Jump to content

User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Seasons Greetings

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate the Winter or Summer Solstice, Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec08}} to your friends' talk pages.

Please archive me, Miszabot. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DM mediation cabal

J, As nearly as I can make out the case has been closed without resolution. I left a message for Fr33kman a few weeks ago, given his silence, and have received nothing. It appears that quietude is the cause of the case being closed. That being so, I propose to remove the mongenicity comment from the intro and here we go again. Sigh... ww (talk)

Responded. Please archive me, Miszabot. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...
Thanks. Please archive, Miszabot. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacologic categorization

I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.


The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 45 24 November 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: 200th issue 
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones 
Wikipedia in the news Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 46 1 December 2008 About the Signpost
ArbCom elections: Elections open Wikipedia in the news 
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System Features and admins 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 5, Issue 1 3 January 2009 About the Signpost
From the editor: Getting back on track 
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK 
Editing statistics show decline in participation Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting 
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments Dispatches: Featured list writers 
Wikipedia in the news WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey 
Features and admins 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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Osteitis fibrosa cystica could use your help!

Strombollii from the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 could really use your help on his current project: Osteitis fibrosa cystica. He has had trouble finding suitable information (in both verifiability and quantity) for the topic and is relatively unfamiliar to the style and formating for medicine articles on Wikipedia. As a friend, I told him I would gladly message those who I respected as fellow wiki-editors and who I believed could add to his medicine related article. You, of course (from your help and critizim in Osteochondritis dissecans), were one of my choices. So if you can spare the time, I am sure your help would be much appreciated. Again, thank you for your own help in my article... without you and several other editors, I would have never made GA. Cheers! FoodPuma 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Merge discussion for Febrile neutropenia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Febrile neutropenia , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spiral5800 (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Double Diabetes removed

For what reason did you remove the Double Diabetes area of the Diabetes mellitus page? Our class at Temple University is studying diabetes. Why is that source unreliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.218.80 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MEDRS. It outlines the requirements for sources used in medical articles. Let me know if you need help finding a more reliable source. Enjoy your course. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

CFS and XMRV

Hi, I didn't want to clutter the CFS talk page since I actually agreed with your UNDO of IP 69...'s edit as I would have executed the undo for failure to provide WP:MEDRS. However, I would like to comment on your history audit statement "actually, this has been disproven in other studies". McClure's paper (PMID 20066031) fails to find supporting evidence the WPI published in Science (PMID 19815723) (using a different testing process against a patient cohort different selected with different criteria, BTW). This isn't the same as disproof. The party is still out on any final conclusions. However, given that this is covered in the Pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome, XMRV and WPI, the brief mention in the Pathophysiology is more that adequate to cover what is still uncorroborated primary research. Just a nitpick, no reply needed. :-) -- TerryE (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been more proposed theories about CFS than can be counted in a lifetime. It was impressive that this group managed to persuade Science to print it. All in all, this is still primary research in the process of being replicated, and should therefore not be discussed on Wikipedia at all (WP:MEDRS). JFW | T@lk 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is primary research, and we should therefore be guarded in how we report this in the CFS articles. However, "this group" started its consultation with the Science reviewers after over a year's solid research, and roughly 9 months before the paper was finally published. During this time the "group" extended from the original team (of the WPI researchers + 1 department of the NCI) to include two other NCI teams and Silverman's Cleveland team. They established four separate tests and had this work validated in multiple labs. That's why Science decided to publish this paper, and yes it was an impressive accomplishment. The McClure paper took 53 days from the publishing of the Science paper to do the work based on a test to extract DNA from Buccal swabs. It is the only paper citing this method for anything like attempting to detect provirus sequences in sparse PBMCs via whole blood testing. It was accepted by PLoS one after 3 days review. They chose to do this work totally independently of the WPI teams work.
WP:MEDRS states that primary RS can add greatly to an article, but must be used with care. This is not the same as "should not be discussed at all". Like you, I await further papers. I suspect that we both believe in the supremacy of the scientific method, but my level of anticipation is perhaps greater than yours :-) Terry -- TerryE (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your whole approach to the situation shows exactly why we cannot cite primary research papers. They need to be interpreted in context, replicated, and so on. Apart from the peer review process and the exclusion of "non-CFS CFS patients", have you got any actual methodological criticism of the McClure paper? I think it is admirable that they moved so quickly in trying to replicate the WPI paper, and are hence to be commended. JFW | T@lk 20:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree totally with your last para, and it was the reaction that I hoped for. Consider this: you dismissed a paper summarising the work of four eminent research teams and the newer comer WPI (whose lead is herself eminent in this field) as "this has been disproven in other studies" [1], because one other team failed to replicate one of their findings using a different method. So I now turn your own question back on you: have you got any actual methodological criticism of the WPI paper, or basis for this claim?
So neither your nor my comment belongs in Wikipedia. If you want to hear my views then I am happy to exchange them by PM, but like you, I believe should leave comparisons between primary research on Wikipedia to the experts. Important primary research does deserve a mention, but we should stop there. -- TerryE (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But how do you define "important" primary research? Appearing in a top journal is no guarantee, see Wakefield et al. JFW | T@lk 08:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Safety of the blood supply: XMRV

On a slightly different topic, User:Keepcalmandcarryon asked for an determination on an edit proposed by User:Ward20 based on the statement made by "a doctor in a court transcript". Whilst this is factually correct, it isn't really the whole truth. The doctor concerned was Dr Jerry Holmburg, PhD, the senior technical advisor for blood policy within the OPHS reading out a prepared statement drafted on behalf of his boss the Assistant Secretary for Health, designated as the Blood Safety Officer and "reviewed throughout the HHS public health services" to CFIDS, the advisory committee convened by the Secretary of Health to advise on CFS policy.

Can I ask you therefore to reconsider your statement on this thread in the light of the true facts. -- TerryE (talk)

I do not intend to revise my comments. Clearly, it is still completely speculative as to whether XMRV is transmissible through blood. This is my view. Whether the issue of blood safety needs to be discussed in the XMRV article should be determined by consensus on that article's talkpage. Again, for this subject to be covered fairly we need a high-quality secondary source (a newspaper article will do here). JFW | T@lk 08:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Haven't been in contact for a while, so hello JFW! I've been double sidetracked at the help thing - it's like the universe the deeper one looks the more complexity there is, and I thought it'd be a simple 'let's fix the help' project haha! I/we/they are getting there ( diagnosis mostly complete, some major surgery applied, a little tifying up to go and then it will be in recovery), so I should be back in the land of medicine again in the not too distant. I had noted that MCOTW has fallen by the wayside a little, you can always count me in as a supporter of it when needed ( occasional drive by, sometimes wikiraging) but maybe a little later, first gotta finish help, oh and in case you missed it the HD article is lined up for the main page on the 27th !! Hope all goes swimmingly ! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped MCOTW because the response from the WikiProject was lukewarm. Only very few MCOTWs attracted the attention of heavy calibre article editors, and little good work actually happened. I personally think that an article will only improve if 1-2 editors take it forward, and MCOTW was clearly not providing sufficient inspiration. You are the first to bring up the MCOTW shutdown since 3 August (when I last rolled over)!
I will keep an eye on HD when it's on the main page. JFW | T@lk 08:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there are more than enough other collaborations - FAC, FAR, medicine articles requiring attention, Rfcs etc ... maybe we should put some pointers to these in there and put the collab on hold (it must look a bit funny seeing the same collab listed in the medical article template ? ) 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Ten Commandments

Hi, the citations I gave regarding "code of conduct" were random examples, to illustrate that the sentence is very true. I don't know how to do it otherwise, I'm not an expert regarding the 'cite web' function, so I would appreciate if you could do that, that is, if you delete my examples then I guess you can put some time to replace them with others :) Thanks John Hyams (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Hey JFD Thanks for the note. Yes just went through part of the back log at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine to hopefully get that page running again. There does seem to be a bit of a lack of man power with unfortunately too much time dealing with vandlism. Would like to see MCOTW work on improving articles to GA. Would be happy to see MI come up next... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MCOTW is currently dead in the water. I need some sort of guarantee that people are actually going to be collaborating when a collaboration comes about. Idle hopes... JFW | T@lk 13:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird edit at Stroke

Could you take a look at this edit of yours? Not sure if "begin_of_the_skype_highlighting" is just some stray text/cut'n'paste goof or some important breakage in an editing tool you use. DMacks (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thanks for the heads up. Naughty Skype plugin thinks that ISBNs are telephone numbers in the USA! Removed the junk, and the weird reference with it. JFW | T@lk 19:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

