of "venous network" to treat the brain in cases of ischemia is well known and "Well Documented". I have no problems explaining it to you or to others to help Wikipedia grow and become more detailed on the subject.

You have an obligation as an editor and a physician to admit to the fact that you were not aware of the approach and take steps to educate the public, the same way you took steps to delete my edit.

I have no problem with debating an issue in medicine or science in general. Debate leads to progress. Howevere, before an editor assumes the position of the "teacher" and start spreading "incorrect information" they can ask experts for help or get some self education to be on the level of discussion, leave alone editing. So, I advise you and other editors who "concluded that the concept of "Venous or retrograde perfusion" is a "conflict of interest" or "commercial", to read more on the subject, before editing me. I have spent enough time and effort on "Stroke" and I know what I am talking about, You should do the same, regardless of being a physician or not and regardless of being "Board Certified" or not. I hope you can do the same and READ MORE! Soomeh (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not invite you to lecture me on my responsibilities. You must seriously tone down your rhetoric if you want anyone to carry on reading.

The onus is on you to provide evidence that your technique is being developed in phase III trials and that there are secondary sources confirming that. You will know what you're talking about, but that's not the same thing. Experimental theories are not good enough. Just the fact that it might work in cardiac surgery is not good enough either. Patients to know want treatments are known to work, not what is being tested in phase I trials and may be abandoned if proof of principle studies fail. Would you expect to read about highly experimental techniques in a standard encyclopedia?

In other words, please supply the kind of sources I was referring to. I have no desire of this turning personal, and I hope you will accept (or at least entertain) the points I have made above.

On an unrelated note, I am very curious how you intend to overcome the problem of venous perfusion pressure being significantly lower than the arterial pressure. JFW | T@lk 18:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alzheimer's Disease

For almost a year I have been working in theAlzheimer's Disease article and it is almost ready for FAC. We were thinking if somebody who had not worked directly in the article could take a look at it, say what he thinks about it and do some copy edit. It would be perfect if you could review the article. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrondo (talk • contribs)

I'm presently stuck with a fairly slow internet connection. I will see what I can do in the next few days. JFW | T@lk 18:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foster Kennedy syndrome

Hi JFW, I was wondering if you could take a look at Foster Kennedy syndrome for me. It was described by Robert Foster Kennedy so i'm curious as to whether it should be called Foster-Kennedy syndrome (which suggests there were multiple physicians involved, but is more in line with the style here at Wikipedia), keep it's present name or be called Kennedy's syndrome. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No dash needed. It is in the same league as the Austin Flint murmur. Of course, if the man had been called Foster-Kennedy the eponym would include the dash too. JFW | T@lk 20:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Thanks! —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another example would be Pierre Marie-Bamberger syndrome, after Pierre Marie and Eugen von Bamberger. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Achalasia

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I was away for several weeks; I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you.

The manual of style says "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." I think the list of symptoms reads much more easily as a bulleted list. I couldn't find anything in the manual of style that is specific to medical articles or lists of symptoms.

I haven't really figured out how to do all the various types of references on Wikipedia. Also, I wasn't always sure exactly which fact or facts each reference was referring to. I tried to preserve the references but may have gotten some of that wrong. I apologize, and please feel free to rearrange the references if necessary so they're associated with the relevant facts.

From the "biopsy" subsection under "diagnosis," I removed the sentence "In Chagas disease, a secondary cause of achalasia, the ganglion cells are destroyed by Trypanosoma cruzi, the causative parasite" because this sentence is not about biopsy or diagnosis. Chagas disease is mentioned earlier in the article, with a link to the Chagas disease article.

From the "surgery" section, I removed the sentence "In a Dor (anterior) fundoplication, part of the stomach is laid over the esophagus and stitched in place so whenever the stomach contracts, it also closes off the esophagus instead of squeezing stomach acids into it" because many surgeons prefer the Toupet procedure instead of Dor, and in any case this doesn't seem to be the place to go into detail about how the different types of fundoplication are performed. (The Heller myotomy article also includes an explanation of the Dor and Toupet procedures, and I think that is a more appropriate place.)

People can click on the word "fundoplication" to find out what it means. In the first paragraph of the fundoplication article is the sentence, "Partial fundoplications known as a Dor fundoplication or Toupet fundoplication may accompany surgery for achalasia." (The links for Dor fundoplication and Toupet fundoplication are red. They should be internal links to the respective explanations further down in the fundoplication article, but I'm not sure how to do that. Also, there are no references about Dor and Toupet there.)

However, I think this explanation is useful: "Whenever the stomach contracts, it also closes off the esophagus instead of squeezing stomach acids into it." Because this describes all kinds of fundoplications, I have inserted it into the main fundoplication article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissen_fundoplication

Again, thank you! Sssuuuzzzaaannn (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi. I noticed that you voted in the nomination for deletion of the article Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology. As I don't know you or your motives for voting as you did, and not to insult you or your intelligence, I felt that a misunderstanding occurred during the vote, causing many editors to vote for deletion based on the merits of a strawman argument. Please revisit the AfD (at the embedded link above) to gain a clearer understanding of my issue with this vote and either uphold or revise your vote -- I am not writing to you to demand that you retract -- rather, I feel that some votes may have been swayed by what may no longer apply to the article, and because most of those who voted merely reiterated the nominator's premise, perhaps a review will produce a fairer outcome. Thank you. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous inflammatory diseases, and many of them are of unknown etiology, but there is no recognised scientific entity of "inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology". I find it very unhelpful to lumber them together, because there are radical differences between those diseases mediated by innate immunity (IBD, sarcoid) and those mediated by acquired immunity (most others). Let it die, please. It will never be worth the while. JFW | T@lk 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRosenbach - I have to agree here too - the group is so heterogeneous and arbitrary that to list them as such is misleading. There are so many genuine articles desparate for a cleanup it seems a shame to devote so much energy to this and I am very sorry to vote delete there. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy

From the blocking policy: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". That means that you are not allowed to block me. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BIG problem

Hello JFD

I was editing the page on Childhood obesity and someone attacked it. Not sure how to revert the changes.