CFS Reversion

Hello - first my apologies for not being competent in using wiki, I hope this message reaches you - I added a note on the CFS page making reference to FD 23/4553/1 - and, you removed it stating you felt that it is not relevent that there are files withheld from the public until 2073 - sorry you feel that way - however, My wife is severely ill with this disease and over the past 14 years has had zero help other than from the Wessely school (which made her condition worse) - She and the other 250000 patients with ME, CFS, CFIDS, ME/CFS, CFS/ME or whatever you want to call it really do feel it is extremely relevent that the UK government has ANY files concerning this condition and witholds those files for any period of time let alone extending that period of time by a further 50 years. Please explain to me why you think it not relevent. I and many others have had way too many experts telling us what is relevent. I will talk to you in person if you prefer to - meanwhile, I will re-post my comment. Have a read of Prof Hooper's thoughts - regards, notashrink Notashrink (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to this since I see you tried to revert the edit and you were in turn reverted by someone else. The reason that this is continually removed from the article is that it smacks of a conspiracy theory and you've cited no verifiable evidence to back it up. A reference number to a secret file doesn't constitute evidence of its existence. Wikipedia works on verifiable fact, and for any information whose veracity is likely to be questioned, you must supply a reliable source (like a well-known medical journal or reputable media outlet) in order for it to be included on Wikipedia. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Greetings Jfdwolff - sorry for taking up space on your talk page, but for your information, I have just posted the following on the corresponding talk page:

Please accept my apologies for the seemingly terse note above. It is the standard template and procedure for dealing with editors who repeatedly modify pages in what appears to be an attempt at vandalising an article - it happens a lot. After reverting your edit, I went to check out the file number you mentioned at The National Archives. Please see the following link Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#UK_Freedom_of_Information.

Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Notashrink I'm sorry about your wife's situation but this is really a dead-end kind of approach. Would you honestly expect an encyclopedia to allude to the existence of secret documents unless a trusted source (such as a government spokesperson or an investigative journalist) backed up their contents. I really cannot imagine that there should be a coverup of any kind. I have read some of Hooper's research and I found it very confusing and not really particularly informative. JFW | T@lk 21:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JFW - thank you for your sympathy and for taking the time to talk to me - I no longer "honestly expect" anything. I do not share your faith in there not being a cover up in relation to this illness so we must agree to disagree on that. At the moment it is of course difficult for me to provide proof and probably illegal to do so concerning the files. As for Prof M Hooper, again we are on different sides, I have read a great deal of his work and find it both educational and informative (as I have a personal interest in GWS) - also, there is an extensive piece of work doing the rounds at the moment questioning the PACE trials that may be of interest to you. It goes under the name of "Magical Medicine : How to make a disease disappear" - I hope you are not a psychiatrist !! Anyway, thanks again for talking to me - I do not get the opportunity to discuss this subject as much as I would like as I no longer recognise my life - regards Notashrink (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a psychiatrist and I don't treat CFS/ME or GWS. But I do, from a professional perspective, trust in the scientific process and that it will eventually find solutions for problems. Be well. JFW | T@lk 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Uploadvirus

Dear Dr. Wolfe:

Thank you for your note, and for your help. I wanted to ask you about your statement that metastasis is NOT the most common cause of death in lung cancer patients. What is, then? Total body tumor burden? I'm just an epidemiology researcher, but I've been reading the literature in lung cancer for 25 years and I've always read that to be the case.

Best regards: Cliff Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS DDF 20:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)uploadvirus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uploadvirus (talk • contribs)

Re PXE

I replied on my talk page. ---kilbad (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Heparin

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Heparin/GA1. It appears that large parts of the article are copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not presently thinking of getting involved with this article. JFW | T@lk 20:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Your comments are requested on the talk page of Atorvastatin, regarding your revert of my edits. Freikorp (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finasteride is Thalidomide

The articles for thalidamide, propecia and finasteride should be interlinked because of the high risk of birth defects to pregnant women who handle the pills. Even touching one of these pills can cause serious birth defects. Wise Heart (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you've left this message here, but you are mixing things up. It has always been known that finasteride, by its antiandrogenic mechanism, is teratogenic. Thalidomide was marketed as an antiemetic and dished out like Smarties for pregnant women, taking little account of its propensity to cause phocomelia. By the virtue of your argument, warfarin should be linked from both pages because about a third of children exposed in the first trimester will develop stippled epiphyses, nasal bridge hypoplasia or other dysmorphic features. No point linking all teratogenic drugs, because there's a lot of them. JFW | T@lk 07:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hemolytic anemia edit- those are all relevant and important points.

That heap of crud is an ordered list of relevant stuff. I'm probably going to move it back unless you have more specifics. That article as it is is quite empty, these areas need to be expanded and integrated but in the mean time serve as important guides to the reader. If you have something to add then add. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is not a place to put heaps and heaps of primary sources. This article needs to be based on WP:MEDRS. Please take this to Talk:Hemolytic anemia.

List of causes of fever deletion nomination

I am suprised to see that my list List of causes of fever, was nominated for deletion by you earliar today. While I knew that the matter was being discussed at Wikiproject medicine, I did not expect action against the lists to come so soon, and I remain unable to understand why you cannot see the value of a list of differential diagnoses. I personally feel that the lists are a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Regards. Immunize (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on WT:MED, I regard this a test case. Many respondents have stated that this is not a very useful approach to medical information. It makes no attempt to separate common from rare causes. There is great difficulty sourcing it. My response, that this should be merged with fever for the notable causes, was supported by several editors.
I know you are interested in contributing more. Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, please observe a prolific medical Wikipedian at work (there are several) and see how they approach medical content. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

ten plagues

there was an edit summary for the part i removed, namely a reference listed as this Rabbi Samuel ben Meir on Exodus 8:17

that is not a reference thats a wikipedia article and a bible passage. not a source regarding this mans opinions on exodus 8:17. the rest of you revert is good, i didnt notice somebody had removed other stuff, i put back the fire with the hail, and removed the broken wikitionary link missing a ] and changed to flies rather then the origional beasts.Smitty1337 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a reference. It is a reference to the commentary of Rashbam, a medieval Bible commentator, who states that "flies" may be the correct interpretation. JFW | T@lk 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
needs to be published and verifiable to be a source. Cant just list Name + opinion, as fact. Where can this opinion be verified Smitty1337 (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any Hebrew version of the book of Exodus with the Rishonic commentaries. What policy are you referring to? JFW | T@lk 23:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not saying its inaccurate, im just saying the way it's cited is not helpful, i looked it up just now this would be a more accurate reference "Rashbam's Commentary on Exodus: An Annotated Translation by Martin I. Lockshin, illustrations by Channa Lockshin, Brown Judaic Studies 310, 1997." thats the actual commentaries, rather then just an author + topic which is how its listed currently. Smitty1337 (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh and you had asked for the policy, it is Wikipedia:Cite_sources#How_to_format_citations, im not saying the source is bad, its just not specific enough in how it points to the actual written text, it just says the guy who said it, and the topic (exodus 8:17). where did this information come from is all i'm asking (and ansewered already above lol)Smitty1337 (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get your point. I'm just oldfashioned and quite comfortable with the terse reference style of the classical works. JFW | T@lk 23:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

would you be opposed to my changing it then? i prefer consensusSmitty1337 (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the Lockshin translation and can therefore not confirm if that would be the correct source. JFW | T@lk 23:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agunah article

I am relatively new at wikipedia, so I hope I am correct in thinking that you are the editor who added a tag to the "Orthodoxy and the Agunah" section of the Agunah article. I have reworked the section, and two other editors think it is improved. And I have repositioned the reference to a source that supports the opening of this section. Could you please look at it again and see if you are satisfied enough to remove the tag? If you are not, could you please explain to me what else I should do to "get it right"? Thanks! Floridarabbi (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for taking the time to sort this out. My main worry was that the new content lacked a secondary source to document particular trends and patterns. Although the Freimann and Haut sources seem to answer to this description, it would be nice if you could find anything more recent. JFW | T@lk 07:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!! (Both for your comment and reversing the tag.) I am very much enjoying working with Wikipedia, but do still have a lot to learn. I will try to locate a few more recent works as well! Again -- thanks! Floridarabbi (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Just moved up the 2009 Manchester report (separated it into two references: first, for the discussion as a whole, and secondly, for the specific reference about Risikoff), which I think makes it more clear. I'll go through that report and extract a few other specific sources as well! Again, thank you!Floridarabbi (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Myeloma Beacon in External Links for Multiple Myeloma entry

Hi Jfdwolff - I notice you cancelled my addition of the Myeloma Beacon to the list of external links for Multiple_myeloma. What is the particular reason for that edit? Are you confusing the site with some other site? I ask because, as best I can tell, the Beacon is a respected source of myeloma news and information. It regularly publishes original articles about recent research on multiple myleoma. It also has articles that are interviews with leading myleoma researchers. So I guess I don't understand why the site shouldn't be included in the External Links in the article. There's lots of useful material on the site, as much as or more than at the other sites in the External Links currently in the article. 61.32.46.3 (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous websites that we could add to every article about every disease. The Wikipedia policy on external links (WP:EL) gives very clear criteria that a link needs to answer to before meriting inclusion. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. JFW | T@lk 07:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply to my question, Jfdwolff. I understand that Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be collections of links, and I think it's great that you are watching out to make sure articles are not constantly filled with spam links. But, when I read the policy that you mention, it seems to very much support inclusion of the link I added. The link that I added publishes, almost every day, summaries of recent peer-reviewed research on myeloma as well as other current news and information about myeloma. This seems to fit really well the WP:EL recommendation that External Sites be included "that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail ... or other reasons." Moreoever, the language at the site I linked to is intended to make the content very accessible, and I believe this is something that Wikipedia tries to promote, right?
I also don't understand the decision to delete the link given the other kinds of links you have apparently decided to allow to stay in the External Links list. One of the links ("Approach to Treatment") makes it seem like its a site sponsored by the Mayo Clinic, when the site is actually run by an individual professor from the Clinic (according to Whois information), and I had never heard of the site before seeing it mentioned in this article. Another site ("Multiple myeloma skull") is almost definitely going to be mainly of interest to doctors, and I don't think that's the kind of people Wikipedia articles are supposed to be aimed at. Right?
So, as I said, I really don't understand the decision to delete the link I added. Thanks for your time. DavidZac (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Hepatic encephalopathy

Replied on my talk. Colin°Talk 08:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pulmonary embolism

I sent you an eMail -- an edit puts recreational scuba divers at risk. (confidential information) --Jon Kranhouse 22:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Kranhouse (talk • contribs)

Have you read the medical disclaimer? If something is confidential then clearly it cannot be used to inform an encyclopedia article. Please provide sources that meet the criteria set out in WP:MEDRS and we might be able to discuss this further. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hydroxycarbamide

No, I managed to break it manually. Thanks for catching this! ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't resist the cheeky edit summary. Good for doing the move, you. JFW | T@lk 20:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :-) ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetic ketoacidosis and mortality

I agree that the qualifier "in experienced centers" in the Diabetic ketoacidosis article is obscure, but that's the qualifier on the "less than 5%" source. The true mortality is certainly higher, but that's the source that's being used, so the qualifier is needed. - JeffJonez (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this on Talk:Diabetic ketoacidosis. I'm not entirely sure that the mortality is >5% in non-experienced centres. JFW | T@lk 02:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the lede of the article, and the source has the qualifier. Being sure via sources is the whole point of references, no? - JeffJonez (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I'm an American pathologist with an interest in thoracic diseases... And, no, I have not been invited to join the WP:Med group. What is it about? Best regards, Mark Wick --Mrwick1 (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Meningitis and categorisation

I saw your removal of Meningitis from Category:Inflammations and Category:Neurological disorders because Category:Meningitis is a subcategory of those. Would you be kind enough to re-think those removals as I believe that the article should be able to be found from either of those categories. In fact, WP:EPON specifically states: "In any case, an article should not be excluded from any set category on the grounds that its eponymous category is made a "subcategory" of that category."[not my emphasis], which appears to be the case here. If I've misunderstood that section, please let me know. Thanks, --RexxS (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of WP:EPON but I really fail to see the logic of linking an article to a category as well as its subcategory. JFW | T@lk 20:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone looked at Category:Neurological disorders previously, for example, they would have found a direct link to the Meningitis article, which is sensible as you'd expect to find meningitis there since it is a neurological disorder. Now that the category Category:Meningitis has been placed in Category:Neurological disorders, it does not improve navigation by removing the link to the article of the same name. The whole point of categorisation is to make navigation easier, not to introduce an unnecessary extra step. I'll replace the category links. --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get in to an edit war problem, but I think this needs more discussion. I just replied to this situation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Meningitis. Briefly, every neurological order article cannot directly be put in Category:Neurological disorders. Sub-categorization is most likely necessary - otherwise, we'd have thousands of articles in most broad medical categories. --Scott Alter 23:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of getting into an edit war either. I've responded at the Doctors' Mess, and agree that Category:Neurological disorders needs cleanup, but not by removing important articles that anyone would expect to find there. I would suggest that further discussion takes place at the Doctors' Mess. --RexxS (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who was saying anything about an edit war? JFW | T@lk 09:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

brain tumors

JFW : can you help me with this terminology matter are these below correct definitions of invasive and infiltrative (regarding Brain tumors) AFAIU :

  • invasive(ness) : is the capacity of a tumor to take up space and push out other tissue (often compressing the tissue) like in meningioma's invading the space of the brainmatter
  • infiltrative(ness) : is the factor that a tumor is not limited to a single delimited area but that further away from the center of the tumor, other tumorizing cells are "seeded" in the tissue (like in GBM) or tentacles are formed that infiltrate the surruonding healty tissue (like in diffuse astrocytoma)

could you correct /confirm ? or provide a link to information --DerekvG (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The terms are used interchangeably in the literature. JFW | T@lk 20:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted entry

Dear Jfdwolff, you deleted my entry citing: this is excessive - please offer concise content based on the report, but ideally wait until the SEARCH trial has been formally reported.

I think my EDIT was a major event - worth posting - when the largest "watchdog body" (FDA) in the English speaking world, announces new guidelines AND labeling revisions on a drug.

You also "undo-ed" my removal of "citation needed" at: The maximum dose must not be more than 80 mg/day.[citation needed]

As noted in the history, I replaced the "citation needed" with a link to: [2]. There it is clearly stated: ... U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is informing the public about an increased risk of muscle injury in patients taking the highest approved dose of the cholesterol-lowering medication, Zocor (simvastatin) 80 mg ...

I reinsert the reference there.

When it comes to "side effects", I ask you kindly to cut away "the excessive" parts of my EDIT and reinsert the rest.

Albeit, I do think a mentioning of absolute and relative contraindications - as well as risk factors for side effects - is a natural part of an up-to-date and informing Wiki-article, dealing with a prescription drug.

I post this to your Wiki-page too.

Regards! 81.225.115.68 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This stuff has been known for ages. A single sentence, referenced with the FDA link, should be more than adequate. You are free to insert this yourself. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Request for Your Review

Dear Dr. Wolff:

I would be pleased and honored if you would consider reviewing my new article on "Combined small cell lung carcinoma" at your earliest convenience, or in the alternative, suggest another competent admin or physician to do so. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanking you in advance, I remain

Sincerely yours: Cliff (a/k/a "uploadvirus")

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS DDF 22:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uploadvirus (talk • contribs)

Cliff, I will only be able to do this in a little while as my Wikipedia access will be sporadic for a bit. JFW | T@lk 19:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, Doctor. Take your time. Some others have graciously done some review and excellent cleanup already. Maybe by the time you look at it I will have it COMPLETELY finished. MAYBE :-)

Best regards: Cliff Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS DDF 02:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uploadvirus (talk • contribs)

From Mrwick1

Hi! I don't know why my page redirects to Philip Stieg, other than that entry was one I created... any ideas about how I can change that? I certainly can upload MANY images that have been created by me... which ones do you think would be of interest? And how can I join the medical group on Wikipedia to which you made reference?

Thanks, Mark Wick --Mrwick1 (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passover vs Passover (Christian holiday)

See discussion at Talk:Passover (Christian holiday)#Merge with Passover. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Christian Yom Kippur discussion

Hi Dr. Wolff: Regarding serious Christian content in the Yom Kippur article, please see Talk:Yom Kippur#Theological significance and Talk:Yom Kippur#Poll: Yom Kippur and Christianity. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sickle Cell

FYI: 1904 was the year he first admitted the patient with SSA. He was readmitted several times. He later described the patient in 1910 in the JAMA article in Archives of Internal Medicine but then reprinted/summarized in JAMA: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/261/2/266?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=herrick+sickle&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT --MartinezMD (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chasing that up. I was pretty certain that it took a few years for the case to be reported, and was almost certain that the anon was just making a mess of things. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I know, that "Anon" guy usually screwes things up ;) --MartinezMD (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medical collaboration of the week

AAA has been the collabortion for some time. Wondering if we should switch to a new one? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would be happy to help administer the MCOTW. I was not necessarily thinking ADHD should be next but lately have been thinking about pneumonia, diabetes, asthma, hypertension, or cancer. These are all top importance articles, some of the most viewed on Wikipedia, and could use significant improvement.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I too have been concentrating on single articles and doing entire rewrites (urinary tract infection, hemorrhoid, gout). These small topic areas are nicely summarized by a single review. The problems with the above topic areas is that there are literally thousands of review articles. It would be nice to have some company some times :-) But it is hard to say what influence MCOTW will have on participation as there are so few of us and so much area to cover. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I think I will work on asthma a little longer and than begin to look at attempting to reference pneumonia. How about we make it the next MCOTW and see what happens? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I cut and past all I want from the NHBLI report as it is part of the NIH or do I need to reword things? [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis

Can you please take another look at what I did there and tell me if there is anything I can improve, thank you :-) MaenK.A.Talk 17:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esophageal cancer