Doc James (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to fix it. Not sure what happened. --Doc James (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the MCOTW notification. I'd stay busy (just like the other weeks). But, would try to make a few minor edits. The article is quite well-developed. But, it will definitely benefit from further elaboration of certain terms. I might try that. All the best for the MCOTW! Regards. —KetanPanchal^taLK 04:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: undo

It wasn't a complete reversal of your removal, I weakened the statement and changed the resources, but I had first used the undo button. Will discuss the rest on the talk page. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natal hypnotherapy

The author has provided reliable sources on which this article could be based, please review the AfD discussion and consider whether or not your vote remains the same. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: syncope in readers

Hi,

images would be useful for the "signs and symptoms" section, and perhaps a relevant MRI scan, but I don't have time to look for this images myself for the moment. I find this image and others frequently (e.g. image of a CT scanner on an article about a condition possibly diagnosed by CT), but tend to remove them.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Hypopituitarism

Not a problem, glad I could help. I couldn't find much wrong with the article at all really, you've covered the content really well. I'll have a look at pathophysiology soon and make any comments, if I find them, here :) —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auguste D image

There are doubts on whether the image on Auguste D in the Alzheimer article was really created by Alois alzheimer. I have found the origin of such image: it is from the birth house of Alois (See: http://www.marktbreit.de/kultur_bildung/alzheimer_pic.htm). It would be a good idea to ask if the original author was Alois. I am spanish, but I thought that as you are german you might be willing to send an email to the tourist office of Markbreit (email: touristinfo @ marktbreit . de) and ask them if they know if the author was Alois Alzheimer or if the picture is Public Domain. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my German is simply terrible. "Dutch" is actually the adjective for "from the Netherlands". I'm sure Nephron (talk · contribs) can help, though. JFW | T@lk 18:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uppss: I was never very good with geography. Thanks anyway. --Garrondo (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames

Hey, I made a request at WP:UAA regarding Qqqqqqp (talk · contribs) which seems to have been removed. I'm just curious, what are the limits with policy regarding such usernames? One of the criteria for unsuitable usernames is if it makes it difficult for other users to identify that user correctly. Does this not qualify as such a username? —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 19:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Rspeer (talk · contribs) seems to have been unimpressed to by the request. I agree it's a silly username, but if that user had been making useful contributions I wouldn't have made a point of it. Let's see how long Mr 6qp lasts before he gets blocked. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I suspect it won't be long if he continues editing. But hey, don't judge a book by it's cover. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMAO

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jfdwolff. More useless wiki-drama. I hope someone blocks them. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to block. But neither do I think an RfC is appropriate. I can't see as anyone could certify it, either, as no one has tried to resolve the dispute except for the one editor, and there was no abuse of admin tools. --El on ka 17:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I beg to differ.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided an outside statement, it's clearly a load of nonsense. I'm suprised the user who requested the RFC hasn't been blocked for disobeying any other warnings. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 17:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uh. Since it hasn't been certified, and probably won't be, it's best to ignore it until/unless it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia is correct, just ignore the RfC and it'll be auto-deleted in 48 hours. But I'm still confused about something: The user who requested the RfC, Mihai cartoaje (talk · contribs), is an extremely infrequent editor. He's been participating for years, but only has about 1000 edits. And on the article in question, Medicine, over the course of his entire history he's only made about five total edits to that article, to insert a well-sourced paragraph. There might be disagreement about whether or not the information is too detailed for that article or should be merged elsewhere, but I see absolutely nothing that would justify a block. I'm not understanding why people are on such a hair-trigger about this, that the cry is going up to block him for something so minor. What am I missing? --El on ka 18:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That user has continually replaced information that was removed WITH good stated reasons, not only on the Medicine article, but also on Psychiatry. Both times the user was warned by JFW. Here is the original set of warnings, followed by this one later which only regards edits to Medicine. It became clear that this user is not a team player when it comes to editing articles, perhaps nothing to be blocked over yet, but still immature. My comment about blocking was interpreted wrongly, I'm merely suprised the the user hasn't yet been blocked from ignoring more warnings. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 19:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too worried - there are enough sensible people around that ~~we have the numbers~~ consensus will prevail. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the RfC is delisted as uncertified, it won't be for lack of canvassing... MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm rolling on the floor, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how the cabal sorts itself out even in my absence. Thank you, everyone who got involved in this one. JFW | T@lk 22:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrenal Insufficiency

I want to let you know that I'd like to take over this article Adrenal insufficiency (I noticed hardly anything has been done to it in the 4 years it's been up). I've done some minor improvements to it tonight including adding a picture.

I've been working hard (at least 4 hours a day the last few days thought I've always been working it since I first put it up) on ACTH stimulation test to raise it's grade (currently START) and feel I've done just about all I can do with it.

(you edited it a couple of times when I first put it up Feb 08, you won't recognize it now, what it looked like when you edited http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACTH_stimulation_test&diff=192268692&oldid=192257645)

I've found I really like doing this Wiki stuff and want more challenges and want to continue to help people with hormone diseases through Wikipedia though I never originally thought I would go beyond what I'm currently working on. Submitting ACTH stimulation test for reassessment of grade Sept 1st 08. Thanks Chrisgj (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking after that important content. I must say that I'd hoped to deal with the Addison's article again in the future (using the JCEM review that is presently references). To have it reassessed I would suggest you leave a message at WP:MED, because I have a lot of catching up to do after a short absence. JFW | T@lk 22:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adiposopathy

This page is rally bad. What do we do about really bad pages? This person tried to add this garbage to the page on obesity. He is trying to replace the term obesity with adiposopathy. Were on review of the scientific literature adiposopathy just refers to dysfunctional adipose tissue.

--Doc James (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's indeed a large piece of unhelpful text. I've voted, but you may need to raise this at WP:MED to get the exposure you need for this. JFW | T@lk 22:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

It appears that my internet is refusing to send you messages via Facebook, once again. So, it's not that I'm ignoring you or anything, or that I've left abruptly, it's more a case of my internet being a pain in the arse. I'll probably speak to you some time soon, as for now, sleep calls!

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gathered that. Shame, but perhaps a cue that I should be going to sleep. JFW | T@lk 00:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity

There are a few more pictures I would like to add. I want to juxtapose CXRs of obese and normal weight people as well as abdominal CTs of the same. There is an internet sit that has them but from what I understand copyright disallows there us on wikipedia. I am working some nights this week and hope to get the shots of the view box then. Then maybe once they are up we can look at getting a peer review.

Thanks Doc James (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subarachnoid hemorrhage

I read Continuing anaesthesia, critical care & pain, Volume 1, 2 and 3 which is a collaboration book between the British Journal of Anaesthesia and Oxford University Press and it makes the following points:

Massive release of catecholamine is suggested as the cause for hypotension.
Cerebral protection can be aided perioperatively by hypothermia, assuming that cerebral oxygenation is available.