I have reverted your edit in which you removed the possible association of molybdenum to the cancer. While it is understandable that the research might not be complete, this can be said for almost any kind of research specially about cancers. As new information comes in many old established research goes out. So I do not consider your removal constructive since Wikipedia is an informative source on subjects not an authoritative clinical source. It is an encyclopedia which contains an index of human knowledge which warrants to mention molybdenum association even if right now the evidence is not strong enough to be included as a treatment in text book of medicine. The whole point is that wikipedia is not a text book of medicine. Also I have to remind you that it is hoped on my part that you did not remove the research for the reason that it was done by non-white people.--119.153.9.120 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your views on Wikipedia are generally correct, but we have to keep standards that distinguish between widely accepted ("encyclopedic") views and incompletely researched and poorly understood associations. Hence we have WP:MEDRS, which states very clearly what is required of a source to be worthy of inclusion. And no, journal articles don't mention the ethnicity of their authors and hence I did not make any edit on the basis of ethnicity. JFW | T@lk 20:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doc, allow me to point you to a note on my talk page. I think the links are spammy and you have reverted their addition also--and you are a different kind of doctor, better equipped to judge. Thanks, en groeten uit Alabama, Drmies (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

I do what I can. If more needs doing then a tag acts as a reminder for myself and others. What's wrong with that? --Kwekubo (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tags are tiresome, content is good. JFW | T@lk 22:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I replied on my talk page. ---kilbad (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Why did you remove this link? What was wrong with it? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_services&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.34.130 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was spam. Please see WP:ELNO. JFW | T@lk 17:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hell, JFW — I was popping back into Wikipedia, and wanted to see how things are going. Are there any medical projects you're working on here? I thought I would see what was happening, and where I might pitch in. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Hello, Jfdwolff. You have new messages at Immunize's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Dating this for Mirzabot's cleanup. JFW | T@lk 19:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Dating this for cleanup. JFW | T@lk 19:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Arthritis: 12 May 2010

Hi Jfdwolff,

I'm new to Wikipedia so please forgive any mistakes I might make, although any advice would be greatly appreciated. I'm just messaging because of a link you removed that I added to the arthritis page. I added my link as it is a not for profit page that provides a directory and information for people with arthritis. I thought It was of value to the Wiki community as it provides an easy way for Australian's to find the best resources to contact about their arthritis. Is there a way that the link can be reinstated, and I guess for future reference how can I avoid the same thing happening again. Thank you for your time. Regards Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthritis Australia (talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try opening a discussion on Talk:Arthritis. Every website owner, for profit and not-for-profit, would like people to be able to access their site through Wikipedia. That is why we have an external links policy and a list of reasons why a link may not be a good idea. JFW | T@lk 19:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arterial embolism

Arterial embolism is currently suggested for DYK -- I note that you expressed concerns regarding the reliability of the sources on its talk page, and I wondered if you'd care to weigh in on the discussion at DYK. (I don't think The Medical Disability Advisor is an appropriate source for the statistic that's being cited, but it falls way out of my area of expertise.) Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm glad that standards at DYK are now such that poor sourcing disqualifies an article from display. JFW | T@lk 20:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPO tage page

Hi, I've just posted a Q here which indirectly/implicitly refers to an edit action of yours (which I support BTW), which you might want to be aware of / comment on. No need to of course; just a courtesy flag. :-) -- TerryE (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six years already?

Hello, Dr J. I'm glad to know that you're still around, too. 2004? Six years already? Time flies.... --PFHLai (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

13 principles of logic

I have added the above to the Judaism article; Wikiwatcher keeps deleting it because it is just one man's opinion and esoteric. I am happy to discuss at length with you why I think this is important but for starts, I think the articl is sorely lacking in balance when it emphasizes doctrine and ritual over other elements of Judaism (e.g. Torah Study, that Jews have developed their own principles of logic and jurisprudence). Anyway, I hope you will comment. Happy Shavuot, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your frank comments. I have just made some edits, summarized here and I hope you will read this and consider contributing to the section I created, if you see what I am getting at. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will see what I can do, but I fear I may not be able to provide the actual sources needed. JFW | T@lk 19:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have put more work into it and feel better about it - I am still reflecting on your comment which was smart and constructive. I think the whole thing is clearer and I put Ishmael's middot in a text box so they are featured by, I hope, more clearly as an example. Anay, It can still bear improvement, no doubt. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the week

I of thinking of updating the COTW. What do I all need to change to do this? I am thinking of putting pneumonia, asthma, or hypertension next. Maybe one of the last two as they are part of the collaboration with google.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I have turned my attention to the pneumonia page. It is not badly written just needs to be referenced. Do not think it would be too hard to get it to GA.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Respectful Suggestion

Hi Doctor:

Trivial and silly as this may be, I did happen to notice that you left out the "m" in "lumbar" when you typed the description of one of your photographs ... File:L4 compressionFracture2008.jpg at User:Jmh649/Photos. Don't know if you would want to take the time to fix something like that while you are saving lives and making people feel better, but in any case, I just thought I'd let you know :-)

And thanks for all the work you do here - I do enjoy reading your stuff.

With very best regards: Cliff Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were meaning me rather than JFW. I have fixed it. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Bare URL

My apologies; I clicked on the reference button at the top of the edit window for a day's worth of edits and naively assumed that it would take care of itself since all it asked for was the url. I guess it's back to writing it all out! Thanks for the heads up.--Cpt ricard (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyponatremia & osteoporosis

Hi, this made me curious and a quick search turned up PMID 19751154 - do you consider that speculative and anecdotal?. Since mild hyponatremia will be highly prevalent due to frequent use of diuretics and has been shown associated with fractures (independent of osteoporosis) even at an average 131 mEq/l (PMID 18477645) I consider it fairly interesting information. Richiez (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly emerging and is absolutely something to watch. However it is not listed in any of major secondary sources as a risk factor. PMID 19751154 is a primary research study (yes, anything written by Verbalis on hyponatraemia is worth reading), and PMID 20056759 (on which PMID 20089487 is a commentary) too is a primary study.
I should have been clearer that WP:MEDRS states clearly that secondary sources are preferable for medical articles. Please open a discussion on Talk:Osteoporosis if you feel that the current topic warrants a departure from those principles. JFW | T@lk 12:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case I think we are not the only ones watching that and secondary sources should appear soon, so it is fine to wait for a while (it was not me adding the information to the page, so whoever put it there may try again independently of me). In many cases - more exotic or orphan diseases I would consider primary research preferable to waiting waiting for secondary sources. Richiez (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 16:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More admins needed?

Hi JFW, sorry haven't checked in in a while - been running around a lot! Been running on tickover for a bit - but have a fair few things to catch up with shortly ... I think I've largely achieved what I can with the help project ( for now! ) and am veering back into the medical articles again .. the HD article has had a lot of external attention with the google project and main page hit ( had some suggestions for improvements from several HD support organizations) ...! Hope alls well in your neck of the woods !

There's talk of enrolling more admins for the medicine project and I'm contemplating applying, but I'm not convinced my editing style would fit , but am concerned it might distract from editing content even more than life events , what do you think? I am assuming I'd just do relatively non brain-bashing tasks to help out you other admins, but you'd know how much one might get sucked in to other areas. What do you think - Stick with content, or attempt to restrict myself to minimal menial admin tasks - or is this not possible !. Peace :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

HHC

I'm not criticizing, but, having posted the article MARIE WARDER, and being part of a family genetically predisposed to HHC, I have a vested interest in Hemochromatosis, and I think there are some features of the disorder that have been overlooked. If you refer to the website www.toomuchiron.ca, you might find quite a lot to interest you. Whatever the case, thank you for bringing this to the notice of Wikipedia readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murella (talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really involved with the HHC article anymore. Which particular piece of information has been "overlooked"? JFW | T@lk 18:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

A favor

Hey, how are you doing? It seems our paths are not crossing these days. I have to ask you a favor. A new editor has added a reference of what I think is a dutch press release to the CCSVI article. The sentence he added is "The VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam together with the Dutch foundation MS Research investigated the claim and found no difference between the veins of healthy people and MS patients. They concluded that restricted blood flow is 'most likely' not the cause of MS, and advise not to dotter" and the press release can be found here. It is not long so I thought that you could maybe do me a great favor and take a look at it since I understand 0 dutch. I had a few questions: 1-Does the press release support the claims in the article in a reliable, balanced way? 2-Does it refer to a peer-reviewed article its conclussions or to an author? 3-Does it have anything to do the research group with this article (PMID 20386873)?. The CCSVI article is quite controversial and it is really hard to have something balanced that follows reliable sources so your help woudl be greatly appreciated, however if you do not have time or simply do not feel like doing it feel free to say it. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the press release it is very difficult to judge whether this is research that will be published, and the absence of a name doesn't help. It is reasonably balanced in that it says that the Dutch group could not confirm Zamboni's finding, and that venous stenoses are very common and do not alter cerebral venous haemodynamics. Sorry for the late answer - internet breakage. JFW | T@lk 23:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I had finally translated it with google and reached similar conclussions. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Response to your edits on the DKA page: July 4 2010

Please see the discussion page of the DKA article where I have addressed your concerns

Do you really believe that the role of counterregulatory hormones in the pathogenesis and maintenance of DKA is "speculative"? If so, and I know this will sound antagonistic, should you really be editing that article? I mean no offense, it is just that the role of the CRH in that entity is fundamental. In fact, suppression/prevention of CRH release by infusing saline into insulin-deficient people (who voluntarily stopped their insulin for the study) essentially prevents DKA (i.e. the saline infusion prevents the development of volume depletion which would otherwise have occurred a result of the osmotic diuresis, and thereby removes the key signal for CRH release). I will try to find the reference, but it is a VERY old one, from the 1960's I believe and may not be easy to findGaussgauss (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Here is a recent reference which emphasizes how DKA can occur in type II DM during periods of physical stress such as an MI, and that the DKA arising in such settings is due in large part to the high levels of counterregulatory hormones which do not simply oppose insulin effect, enhance gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis, and promote lipolysis, but also by epinephrine-induced inhibition of insulin release. (reference = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17848925) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaussgauss (talk • contribs) 13:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond on Talk:Diabetic ketoacidosis. JFW | T@lk 18:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POEMS syndrome

Thanks for your comments on my edit to POEMS syndrome - I hadn't realised that MEDMOS recommends a particular order for sections. I've also taken your advice and condensed the clinical-feature subheadings. Best wishes. Neurotip (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DKA article

I'm not sure that you've seen my latest comments there (about the potassium "error" in particular). Kindly review on the DKA discussion page. Thank you. Gaussgauss (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond there when time permits, which may be tonight. I have a watchlist, so it is not normally necessary to attract my attention unless I have not responded for 48 hours. JFW | T@lk 14:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Ten Commandments

So far, only Kwame wants to see this hypothetical third "ten commandments" placed alongside the discussion of the other "ten commandments" After about ten days of thorough discussion, eleven editors are united in opposition. If you do not think this is grounds for unprotecting the article and editing it appropriately, please, at least suggest what criteria you think we should use to determine that there is no point in continuing the discussion and we can unprotect the page. Kwame will never change his mind. I thought eleven people - frankly, I thought eight or nine people - constitute a consensus here. So I am wrong. Okay. But surely you do not want it protected for ever as we chase our tails on the discussion page. If you do not accept my judgment that further discussion is pointless, please just offer your own criteria. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but look: kwami will never admit he is outgunned. I am not asking you to lift protection, but I am asking you either to propose conditions which, when met, justify lifting potection ... or asking SV to make a call. There is a clear consensus and if kwami wants to edit war we can then go to AN/I but once there is a consensus I see no reason to keep protection, but if you see some reasons, if you see a rationale, tht is ine with me, but it needs to be stated. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PMC auto-generation of URIs

Sorry for the revert on the CFS page. I've had a look at the cite journal template documentation and now understand your comment. Just an apology; no reply needed :) -- TerryE (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. JFW | T@lk 16:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coeliac disease

I have added one paragraph to the bottom of the pathophysiology section concerning the gene LPP which appears to be unambigously linked to CD based upon the most recent paper by van Heel's group. This gene was detected in their previous publication (Hunt et al. 2008, Nat. Gen. 40:395-402). I will let you decide whether you want to keep it or modify it. I am up for adding information concerning IL12 alpha gene but I would like to research the SNP they have identified and its function a little bit more. The IL2/IL21/gene X association creates ambiguity as to which gene is causative, and therefore functional assertions would be weak. PB666 yap 14:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the addition and I agree that we should mention it. It's all becoming quite complicated isn't it? JFW | T@lk 18:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Obesity

Hi, this is Mromcue, I do not why you consider spam the external link to a research project in the definition of Obesity. Another one user aproved it.

MRC 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine Collaboration of the Month

 Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Month.
The currrent collaboration is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
We welcome your help!


Craig Hicks (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admins who know how WikiProject Judaism works

Hi Dr. Wolff: In the present ANI discussions about the correct names for the three Jewish Temples at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves an admin (Fram) involved in the ANI discussions but not familiar with the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism has raised some questions about how the Judaism WikiProject functions, such as "Whether that is standard practive [sic] at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance [sic] with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources)." I have suggested that experienced admins familiar with the WikiProject be called in to answer those allegations. As an admin and participant in the project over a number of years your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Project has a page on article naming, so normal conventions apply with regards to what is "common usage". JFW | T@lk 17:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kohen article

Hi Jfdwolff,

I've run into a pretty inexperienced editor who is making edits to the Kohen article that I'm concerned about. Give your knowledge, would you be able to take a look? I've opened up a section on the Talk:Kohen page for at least one of the problems, though he's still making many edits, so there may be more by the next time I look. :-) Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator nomination

Thank you for your nomination. I am very flattered. But I still feel I am learning the ropes around here. In fact, I'm going to be curbing my involvement at DYK, since I can't figure out how the administrators over there operate. I'd like to get back to the Jewish content pages, where my real strengths lie, and am happy to continue being a regular editor. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yonina: Had your talkpage on my watchlist from out previous interaction so I feel obliged to chime in. I think you're underestimating your ability to contribute as an administrator and hope you would reconsider in the future.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

kohen

I have been looking through everything that has happened on kohen. While I cannot as of yet make any edits on the page (though I will be able to soon), I still have two problems with the current version. First; you were wrong for deleting the "future" section (transfer to Bechor)- this has been part of the Jewish tradition for a long time. It can be located in the Gutnik Chumash. Secondly, there remains much material on the page that is not sourced- these should be deleted. Lastly, and correct me if I am wrong; it seems to me that you, Jayjg, yoninah, IZAK and Abraham have formed a monopoly on the site- which violates wiki's policy of "Please do not bite the newcomers". You and the other administrators are constantly deleting others work and communicate with one another in order to ensure a page looks the way you desire it look. There is rarely a page in the Jewish section that does not have you or the others at the top of it. If there is a disagreement- only you few can have the last word —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejcpp15 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The above request by Jayjg is a perfect example.

The Gutnik chumash is not necessarily notable, as it represents only the views of Chabad reliably. Unsourced material that seems to be easily verifiable should not necessarily be deleted; rather, it needs sources.
You have made no edits to the kohen article, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to make a statement about the behaviour of other editors. As it happens, the content that was being added was controversial and violated several content policies. Rather than a single editor continuously enforcing these, it is much better to have a consensus from a group of experienced contributors. If this is not to your liking then try to find out why these editors are doing this. No newcomers are being bitten - we don't tolerate bad editing just because someone inexperienced is intent on getting his/her views across. JFW | T@lk 05:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edit to Talmud

A user recently emailed me stating that you were abusing your powers as an admin. I have looked into your most recent edits and from what I can tell you have deleted a users entry on the Talmud because it was in your opinion "non encyclopedic" (you did not elaborate). Additionally, you removed the Gutnik chumash entry because in your opinion the source provided was insufficient- yet many articles on that page are not sourced at all and you allowed them to remain. What is the reason for this. Please explain your actions that until now I can only assume to constitute BIASED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.50.125.97 (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really quite curious why we have suddenly merited a small bunch of people who seem rather keen to overthrow the status quo on Judaism-related Wikipedia articles. You seem to have no idea how Wikipedia functions, and therefore your allegations sound hollow. There is a certain set of basic rules that govern inclusion of content to Wikipedia: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:N (just open the links and browse the articles). You will then discover that a single quote from the Gutnik chumash is probably insufficient to support a rather controversial addition to the lead section of the Kohen article, and that a random quote from the Bavli describing itself is probably trivia and lacks encyclopedic notability.
If I am indeed biased, then what exactly is my bias? JFW | T@lk 22:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia

Hey JFD

I have gotten a much better quality of the image of the gentleman with Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia. The digital images they are giving me are however .tif which Wikimedia does not seem to support so I am having to convert them to .jpeg or .png. I am hopeful that they will release a couple hundred medical images to us. Which format do you think is best to go with? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus mag

Is it really a bad source? I wouldn't know. I got it straight from the Soy allergy. Give me the word and I will zap the ref from there as well. ...and the second paragraph to boot. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Jeff"

No, he won't be calling you that. See the article Talk: page. Perhaps you can clarify again what you've already told him in years gone by. Jayjg (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ten Commandments

I think I'm going to give up. Groeten, Drmies (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying anyway. My patience is wearing thin with this character too. JFW | T@lk 04:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Diabetic ketoacidosis

This is in regards to removing a link for "insulin" in the History section of Diabetic Ketoacidosis

You stated that insulin is "overlinked" even though it is only linked once in the introduction of the article. It then appears 41 other times *without* a hyperlink on the same page.