Have you heard anything about these two points? I'm not sure whether they are well documented enough to add.

Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 22:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, interesting in what sense exactly? It's what volunteering at Oxfam Books & Music does to you, I'm afraid. I get bored sometimes and read the medical sections. I'll have to wait until I'm next there, which is Tuesday. Ah I just noticed the reference to catecholamine ("and similar hormones"). This Google search suggests there may be some truth in using hypothermia but I'll have another look at the book when I get back to Oxfam. It should be noted that it's not induced on the wards but rather intraoperatively. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 20:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Well I'll recheck the facts next Tueday, just to make sure. Thanks for looking at preoperative fasting, I didn't realise I listed it as high-importance! You working on any articles in particular at the moment? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 20:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. I don't really know what we would do without your source-finding skills. Hopefully things will start to settle fairly swiftly in your new job, although I guess half of the fun of acute medicine is that is is so acute.

Doc James has given me a 30-day pass to UpToDate which seems pretty good for finding some sources, unfortunately it's well out of my price range to sign up properly. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke would be quite fun to do, it's such a huge topic though. If you ever feel like challenging it, do give me a call and I'll help out with textual resources (I do a better job of that than finding stuff online). As for UpToDate, I don't think it's worth the $400/yr or so that they charge, so I wouldn't worry about it. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought NICE guidelines were more experienced-based than source-based, though? I don't doubt they're very good but not sure how useful they are as Wikipedia sources. I also haven't got a subscription to Lancet. I suspect I will if I study medicine, or if I do neuroscience then I'll probably buy a subscription to the Neurology Lancet. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 20:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that'd be the best way to go about it (using them alongside with other guidelines) just to reinforce the points a bit and improve verifiability. The other problem with NICE is just how slow they are at releasing guidelines! Although, I suspect that's just checking them over and over before they issue advice to thousands of physicians in the country. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ears burning?

No, it's not the onset of tertiary syphilis: you are being discussed at WP:AN. Look for the thread with your name as the header. MastCell ^Talk 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just kidding about the syphilis - reading it over, I realize that joke could be construed as poor taste. Sorry about that. MastCell ^Talk 16:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Mihai is at it again. Thanks for letting me know, and I shall patiently await the WP:SNOW. I must say that these funny shooting pains are really weird, and someone has accused me of having grandiose delusions. Must seek help. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity

Hey JFD

Have added another picture to the obesity page. Wondering about the peer review? There are still things that could be improved but some input from others would be appreciated.

Doc James (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity

Sure sounds good. I am off to bed now anyway. Just put together a new page. Leading preventable causes of death based on a 2004 article in JAMA. An interesting bit for preventative medicine. Doc James (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Often I do stuff between patients and do not have time to finish. Was planning on going back and making improvements latter. Doc James (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article note

Hi. could you please help to keep watch on the article Ten Lost Tribes? Appreciate your help. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing needs significant updating. I would imagine that you need to achieve consensus on the kind of sources that you will accept as reliable and useful. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, ~~barnstars~~, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MCOTW

Did you deliberately not substitute the current one? Is it meant to update each time or not? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just did it on my user talk... should work. Are you using AWB? Tables could create some fuss, but normally shouldn't. Not important really... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goedendag

Ik denk dat Google is niet erg nauwkeurig te vertalen dingen in het Nederlands. Er is sprake van enige stof tot nadenken! Ik hoop dat alles goed en dit was slechts een willekeurige opmerking voor u gemaakt uit verveling. Ik weet niet eens of ze wel zin heeft. Goedendag. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google needs to work on its Dutch grammar. Vocab not bad. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedRevise.co.uk

Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you are medically active! With a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Wikipedia, but trying to be something else useful, different and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! Christianpunk (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently getting a 404. Please let me know the correct URL. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR notification

I have posted a request for arbitration of User:Jfdwolff on the WP:RFAR page. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Look how quickly that got shot down. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jfd, I'm not opining there, again, because the case will be quickly rejected, but I'm concerned that the issue isn't going away. Please let me know if there's some way I can help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left him an unofficial warning on his talk page, essentially asking him to cease making theser requests and to review his previous attempts and try to why they failed. I'm pretty sure if he continues to make these requests, he can be blocked for disruption. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. I'm absolutely not intimidated. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HD GA nom

Hi JFW. GA isn't FA, and currently they want reviewers to stick to Wikipedia:Good article criteria. The review should say explicitly that the article meets each of those criteria or, if not, precisely how it falls short, so the nominator can fix the deficiencies. --Una Smith (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Una, I'm not sure if you're aware of the article's recent history. Goodone121 (talk · contribs) nominated it for GAN a few weeks ago, without having made a single contribution to the article. I was pretty certain that Leevanjackson (talk · contribs) was still working on it, and felt that earlier recommendations by Delldot (talk · contribs) had only been partially implemented. After Lee agreed that GAN should proceed, I left a very long list of recommendations on the talkpage. Only part of these got implemented over the two week period normally assigned for this process, and I therefore had no choice but to fail the article. Meanwhile, much work has been taking place, and again I am certain that Lee is not yet done with it.

Now Goodone121 comes along and nominates the article again, and is asked on his talkpage by Lee to withdraw the nomination for reasons stated.

I am entirely in favour of sticking to the GA criteria, but I feel that currently the article is incomplete from a content perspective and that my previous recommendations were not actioned. JFW | T@lk 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DM article fuss continues

JDFW, The revert/rerevert/rererevert etc in the DM article is continuing. It's nearing the boundaries of the 3RR and so is likely to be escalated to formal handling of some sort. For the moment, as you have in the past been the nominal supervising admin for the article, would you consider locking it to anon posting for a few days or a week? I'm sufficiently exercised to conside4r blocking the anon user who has caused the kerfluffle and sustained it against what seems to me to be clear consensus that he (she) is out of line per WP policies, but maybe not yet. Anyway, I've reverted intro scribbling yet again.