Since the last paragraph explains the history of Diabetic Ketoacidosis and includes the phrase "discovery of insulin", it might be appropriate to link insulin in case the reader would like to find more information regarding its specific history. I think linking a word twice out of 42 times is not overlinking. Furthermore, Wikipedia states that repeated linking is appropriate "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(linking)

I've linking "discovery of insulin" to the subsection for discovery on the insulin page. Please leave this link if you deem it appropriate.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.195.137 (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I removed the link on the basis of MOSLINK. I concede that a direct link to the relevant subsection may be useful for the reader. JFW | T@lk 23:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir! Much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.195.137 (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Donation - Recovery and time between donations

I was curious about your reason for the revert from "Blood centers typically provide light refreshments such as juice and cookies or a lunch allowance to help the donor recover." to that mentioning tea and biscuits. The embedded source [53] makes no mention of a specific type of refreshment. Instead of specifically identifying the light refreshments (whether they be tea, soft drinks, juice, crackers, cookies, biscuits, etc.), perhaps a more general route should be taken. For example, "Blood centers typically provide light refreshments or a lunch allowance to help the donor recover." This would not bias the type of refreshments served to any one region/country. I have not had tea or biscuits after a blood donation, and it may be the case that you have not had juice and cookies afterwards. Being more general would eliminate the need for such edits/reverts. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.94.34 (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change because you changed some words without an explanation. I agree that they can be removed. JFW | T@lk 18:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. I have not added an edit explanation before but now see where I can make one. Thanks for your response. The blood donation article has been edited to include the more generalized refreshment statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.94.34 (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumothorax

Hey JFW am working nights tonight so should have a few hours to go over this page. It is at GA if you wish to nominate it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hey JFD

I have accepted the nomination and answered the questions. Can you take a look a make sure everything is in order? Many thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postponing?

Hi! Please consider postponing your RFA of Jmh649, at least until August 17, 2010. Soxred93/X!'s tools are currently down, so we are unable to provide any data regarding the amount of edits Doc James has made on the English Wikipedia. /HeyMid (contributions) 11:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not rely on evidence provided by Jmh649 himself with regards to edit counts? Surely he could provide us with the edit count from Preferences, which can then be verified when the tool gets fixed? JFW | T@lk 11:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two other tools have been provided that give the numbers of edits. One is here the other is here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If those tools provide the same data I see no point in delaying the adminship request. JFW | T@lk 12:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not me either... /HeyMid (contributions) 13:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumothorax

Was just adding data that one third of pneumothoraces are missed on supine CXRs... But an edit conflict..

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about evidence for human

Sadly,in vitro evidence is only. like http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217183053.htm In the statistics, obesity people's cancer tumors are more harmful and obesity people have higher cancer recurrence rate than cancer recurrence rate common people. I think it is a roundabout evidence for human. It is because obesity people must eat much calorie per meal, at once, per day. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/obesity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.81.101.8 (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should be responding on Talk:Cancer rather than here, so other contributors can also see your response. If there is no human data, then there is no human data. I would suggest that you don't create the suggestion that there's evidence where there is in fact none. JFW | T@lk 17:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Another well deserved award

A Barnstar!
The Star of Life
I award this Star of Life to Jfdwolff for getting Pneumothorax to Good Status. Another excellent article. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Sorry for the delay. Was away the last couple of days.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

HHT at GAN

I'm willing to review the HHT article, but I don't have access to a significant number of the sources. Could you send me a copy of the Dupuis-Girod (ref 2) and Faughnan (ref 5), and anything in Nature Genetics? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But of course. JFW | T@lk 05:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sipuleucel-T

Jfdwolff, I need some help. User:SaulK is an investor in Dendreon and has a blog urging people to buy Dendreon stock. http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/567205-saulk/86530-dendreon-update http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/567205-saulk/80819-lessons-in-biotech-dendreon-the-next-amgen

SaulK created a single-purpose account Special:Contributions/SaulK and started editing Dendreon and sipuleucel-T pages, as SaulK and anonymously. He claimed on his blog, and tried to claim on the WP pages, that sipuleucel-T was more effective than the NEJM article and the FDA concluded (he claimed that sipuleucel-T had a 14.2-month survival advantage in one subgroup, based on his own calculations).

Several editors reverted SaulK, left messages on his talk page, and Shubinator finally told him to stop.

Soon after, User:Ocyan created another single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Ocyan and started making the same edits. (Ocyan has also posted on SaulK's blog and also has Dendreon stock.)

SaulK is a lawyer and I don't feel like arguing with him forever. Could you look at these changes?

I think the substantive edits by Ocyan should be reverted, because they're WP:OR and WP:COI.

The big problem is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sipuleucel-T#A_question_on_tumor_progression which I think should be reverted back to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sipuleucel-T&oldid=380530439#Progression-free_survival .

Shubinator and other admins are trying to do a good job, but I don't think they quite appreciate the significance of the technical WP:OR changes that Ocyan is inserting, and Ocyan is too argumentative and manipulative for the non-medical admins to keep up with him.

(The long version of my debate with SaulK is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nbauman#Sipuleucel-T and raises WP:ETIQUETTE issues that I won't get into.) -- Nbauman (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing COI violations belong on the COI noticeboard. I currently have a slow connection but I will have a look at this when I have better access. JFW | T@lk 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user has so many violations that it's hard to figure out where to begin. He's getting around COI by posting first on his talk page and getting permission from another editor to add it to the article. I think these additions are bullshit but it's hard to explain it to the other editor who doesn't understand medicine. If I had somebody to back me up I could do it. These are the kind of changes I've seen you make -- deleting irrelevant and/or misleading material.
Festina lente. -- Nbauman (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

"Hepatitis C": 31 August 2010

Hey. I'm slm1202000. I only just got back on-line after a painful hospital bout. I wanted to let you know where you can find an extended discussion regarding my repeated corrections on the Hepatitis C article. You can see a version of it on http://www.nih.gov/news/health/dec2008/niddk-04.htm but it is only a copy of the original that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicene December 2008 which explains that the virus is only diminished.

I am dying of this disease due to a rape and grow highly irritated at constantly being informed there is a cure at this point. EVERY STATEMENT OF A "CURE" SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM WIKI!!! I corrected what were fallacies. You have left dying people rudderless by refusing to do the research. You're a doctor. You erased it. You fix it.

Any so-called medical "doctor" who does not trust in the New England Journal of Medicene is either a quake or a fraud. I listed source with publication references to the month and year. That was at least a starting point to progress toward truth. Instead of helping further the content, you removed all truthful statements that fixed the sentences and NEVER ONCE corrected the inaccurate conclusions given by research that if you dared to review, were supporting their conclusions based on blood tests, rather than biopsies. The New England Journal of Medicene and other fields of sciences do not support drawing unsubstantiative conclusions by a test instrument, one in this case, that does not even test for an end to a disease's progression. Only a liver biopsy does that. Instead of leaving EVEN ONE! statement as to the validity and reliability of the NEJM's article, you erased all signs of the article. I do not have access without paying the $1000+ fee, as I am not a doctor, unlike you.

WHY SUPPORT LYING TO DYING PEOPLE? Easy targets? Whim? Too time consuming to act otherwise? Was it easier to rag on me than do the research? People, including disabled people, deserve better. They deserve the truth. How many people might have gone to Wiki and thought that they might be cured? That they might not need another biopsy? That they could kiss someone? I'm not saying all their decisions are your fault, but as a doctor, you should be ashamed as people went to this source, and rather than finding help, they found lazy research supported unethically over a valid source, over the truth. To give hope to the dying where there is none, is cruel, especially if it was just because it was beneath you to stop acting witty and read.

It is vile.

Please refrain from this in the future.

And, please, fix this article. ALL of those articles mentioned should be corrected. ALL should be edited to state when their evidence was based on blood-born non-biopsy test instruments, just as I went article by article and denoted. YOU ERASED IT! YOU SHOULD HAVE REALIZED I WAS CORRECTING DIFFERENT ARTICLES' MISTAKEN ADMISSIONS! ALL NEED TO BE RE-CORRECTED! The NEJM stands. NOTHING! I mean NOTHING! has come out to refute the liver-biopsy proven evidence. I take a dim light to a doctor who would mislead the dying.