Sigh... ww (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ww (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi there, I've noticed Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008, and have been watching students choose articles to improve. One called User:FoodPuma has chosen Osteochondritis dissecans as a subject. Would it be possible for you to you make yourself known on their talkpage and give them some advice and feedback? Is seems in your area of expertise. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated. It's good for us science doctors to reach out to our Latin-speaking colleagues occasionally! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dabigatran etexilate.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dabigatran etexilate.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help against personal attacks

Hi Dr. Wolff: If you can, I would greatly appreciate some admin help with the situation that has unfolded on the talk pages at Talk:Circumcision#Wikipedia is not Wiktionary where User Finncalder (talk · contribs) uses some plum words against me when I have said nothing against him personally in any way, in the course of a general discussion. How can I ignore it when he says: "is a skill to talking out of your arse and you have certainly mastered it" [2] or when I requested [3] [4] that he please sign some of his unsigned comments with the four tildes, after quickly deleting my brief reminder [5] he responded on my talk page User talk:IZAK#Don't lecture me with a string of personal attacks: "Keep your hypocritical lectures for those who are stupid enough to pay attention to your incoherent ramblings. I correct both my unsigned comments a before you sent that stupid message' so in the future, kindly keep your vacuous nonsense to yourself." [6] And: "Given the vile judgemental filth you have been posting in the circumcision article name debate, you are not only a hypocrite; but anything I have said to you is remarkably restrained.It is clear that your only motives are to troll and to push a truly perverted point-of-view." [7]. I am always glad to conduct open and civil discussions on talk pages. I have requested that he refrain from violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND at least three times [8] [9] [10], but it seems to no avail. I would appreciate it if an admin could review the matter. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

protection

Hey JFD

Can we add semi protection to the page on childhood obesity. Thanks

Doc James (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MODY IP user

Hi,

Obviously no consolation in your wikistressing dispute over the lead section in Diabetes mellitus but it might be interesting for you to know that the same user (162.84.184.38) has been for some time active in diabetes-related articles in Polish WP. Not only in my opinion he/she is generally unhelpful, (to some extent) disruptive and clearly (monogenic MODY)POV pushing.
Regards,
Kpjas (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most fascinating... Thanks for letting me know, Krzysztof. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Person who needs to be blocked

Hey JFD

This person vandalized obesity. He has been doing the same for a long time. Can you block him?

User talk:Stentie

Also the page on ADHD get alot of vandalism. Can we protect it? It seems any topic of any importance get hit a great deal.

--Doc James (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Stentie is an incorrigible long-term vandal who amazingly has remained unblocked. I have blocked him now. With regards to the ADHD page, I'm not entirely convinced this needs protecting now, but if there continues to be daily vandalism there may be a good case for doing so. I'm not opposed to long-term semiprotection of these articles, because they are usually highly accessed as well; it would be embarrasing if every viewer could read "MY TEACHER MR JONES HAS ADHD AND IS ON RYTALYN. L0L!" JFW | T@lk 22:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for stoping by and offering your help - I will have to send my regards to Mr. Vickers! I do have one question for you, however: what is the real difference between Causes and Pathophysiology? Are "Causes" the events bringing about the disease/condition and "Pathophysiology" the effects of the disease/condition? I asked my brother (who is a medical student) but his definition left me befudled. Again, thank you for the offer to help! Perhaps, after I have buffed up Osteochondritis dissecans' references and information in a few weeks, would you be willing to review it for me? Cheers! FoodPuma (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cause" or "etiology" is what initiates the disease process. "Pathophysiology" is the mechanism of disease. Pneumonia is usually caused by bacteria, but the pathophysiology of pneumonia involves an acute inflammatory response with airspace consolidation etc. JFW | T@lk 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a new question for you... How should I classify the licensing of images found in medical journals? Can I use them under public domain? Are they creative commons? I appreciate your patience with me! FoodPuma (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I about WLU's latest CFS edits

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:WLU. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD

Hello JFD

I added a WPMED to the page on ADHD have been doing some work on it. It is generally of poor quality but I feel of high importance. How should it be assess? Maybe a C?

Doc James (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with move

Hi Dr. Wolff: Could you please help to move History of the Jews in the United Arab Emirates) to History of the Jews in the United Arab Emirates -- without the mistaken half-parenthesis sign ")" -- and also from being a double redirect. All thse types of Jewish history articles have the form "History of the Jews in ____" (see History of the Jews in the Arabian Peninsula for example. Thanks in advance for your help. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! IZAK (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Active and passive smoking as allergies causes

Hi Jfdwolff,
thanks for your contribution to the wikipedia editing!
I notice that with your revision that took place at 6:26 am on the 7th of September 2008 you have cancelled:

"(...) (active and passive smoking) (...)"

from the causes of allergies, a revision that I added at 12:06 AM, 6th september 2008.
You motivated your change with:

"(does the source comment on smoking? what is the evidence for allergies attributable to smoking?) "

Well the answer is YES.
You can check yourself googling with "allergies" "smoking" keywords (4,620,000 results that is FOUR MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND RESULTS.
Is that enough for you as "EVIDENCE FOR ALLERGIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO SMOKING" or do you wish something more "specific"?
Please let's discuss this topic on the "allergy" talk page.
Thanks for your attention.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Talk:Allergy. JFW | T@lk 11:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood pressure

Hi JFW, It's been quite a trip since you welcomed me to Wikipedia last May.

I have a question regarding approaches to blood pressure treatment in the UK. It concerns a statement in the Normal values section of the Blood pressure article,

In the UK, mirroring abandoned earlier US practice, medical and nursing students continue to be taught that their patients’ readings should be considered ‘normal’ if in the range:

Systolic: 110-140 mmHg
Diastolic: 70-90 mmHg

Is this true or should it be deleted? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The values seem reasonable. If there is a source for these claims, keep them. If there is no source, move them to the talkpage where we can find a source for them (e.g. the NICE hypertension guideline). JFW | T@lk 19:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced at the NICE hypertension guidelines and they appear to be concerned only with 140/90 and not the pre-hypertension range. Finding a source for the part "medical and nursing students continue to be taught" does not seem too promising. I suppose the lower bounds of the respective ranges, 110/70, might be in some NICE hypotension guidelines. Perhaps we should leave the quote as is for now, except for a {{cn|Sep 2008}} template? However, if you feel we should try do do something now, that's OK too. The idea of moving the quote to the talk page is a method of approach that I haven't come across yet in my relatively brief Wikipedia service since May so my inexperience may be showing here or I may be misunderstanding your suggestion. It's not clear to me why the quote would need to be moved to the talk page to work on it instead of leaving it as is and discussing it on the talk page. Maybe the latter is what you meant and I'm taking your remark too literally?

Anyhow you answered my basic question that it is not clearly a candidate for deletion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that if content cannot be verified despite your best efforts then it might not be appropriate to remain in the article namespace. I tend to move such content to the relevant talk page, so it doesn't disappear completely and other editors are able to assist in the identification of sources. JFW | T@lk 21:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. (and impressively prompt I might add!) : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. JFW | T@lk 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Could I remind you that the term "vandalism" is really reserved for wilful damage to encyclopedia content, rather than changes made from a reasonable and well-argued perspective?[11] JFW | T@lk 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I used it. I have also reported the user for his/her vandalism. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which was rejected. Toddst1 (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myalgic encephalomyelitis

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think I was expressing a legitimate concern on that particular talkpage. If you choose to take offense then please go ahead. JFW | T@lk 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Penicillamine.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Penicillamine.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD

Hello JFD

Having some issues with other editors on the page on ADHD. Wondering if you could shed some light on issues of proper references. They like to reference stuff like PBS the television station and different organizations webpages. As well as unpublished material from authors who claim expertise in the field. I have removed much to great shouts of alarm.

Any help would be appreciated. Doc James (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My talk

Please consider yourself warned that you are close to violating WP:3RR on my talkpage. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with that policy. I think it is plainly silly that you continue to refactor warnings made on your talkpage. That is not helpful, in violation of WP:TALK etc etc. But I'll wait for another admin to draw the necessary conclusions in this case. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what is that supposed to mean? Are you making threats again? The rules are simple. Do not editwar. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't realised, some of your behaviours are plainly disruptive. Slapping tags on chronic fatigue syndrome because you can't be bothered to engage in a discussion is disruptive. Calling other people's edits "vandalism" without good cause is disruptive. Refactoring all negative posts on your talkpage is disruptive. Threatening to recreate a redirect despite longstanding consensus against such a move is disruptive.

I can't be bothered to report you on ANI, but there are substantial grounds for doing so. The fact that you hold a particular POV on ME and CFS does not absolve you from the most basic Wikipedia policies which you continue to breech on a continuous, low-grade basis. JFW | T@lk 23:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really have no clue, do you?

Vandalism is disruptive, not reporting about it.
Tagging rather than reverting is desired procedure.
Placing uncalled for negative comments and editwarring over them is disruptive. Removing them is desired procedure.
Continuously claiming consensus where you have none is disruptive, not standing up against it.
Having a pov is not disruptive (you don't even know mine, I can tell you), pushing a pov like you are doing is.

But all of that pales in comparison to what you are really doing, something for which Wikipedia has no policies. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am really doing is paving the way for the takeover by the cabal. Next, please. JFW | T@lk 05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jfdwolff, you should not undo changes Guido (or anyone) makes on his own talkpage. People are free to remove, archive, ... comments on their own talkpage, and should not be reverted when doing so. This of course does not exyend to article talk pages, and also does not include changing other people's comments, but neither of those is what this is about. If you have posted a message to a user talk page and the user removes the message, do not repost it. Fram (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I feel that removal of warnings is disruptive. It is important that other users are able to see early on whether a user has been in conflict with others. I have no intention of reposting the messages, because the user has no decided to leave messages here which I will not be refactoring. JFW | T@lk 02:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION: The above exchange has been found by one or more editors as being unproductive and a complete waste of time.
Do not decide whether or not to continue the above exchange based on the need to make yourself sound smart or to point out the irony of this warning.

Whoops. Found that at WT:RfA a while ago and I guess it doesn't strictly apply here, but humorous nonetheless. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic user's name

Hi Dr. Wolff: As an admin could you please take a look at the notice I gave User Holy Bible of Judaism & Christianity (talk · contribs) and the request I have made of him to change his user name per Wikipedia policy at User talk:Holy Bible of Judaism & Christianity#Please change you user name ASAP. I have also placed a notification at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention#User-reported [12]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was resolved for now. The name was blocked. IZAK (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Things thatYOU WANT..."

Dear JFD,
as I wrote you before I am NOT thinking right now (after your "encouragement") to go back in the allergy article editing before two-three months time starting from today wed. 17 sep. 2008.
I see that in your reply on the "allergy" article talk page you stated:

"(...) I want' a reliable source from you that smoking increases the risk of allergies (...)"

(like this request is "not personal" instead... duh?).
Have you noticed that in three months time we will approach Xmas?!
I may write a letter to Santa Claus for you as well because I am starting to like you. :O)
Anything else that YOU WANT?
Please state clearly in your reply how you behaved during this 2008 year.
Unfortunately Santa (who works on an entirely volunteer basis just like me) wants to know this kind of stuff in order to give us presents.
P.S.: I am starting to think that you are taking the wikipedia project as an academic peer reviewed journal. Which is NOT. The purpose of wikipedia should be a cooperative and constructive work between internet surfers and not having some people mobbing other people on what they should do because they WANT them to do it.
But don't worry I will not tell Santa about this: I will respect your privacy.
Thanks for your attention.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any point in replying to you. JFW | T@lk 16:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine: please write to Santa Claus yourself then. I am sure he will assume your good faith. Merry Xmas. Maurice Carbonaro

AfD nomination of Nightingale Research Foundation

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nightingale Research Foundation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightingale Research Foundation. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with redirect

Hi Dr. Wolf: Could you please help redirect History of the Jews in in Tajikistan (it has two "in" in the title) to History of the Jews in Tajikistan and that will also help fix its other redirects as well. Thank you so much, IZAK (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JFW | T@lk 16:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added references to Nightingale Research Foundation

I added some references to Nightingale Research Foundation. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightingale Research Foundation. --Eastmain (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a lengthy interview in a minor online magazine. It demonstrates that the NRF is basically a diagnostic service run by Byron Hyde. I have no intention of changing my vote. JFW | T@lk 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the source I added to replace Eastmain's. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources Eastmain added seemed to support the notability of Hyde rather than that of his foundation. JFW | T@lk 19:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'm not retracting my nomination or altering my !vote. That's a very low notability magazine that could be used with caution as a source if NRF passes the AFD or if Hyde has a page created. The remainder of the references added didn't improve the notability for NRF by my estimation. I removed most, and embedded one as a link. The removed links couldn't be used to justify anything I could see, and were not really references in my mind. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: Image:Pravastatin.png

Image:Pravastatin.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Pravastatine.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Pravastatine.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message left on your user page

"This page looks like a personal advertisement. Why do we need this kind of personal cult in editing Wikipedia so far as Wikipedia can be edited by ANYBODY.Chmyr (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Most likely nonsense, looking at the users contributions and history. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review?