We are a frightened group, desperate for help, peace, life, and aide. I have had numerous people tell me recently this was not a fatal disease and it was based on a repeated insistence of one that I came back to this site's Hepatitis C article. I worked hard while dying for hours I cannot have back to aide those who would perhaps outlive me. I do not appreciate anyone flippantly erasing something because writing a paragraph or two is more fun and exciting than accepting a New England Journal of Medicene article or googling and attaching a hyperlink for it. A doctor's credentials would certainly have stood you in better stead than me in arguing its validity and reliability, but certainly siding with the NEJM is better for me than for you to side against it. If you know how to source it, as I am not at school anymore and cannot drive anywhere let alone to the university to get the actual permanent link, then why don't you add it? If you have time to do thousands of edits as a doctor who edits the medical data, surely you can find time to help the dying, especially those you've allowed to be lied to by erasing the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slm1202000@yahoo.com (talk • contribs) 19:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of your additions were based on a misreading of the NEJM article. Please post (concise!) concerns about the article on Talk:Hepatitis C, where other contributors can also comment. I will for now ignore your unnecessary ad hominems. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What did I misread? I went item by item on the articles that I modified to notate that the article's results were based off of blood work, rather than a biopsy. The "cure" results that were repeatedly touted as if they were correct, are not to be trusted when based off of the suggestion that in post-treatment patients blood work provides the same accuracy at rating a cure as a biopsy, and this is the very supposition that was built into those aforementioned "cures". In the Dec 2008, NEJM article, the liver biopsy control AND experimental groups did not show a statistically significant rate of change between each other, but BOTH showed a statistically significant DECLINE in the liver damage. In other words, even when the blood work came back with decreased or undetectable levels, the liver damage continued. Since the liver damage is what causes death, THIS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT! Since one of the aforementioned articles clearly suggested that Interferon and Rebetol provided high-rates of "cures", this then IS misleading; also, this evidence was based upon blood-work. It is highly unethical to lead dying people to hope just for the fun of it. It sucks to be told I'm dying. It is worse for some fool to have fun at my expense.

Could you please review these articles, and go point by point with their sentences to correct misinformation? I am tired, dying, and frankly, I do not wish to do this over and over. Since you are a doctor and a volunteer editor for this theme, could you please get this straightened out? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slm1202000@yahoo.com (talk • contribs) 21:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested above that you should probably raise this issue on Talk:Hepatitis C. JFW | T@lk 20:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we need a good review article and all need to assume good faith.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kohen

I have left a message on the Kohen discussion page. Additionally, two users who delete everything I do claim that only recent, english and ("and" apposed to "or") popular sources are accepted. Yet there are many accepted pages where old Hebrew sources are accepted even though Wikipedia is "not a yeshiva" (what I was told by User "Jayjg". For example see the Wiki Kashrut page which has the following sources. It has the Igerot Moshe, Yoreh De'ah and the philisophical opinion about Kashrut from Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed. Yet, when I try to quote the exact same sources on the Kohen Wiki page they are removed. [list removed]

I will review the discussion and comment. JFW | T@lk 22:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive supranuclear palsy

I recently posted a reference to a medical article on that page, and one reason I found it interesting was it described the patient as being in excellent health until she was hospitalized for herpes zoster. My dad suffered from multiple system atrophy and he also had shingles. Because of the mental symptoms he had near the end, I've also wondered whether he had Lewy body involvement. I've also read at wikipedia that the herpes simplex virus has been linked to Alzheimer's disease, so that makes me further wonder about varicella zoster, since that's in the same family--Robert Treat (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC) .[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Anemia

Sorry for my copy&paste mistake (and for my English too). I hope you agree with my edit: I think that it's POV defining tranfusion a "a harmful intervention" just because some clinical trials have shown a higher risk in ICU patients. Don't you think? --Doc.mari (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that transfusion has been harmful. However, it might be better to be specific about the situations where blood can be harmful, rather than stating this blankly without qualifiers and suggesting to the casual reader that blood could be bad for you in any setting. JFW | T@lk 16:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I was trying to say. I see that risks related to transfusion are well explained in the paragraph, that's why I removed that sentence. Thank you very much for your kind attention, --Doc.mari (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HTT to GA

Congratulations on yet another GA, JFW! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 11:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm still making up my mind what to do next, so let me know if you have any ideas. JFW | T@lk 16:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Garrondo has been heavily editing Parkinson's disease for what seems like ages now, I reckon it might be close to GA .. I don't seem to have had enough time this summer to edit everything I intended myself - although the glasses I get next week might actually let me see the screen more clearly! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemotherapy Edit

Hello jfdwolf. Thanks for editing the page on Chemotherapy. I have accepted your criticisms and have started a discussion on the talk page. I hope you can participate. DJ Barney (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Input has been offered. JFW | T@lk 13:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using "Smurf" to describe Rav Shach ?

Hi Dr. Wolff: Please take a moment to review the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jewish religious censoring by user that has arisen as a result of the insistence of a user or two to describe Rabbi Elazar Shach as a Smurf, from here Talk:Elazar Shach#Archived off-topic chat (latterly renamed). Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is a waste of bytes. While we have a duty to defend the honour of the gedolim, I don't think this is now constructive anymore. Gmar chasimo touvo. JFW | T@lk 13:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weight loss effects of water

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weight loss effects of water. greenrd (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Hepatic encephalopathy/temp needed?

Hi. I'm a bit curious - is Hepatic encephalopathy/temp still needed? It appears to be a duplicate of part of the main article. Cheers. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think it is not a duplicate anymore, but you were quite right to PROD it as the material is in the article history. JFW | T@lk 20:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperkalemia Treatment

Your right. There should be more references for Rx of hyperkalemia ....I'll work on that at some point in the next few weeks D.I.L. (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shulchan Aruch for Gentiles

Sh'lom, the Sefer Sheva Mitzvoth HaShem is referred as a ""Shulchan Aruch" for all the Torah Laws for Gentiles", by Rabbi Yonah Metzger, Chief Rabbi of Israel in his letter of approbation from Adar II 26, 5768 (Apr. 02 '08). Here a link to the original letter in Hebrew: http://www.asknoah.org/Rabbi_Metzger_letter_of_blessing.pdf

Rabbi Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg calls it in his letter of approbation from Kislev 13, 5767 (Nov. 23 '07 ) citation:"..a "Shulchan Aruh L'Bnei Noah".."- the letter is published in Vol. I of the English edition "The Divine Code"- p.7. Best regards T770 (talk · contribs)

You are free to put it back, or perhaps discuss it on the talkpage first. JFW | T@lk 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Alternative Medicine in Arthritis and other ailments

I noticed you deleted my contribution on alternative medicine on the Arthritis page. The reason you stated was 'there are other treatments available'. Could you clarify? Do you mean there are other alternative medicines available and the scope should have been wider or that the page lists conventional medication and, in your view, alternative medicine should not be included on the page? Many thanks Polishwanderer (talk) Polishwanderer (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean two things. Firstly, there needs to be a clear support base for any claim that alternative medicine is used for a particular condition. There are reference works that can be referred to. Secondly, it would be very important to make sure that all widely used alternative treatments are listed, not just one example. JFW | T@lk 17:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on both points. On the first my contribution referenced two books, both of which carry information on how Aloe Vera has been used with Arthritis. The first, The Silent Healer, includes a number of Physician Experience Reports. The website referenced contains testimonials. So what further referencing would you like to see?

On your second point I too believe it is important that as many alternative medications as possible are listed but there has to be a starting point. Alternative medicine is a much larger field than conventional medicine so one person cannot be an expert, or a contributor, for the entire practice. I know a great deal about Aloe Vera but I am not experienced enough to talk about Chinese medicine, acupuncture, herbalism, reflexology, aromatherapy, and so on. By adding the section Alternative Medicine in Arthritis and many other ailments I would hope this will encourage other contributors who do specialise in these fields to come forward with their own expertise and knowledge of referenced work. If a reflexoligist posts on Wikipedia should he also be delected because he did not talk about Chinese Medicine and other Alternative Medicines? Wikipedia is about encouraging the knowledge of many and it has to start somewhere. Can the section not be marked as a Stub(?) to facilitate this?

What are your thoughts? Polishwanderer (talk)Polishwanderer (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to discuss the suitability of particular content is Talk:Arthritis, so other users that are not monitoring this page are able to see our exchanges and offer their opinion. I am not the absolute arbiter of content. You could indeed start a section, mark it with the tag {{expand-section}}, and provide reliable reference to everything you write. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a wise move and probably the best direction before adding the section again. Polishwanderer (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually having had a look around and many similar discussions I have posted it here Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Polishwanderer (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ALS & MND

Hello sir, I see you're having a look at the motor neurone disease article. I've recently done some rather brutal edits to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis to make it a bit more Wikipedia-ish. I do think having MND and ALS as two articles is redundant and getting unmanageable. I also am in discussion with the ALS Untangled group who might be willing to take more professional stewardship of the page, but it would make sense for it to just be one article, with the ALS/MND distinction explained in the introduction. What do you think? --PaulWicks (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the good old lumpers vs splitters debate. I think those who are actively involved in the diagnosis and treatment of these conditions are the best placed to inform this discussion. If the same diagnostic and treatment modalities are used for all subtypes, there is a good case for putting it all in one article, with either redirects (e.g. the way Miller Fisher is incorporated into the Guillain-Barré article) or subarticles for the individual subtypes. Let me know. JFW | T@lk 21:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that they are, insofar as *most* people (90%) with "MND" have ALS. A smaller proportion have primary lateral sclerosis or progressive muscular atrophy, but those two already have slightly better pages than they used to. We can sit tight for a while though, the academics will be meeting in December to decide whether to pitch in. Here's their site: http://www.wfnals.org/alsu.html --PaulWicks (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

HKPP and Hashimoto's

I have the former (considered potential ATS), my sister was just Dx with the latter along with Diabetes Type1 (apparently Latent Congenital based on today's medical workup). Our mother has non-genetic Hypothyroidism. I had my daughter checked at birth for congenital Hypothyroid and she came back negative (just as a precaution). We have a cousin who also developed Diabetes, with no common risk factors, at a similar age to my sister (early 40's). My HypoKPP is carb and heat reactive, LQTS is "borderline" and currently "non noted".