Hello again! Perhaps you remember helping me out not to long ago. Well, I've improved significantly on my article and have now listed it for Peer Review as I prepare to nominate it for GA status. If you wouldn't mind dropping by it's peer review page, you're input would be much appreciated! Thanks! FoodPuma (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started with a gentle copyedit of the lead. I'll try to do some more copyediting of the rest of the article when time permits. JFW | T@lk 05:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can not thank you enough!! Your time is much appreciated on my end - it seems hard to find anyone willing to help a measly little high school student. I truly appreciate your help sir, for I would be lost had you (and a couple others) offered to help me along the way. With my sincerest gratitude, FoodPuma (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urticaria question

Hia Wolff,

Could you have a look at this section? Pubmed seems to link to the journal (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=nlmcatalog&doptcmdl=Expanded&cmd=search&Term=9106718[NlmId] - the wikimedia software seems to be choking on the link) but I can't find the specific citation and PMID, plus the dates seem off (i.e. journal published starting in 1990, but the wiley link says volume 3 was published in 2007. I may not be a mathematician, but those don't seem to add up. I don't know if it's worth re-writing since the source seems suspect. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if inclusion of the study is not in contravention of WP:MEDRS. If this is a relevant study it would have been quoted in a recent literature review. The study indeed appeared in 1992, but was published online much later. The DOI is doi:10.1111/j.1399-3038.1992.tb00024.x. I can't figure out why the article has no PMID. Perhaps that is even a stronger indication that it is a small single study that should be considered for removal. JFW | T@lk 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. It has only been indexed for PubMed since 1993. JFW | T@lk 20:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity

Hey JFD

I have spent some time correcting minor errors and clarifying some wording. Have submitted the obesity page for a good article review. Not sure if I did everything correctly.

Doc James (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at another featured article menstrual cycle. The obesity article is of much better quality. Do you think obesity should be submitted for a review to see if it is FA material yet? Doc James (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Menstrual cycle has been identified as an FA in trouble. I wouldn't use it as a yardstick. With obesity, I think peer review is the next step forward. We'll then go for GA status and finally FA. After the scrutiny associated with PR and GA, FA will be a doddle. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at the obesity history and talk page? Your name came up... Would prefer a second opinion on the intro I suggested. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duloxetine: bias in intro paragraph

I posted a response to User:Paul gene in the duloxetine article discussion section. Hopefully we can get some of the biased quotes in the intro paragraph moved to a "controversies" section in the article. Thanks for your help with this. --Matthaller (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got little handle on Paul gene. A little while ago I found duloxetine a very POV article, having seen some fairly good trial results and noting that some patients did well on it. I then tried to hack out the most egregious POV, but was stopped by Paul. Now he claims to be a psychopharmacologist, so I defer to his expertise, but he seems to think that all trials are to be disbelieved because they are manufacturer-sponsored. By extension of that logic, most of our current pharmacopoeia belongs in the rubbish bin.

In other words, I don't think I can be of much help. Other users who might be able to assist are Casliber (talk · contribs) and Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs). JFW | T@lk 19:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on talk:Huntington's disease

I have reverted, as your edit was undiscussed.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not revert. Delist properly, if you must. I already closed the WP:GAR, but your reversions make it seem otherwise.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the process, you intimated that Huntington's disease is a good article. It is not. How about you leave the article alone and cease your disruptive activities? JFW | T@lk 14:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello, Jfdwolff. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [[:WP:GAR reversion]]. Thank you.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would have done better to continue the thread about you from yesterday, which has not yet been archived. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figure removal error

My sincere apology. Apparently, I inadvertently removed a figure from the pneumothorax entry. I actually have no problem with the image and thought I had carefully checked the preview before saving the page. Thank you for catching my mistake. LLDMart (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick look

Could you give me a second opinion on [13] [14] [15] ? These additions do seem to be accurate but... --BozMo talk 06:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --BozMo talk 20:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kashrut

WikiThanks

Thanks for your recent cleanup of kashrut. I took one look at all those changes, and I whimped out. Kudos to you!!!!! Shirulashem (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced if the recent heavy editing to kashrut has been good. I have left a message on WT:JEW to alert other users. I tend to switch off when a single editor makes so many edits in one go without leaving some sort of statement of intent on the talkpage. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

exactly. i saw it was being so heavily edited, and i was terrified, until i saw that you were trying to straighten all those changes out. Shirulashem (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping!

Check your e-mail. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inbox full, but nothing from you... Please resend. JFW | T@lk 13:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

All of Kebab Allah's recent edits should be reverted. We're talking about more than 50 edits here. How are we going to do this? --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very slowly... JFW | T@lk 13:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Changed preferences on my user page, email is [refactored for spam safety] in any case. Don't bother to reply on WP, as I'm trying to avoid it, what with my thesis looming, as we discussed.FelixFelix ^talk 14:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nidus

I've never heard that word in my life. Thanks for teaching me something. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. JFW | T@lk 22:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AfD on Christianity and Judaism

Hi! I see that you were one of the participants in the recent AfD on the article Christianity and Judaism. That AfD recommended (in a snowball result) that the article be merged into Judeo-Christian. However, since the AfD concerns have been raised, most notably

Per WP:ADJECTIVE and WP:MOSNAME, we use nouns and noun-phrases for article titles, not adjectives. So a general survey on the relationships between Christianity and Judaism (a topic this encyclopedia should certainly cover) should be called Christianity and Judaism, as per the articles Christianity and Islam, Islam and Judaism.
The reason the article Judeo-Christian exists, as its own hatnote declares, is specifically to survey the history and use of that word-phrase -- which has its own controversy, and its own tale to tell. (See here where I've set things out in a bit more detail.) That story is a good fit for its own article, and will get completely lost if the contents of Christianity and Judaism get inappropriately dumped on top of it.

Having contacted the closing admin, his advice was to open a new discussion at Talk:Christianity and Judaism, advertise the discussion widely, and if a new consensus can be reached in that discussion [his emphasis], then per WP:CCC the new consensus should be followed, rather than the AfD decision, without the need for a DRV or a new AfD.

Concerns about the proposed merge have also been expressed by Slrubenstein (talk · contribs), LisaLiel (talk · contribs) and SkyWriter (talk · contribs).

This post is therefore to let you know that that discussion is underway, at Talk:Christianity and Judaism#Overly speedy deletion, with a view to perhaps setting aside the AfD decision.

Of course, some significant issues were raised in the AfD about the article in its present form, so the best way forward is a question that needs some thought. Please feel welcome to come and participate! Jheald (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feelings, other than that I tend to concur with Slrubenstein who is an academic with an interest in these topics. If he thinks that academically there is sufficient notable content to populate both articles in a non-POV, non-NOR, non-WEIGHT kinda way then let's have both! JFW | T@lk 08:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Platelets

Thanks for your help earlier in solving my own vagaries apropos RA. I'm just taking a look at the page on Platelets (I've moved on to studying blood) and I'm making quite a few changes. Noticed that you were involved in some editing of it, and I'd just like to invite you to check out what I'm doing. Electrosaurus (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood is fun, whether it's badly composed or coming out at the wrong time and place. I'll have a look. JFW | T@lk 23:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holding measure?

I like your edits on the Chronic Kidney Disease article a lot. I think you have made it a better article. I would, however, like to discuss two sentences. One (which you have a reference for)is - For severe CKD, one of the several forms of dialysis may be required; dialysis is usually regarded as a "holding measure" while waiting for a kidney transplant.^[1]

I don't think this is true and I can't find support for the statement in the KDOQI guidelines referenced. Both kidney transplant and dialysis are forms of renal replacement - there isn't a cure. They exist together and many people will live a long time using a combination of therapies. Which therapy is best at any moment will most likely vary over time.

And may be required? Stage 5 CKD requires dialysis or transplant. Why equivocate?

The second sentence is "and stage 5 being a severe illness with poor life expectancy." Really? Does it not depend on the renal replacement therapy available and used? Does it not depend on comorbidities? I'd say a severe illness requiring renal replacement.

I do like your changes; I think you should take another look at those two sentences and see if they say what you meant to say. Cheers,BillpSea (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is not literally mentioned in the KDOQI guidelines. I am also aware that technically a renal transplant is a form of RRT. It is however very hard to clarify this in the intro without a lot of verbiage. I will revise the content.

I chose "may be required" because there are many people who are unsuitable for RRT or decline RRT. When I write for Wikipedia I try to remove myself from giving medical advice, hence the guarded tone. On face value, everyone with CKD 5 needs RRT barring contraindications or lack of consent. JFW | T@lk 19:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping!

You've got mail. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

email

As a general rule, I like both the openness of wikipedia and keeping my wiki-life separate from my "other" life, so I didn't activate my email here. If you leave me a message on my talk page I promise I will read it. --Bachrach44 (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force

I am looking for help improving the dermatology content on wikipedia. Would you be willing to help, or do you have any friends interested in derm that would be interested in helping? Kilbad (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presently quite busy with lots of projects, but I can always help if a topic is in need of serious attention. I suggest the most pressing cases are nominated at WP:MCOTW. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WikiProject Neurology + Mihai cartoaje (talk · contribs)

Hey :)

Sounds like a good idea to me, I think I'll put the work in today and sort it out. On another note, our friend Mihai cartoaje (talk · contribs) has decided to give me a level 2 warning for personal attacks, despite me having no interaction with him since his last attempt to desysop you. Would it be wrong for me to remove this warning from my talk page? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the taskforce, see what Garrondo says below + my response.

With regards to Mihai, I would not remove the warning but leave a polite & concise note explaining that you think the warning is inappropriate. JFW | T@lk 10:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think; I wrote this proposal in the medicine wikiproject: Would it be a good idea to create a combined task force of Neurology and neuroscience? The Wikiproject Neurosciences has been death for a long time (I think that no editions for more than a year). The aims and themes of both fields are really close and hopefully combined they will atract more contributors.--Garrondo (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you will end up with a huge set of very disparate articles. Neurology is a clinical neuroscience, but many neurosciences articles are not exactly medical and would fall well beyond WP:MED. I'm not sure if I would support a merge. JFW | T@lk 10:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Hi Jfdwolff. I saw your name at the Dermatology article. I added some old photos to Erythema multiforme. However, this photo shows what is meant by target lesion, and the target lesion do not appear to be in either photo set in the Erythema multiforme article. If you have a chance, would you take a stab at identifying the skin conditions in the photos in the Erythema multiforme article. If you would be so kind, please respond on my talk page. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 01:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems closer for the first set having three photos. -- Suntag ☼ 01:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I also listed the matter at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Skin_condition_photos. Since that post links to the article, I will take care of the matter after giving Reference_desk/Science a few days of comment. -- Suntag ☼ 16:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's no interest at the Science reference desk. I'll move the photo set out of the Erythema multiforme article. Thanks for your help. -- Suntag ☼ 14:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of dermatology articles on Wikipedia, input wanted

Hey JFW. Kilbad (talk · contribs) has asked me to ask around a few people to get their opinions on the current catagorisation tree proposed at this discussion,as he seems rather eager to get going with the work but would like a few more opinions. Any chance you could have a quick look and post your thoughts? Cheers,

Matt (—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Way to go

Wow, JFW, you really have you're teeth stuck into meningitis, fantastic thing! :) LeeVJ (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What they said! I'll try and expand a bit further with Mechanism. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demeclocycline

Hmm, I seem to have forgotten all about the UK... :) Just kidding, I checked the eMC and found no record of demeclocycline—sucks having lost access to the BNF. Thanks for fixing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MPO Horses contribution

Hi JFW, Thanks for your comment about my contribution about MPO in the synovia of horses. I do not agree with you, since the search for biomarkers for the diagnosis of joint disease in the horse is a very important field of research right now. So I think my contribution is important and will be helpful. Regarding the conflict of interest, I don't see any, since everything has been quoted correctly. It is my article and I have never said the opposite. Besides, I could have signed (log-in) in wikipedia with another name and then nobody would have noticed who is real author. This was not my intention and that is why I did not do it. Everything I do is cristal clear and would really appreciate if you leave my contribution in wikipedia. Thanks and greetings from Germany. P.S. Sorry about so many corrections; I am kind of new here and I'm still learning about how to communicate in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastasios Moschos (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if MPO is not currently in practical use then it is still quite speculative. There are enormous amounts of ongoing research that is not being covered on Wikipedia because it still doesn't have practical relevance. Please discuss on Talk:Myeloperoxidase. JFW | T@lk 08:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFW, thanks for your reply. I did not know that wikipedia only publishes information about things currently in practical use. I think there are not many practical uses for the MPO and this is exactly why I do consider this artile as important, specially in the area of equine orthopedics... Anyway, I assume you will remove again from wikipedia and to be honest, I have better hobbies than being the whole day in front of the computer staring at the wikipedia page. At least, I tried to make a contribution. Best regards, Anastasios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastasios Moschos (talk • contribs) 11:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia is intended to be a general purpose encyclopedia. Therefore, it needs to be slightly selective in what it presents. We are discussing MPO testing for myocardial infarction because it has been the subject of a large clinical trial. Your contributions did not seem to suggest a practical use yet. But that might still come. You are free to discuss the issue on Talk:Myeloperoxidase, and this is especially relevant if you are the main author of the most important source. Yes, you could have hidden behind a pseudonym, but now that you haven't please be mindful of WP:COI. JFW | T@lk 13:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Epidural hematoma.png

Hey, I wanted to add an arrow to this image and upload it to commons, but I wanted to be absolutely sure before doing it that you're the author/copyright holder (I know it says "one of my patients" so the question is probably unnecessary). Thanks much, delldot ∇. 05:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. So it wasn't trauma? What caused it? Should I take the image out of traumatic brain injury? Meningitis looks great, you've been hard at work as usual! Peace, delldot ∇. 06:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links Question

Hi - i'm new here and am wondering why I cannot insert a resource like www.elanaspantry.com (a non-advertising web site resource for celiacs) into an article about celiac disease? Also, if i cannot add an external link like that, how can a site like celiac.com add theirs? they are way more commercial than the elanaspantry.com website. thanks. Gfstephen (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Coeliac_disease#External_Links_Questions rather than explain to this person (and their many accounts) in circles why this is not acceptable. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Druker

From the number of mentions on Wikipedia I too assumed he was notable. There were three different links to him, so I was standardizing them where they already existed and then added where there were others to ensure standardization in order to prevent multiple articles of the same topic. If I have time I will, but other may beat me to it. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:Dermatological preparations

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Dermatological preparations, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Dermatological preparations has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Dermatological preparations, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? kilbad (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you to ask. Unfortunately, I have little expertise in dermatology, and have been very busy with other projects. At the moment, I can only think of Davidruben (talk · contribs) as a potentially interested user. JFW | T@lk 23:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

WikiProject Medicine's Missing Articles Trophy — Awarded to Jfdwolff for the creation of **Acute scrotum.**

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sukkah hopping

Hi Dr. Wolff: Please see the merge discussions at Talk:Sukkah#Sukkah and Sukkah hopping. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vasculitis

First, thank you for the work you have done on wikipedia. I mean that sincerely. With regard to the vasculitis article, I do appreciate your contribution; however, I simply ask that you cite your information. kilbad (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I am certainly not saying that you are incorrect, but merely asking that if you add information, please find a source and cite your addition. To quote one document, "If you add information to a page, please provide references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal.". Also here, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." kilbad (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Carbamazepine was indeed used wildly until the 80's before syntetic vasopressin became nearly the only treatment. It is my knowledge that it still used in partial central DI when dosing becomes difficult.

Some sources: http://www.curehunter.com/public/pubmed467385.do http://www.rxmed.com/b.main/b1.illness/b1.1.illnesses/DIABETES%20INSIPIDUS.htm http://www.rsdalert.co.uk/drugs/Tegretol.htm http://www.frca.co.uk/article.aspx?articleid=100234

There are also several papers, but they mostly were published in the 70s, but they still propose in some more recent papers the possibility of using it as treatment: http://www.cmj.org/periodical/PaperList.asp?id=LW2006816478115801001

For those reason, I said it had some success rather than being more explicit and saying directly it's used as treatment to not make it equally worth as syntetic vasopressin. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inductionheating (talk • contribs) 22:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the project, I adde it in my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inductionheating (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sniff, sniff

Poor orphaned reference. I think the bot handled it correctly, but you might want to double check. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That bot is simply amazing. It got there before me. Problem is, I'm trying to keep the references out of the intro. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction

I have nominated Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. —G716 <^T·_C> 00:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Warfarin

Yes, I will try somewhat to help improve warfarin if the reviewers deem that is needed, but I think it is very good without any improvement needed.Cssiitcic (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section on anti obesity drug history

Hey JFD moved the section on anti obesity drug history to the page on anti obesity drugs. This was recommended during the good article review which failed. There are a few dozen other recommendation which I am slowly working on. I am happy however happy with it in either place.

--Doc James (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamins

I didn't go to AACR this year, but apparently an abstract about vitamin supplements and cancer (from the Physicians Health Study) is getting a lot of press. Unfortunately, I don't have the energy to add the latest round of negative results to our articles on vitamin supplementation. I already know the response: the studies were drug-company propaganda to discredit vitamins, they tested the wrong dose or formulation again, etc etc... MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm staying well out of that one, before I arouse the wRath of the folk who hang out there. But, just out of interest, which article should it be mentioned in? JFW | T@lk 22:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I was thinking Vitamin E and Vitamin C... MastCell ^Talk 23:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAH Edit

Hello Dr. Wolff: I'm sorry that I edited the article without discussing it first. I'm new to Wikipedia and didn't know what a featured article is. The reason I included the references in my edit is because I have many patients who want to know the sources for the statistics that I provide and I thought that including these latest references would be helpful. Please let me know how I should proceed. Kind regards, Nus1937 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoimmune disease

I intend to rewrite compleatly Autoimmune disease article, expending it and adding missing conditions. Inductionheating (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say the truth, I don't think conditions like schizophrenia should be included in the same list as established autoimmune diseases. Given that a very large number of adult diseases have evidence of autoimmune involvement we could use this standard to include hundreds of diseases under the pretext of suspected autoimmunity. I'm not against including suspected autoimmunity, but I believe that as the list grows established autoimmune conditions will be hidden and lost in a long list with several conditions which are still not classified as autoimmune. Inductionheating (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee

While people are not rodents, the fact that there are many rodent carcinogens in coffee should not be censored from WP. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 02:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please retract your use of the word "censorship" before I will seriously consider your comment. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 21:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Sent you an email. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OHS

Thanks for asking, but what you probably need is a pulmonologist. Or are you a pulmonologist? (My main interest is circadian rhythm disorders.) I read the article and couldn't resist changing Black people to American Black people. Of the Africans I've met, few are overweight and none are obese :-)

Interesting article. Too real; my hypochondriac other self wonders if I have it... - Hordaland (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference KDOQI was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[KDOQI-1] Cite error: The named reference KDOQI was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]