Query: Risk of my also developing Diabetes? I'm an very soon to be 32 and am more than a bit concerned about the perceived clock on this.

Query 2: Possibility of mother being ATS parent given new developments with my sister (or is it a non issue ie. no connection re: Hashimoto-ATS). Father's medical is so convoluted and distorted it likely can't be factored in adequately, though his mother was just in the hospital for an "acute anaphylactic (sp?) reaction that triggered mild stroke" that failed to respond to epi (only major thing noted was that Serum Potassium was "sky high", reduction resolved symptoms).

Aside: Still working on getting that kit drawn for Dr. LP. It's not too late to get into the study is it?


The Signpost: 18 October 2010

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Help with name change and redirect

Hi Dr. Wolff: Hope all goes well. I am trying to match up the Mashgiach Ruchani article with its category Category:Mashgiach ruchani, so that Mashgiach ruchani be the correct name. Some time ago the article and its category matched in spelling, but recently someone redirected Mashgiach ruchani to Mashgiach Ruchani and I can't move it, it says I need to ask for an admin's help. So here I am asking you for help with this. So far, the format on WP has been to keep the second word in a Hebrew title spelled with lower case letters like in Rosh yeshiva, Maggid shiur, Baal teshuva, Beth din, Brit milah, etc, and of course as in Category:Mashgiach ruchani. Could you please make the change so that Mashgiach Ruchani redirects to Mashgiach ruchani and not the other way round. Thanks for all your help! Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! IZAK (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of TTG

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on TTG, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. » SkyyTrain (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely an error? It is a disambiguation page! JFW | T@lk 22:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi Dr. Wolff, I need your expertise and help navigating a medical article in Wikipedia. Could you please contact me, preferably via email? Rcwmcm (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to communicate on wiki unless the matter is sensitive. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jfdwolff. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Can be archived JFW | T@lk 09:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Zinsser

Dr. Wolf, I hope you will be able to add a link to Hans Zinsser's biography page to show the following quote on poetry. I am new to computer and can't figure any of this out or how I got here, and have photosensitivity, so hard to read pages. The quote is on poetry, and speaks for intself and have made no mistakes typiing it, Thank You. No one knows this quote, and it is best ON POETRY

“Poetry,” he said, “ has been to me much like horses. Though I was often cheated in consequence, I never enjoyed critically appraising a horse, walking around it, feeling its hocks, looking at its teeth, and then seeing other people ride it. A horse meant little to me until I could feel it under me, between my thighs, swing with the rhythm of its gaits, rise over fences with it, and lean over the neck in the exhilaration of its galloping vigor.

“And so a poem means nothing to me unless it can carry me away with the gentle or passionate pace of its emotion, over obstacles of reality into meadows and covers of illusion. Nor is it the material that matters -- whether it be the old stirrings of nature and love, or war, or whether it deals with the tragedies and complexities of human fate. The sole criterion for me is whether it can sweep me with it into emotion or illusion of beauty, terror, tranquility, or even disgust, --as Baudelaire,--so long as it arouses fundamental feelings or reflections which, encountered without the poet, might have passed half realized, like a tongue of flame or a flying leaf. For the poet arrests emotions at their points of greatest supportable heat, just short of the melting point, as it were, and can hold in that perfect state, permanent in his words and metres, those feelings and comprehensions which pass too quickly to be held through the minds of ordinary men. The poet imprisons them in words or color, or marble, so that we lesser men can contemplate them and recognize in them their own hearts and minds.”

This was the last serious conversation I had with R. S. Hans Zinsser, As I Remember Him, The biography of R. S., p. 441-442, 1940, Little Brown & Co. Horses&poets (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We would not normally put quotes, especially if lengthy, into encyclopedia articles. I note that there is no Wikiquote page on Zinsser, but that would be the most appropriate place to put any quotes. When that is done, {{Wikiquote}} can be added to Hans Zinsser to direct the reader around. JFW | T@lk 09:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meningitis

Hi Jfdwolff! I changed the sentence because it is wrong. Die Liquor-Glucose is lower than the Blood-Glucose. CSF-Glucose is usually 45-80 mg/dl when the Blood-Glucose is about 70-120 mg/dl. This means that the CSF-Glucose is 40% below the Blood Glucose and not above. Or in other words it is 65% of the blood-Glucose. I recognized this when I translated the Article. Sincerely Yours -- Andreas Werle (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how does it invalidate the values mentioned in the source? JFW | T@lk 23:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the source? PMID 17062865 "DATA SYNTHESIS: We found ... A CSF-blood glucose ratio of 0.4 or less (in meningitis-patients)..." Do you trust Wikipedia: Cerebrospinal_fluid#Amount_and_constitution? Glucose in CSF is lower than in Blood. No problem, it is simpley a mistake. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is an error in the Wikipedia article currently - it is congruent with both the JAMA and the CID sources. If you believe there is an error, how about you bring it up on Talk:Meningitis. I think you misunderstand the word "normally". The article is not saying what the normal values are, but what one might expect under normal circumstances. In this case, the line "The concentration of glucose in CSF is normally above 40% that in blood" just serves as an introduction to say that a ratio below 0.4 is definitely abnormal. JFW | T@lk 23:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I did the mistake, it is exactly as you say it. I misunderstood the sentence, my translation was wrong. Sorry. Greetings. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coumadin trademark

Indeed is not needed and we don't put them on drug brandnames most of the time. Except this particular drug (long made by DuPont and rarely used generically) is a rather special case, where even physicians confuse tradename and generic name, and think that coumadin is the generic name of the drug, and Warfarin is the brand.

The differences between coumarin, coumadins, Coumadin, dicoumarol, and warfarin are something few people can tell you off the tops of their heads. I'm now finally satisfied that they at least can look it up on Wikipedia. I thought reminding people that Coumadin® is a brandname by putting the little mark on it, would help in that quest. Otherwise, I don't really care. I promise you that this is not some obscessive compulsive thing I have about trademarks. SBHarris 02:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to clarify this. I suspect that using Capitals may be sufficient, but we could gather some further views on the talk page if you wish. JFW | T@lk 11:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Notability concerns

Would you consider Cancer patient and let me know what you think about its probable notability? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This content is not independently notable. The issues about public perception and social consequences of cancer should be discussed in broader context. As such, I would be quite happy if you nominated it for erasure. JFW | T@lk 14:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job

Hey JdWolff, and thanks for your wonderful contributions. I hope you wont mind me adding stuff to your articles or changing them around. I look forward to read more of your wonderful input! Dr. Persi (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Noachide code

Hi, you write about that new Noachide code on Talk:Seven Laws of Noah#Sodomy Can you tell me more about it ? Is it available in English yet ? -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the work, nor an English translation. JFW | T@lk 09:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wipple's disease

I think the finished product looks nice. We made it look really nice. Good job man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Persi (talk • contribs) 08:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've been walking around with the Schneider and Fenollar articles in my bag, but not really had a chance to do some further work. It's still needing a bit of attention. JFW | T@lk 18:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Congrats on another GA at Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

"appetition" used to be a redirect to appetite. Hence I put a "for" template in. If that is not correct then can you please tell me how do it properly? Hpvpp (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the disambiguation needs to be on the Appetition page. I don't think anyone looking for Appetition will go to appetite, hence no disambiguation is needed. However, given that appetition is a synonym of appetite, it will need to be disambiguated in that direction. JFW | T@lk 04:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a disambiguating link on Appetition. The problem is that the word 'appetite' is used with a different sense in many philosophical texts. This means that inquiries prompted by those texts will go to Appetite where they ought to find a pointer to the appropriate page. Which is why I put in the 'for' template, because some kind of link needs to be there. Hpvpp (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong objections, although the appetite article doesn't really offer any insight into appetite where it does not concern food intake! JFW | T@lk 06:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be happy with this hatnote: "About|the desire for nourishment|the philosophical concept|Appetition|the 1998 folk album|Appetite (Kris Delmhorst album)" Hpvpp (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objections. I'm generally more happy when all the hatnotes are on one line, mostly for stylistic reasons. JFW | T@lk 08:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done Hpvpp (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vertebral artery dissection

Hi, I'm very sorry about messing up your citation template - it was an accident. I am so tired and very new at this. Parts of your section on Rubinstein's systematic review look really unfamiliar to me (I'll have another close read of the paper), and so I thought that it was not cited. As I understand, the general conclusion that those authors had made was that the vast majority of the studies that they examined had major limitations. Hence, I'm wondering how the risk rates you mention were determined. However,I am very willing to change my position, if I find that I'm mistaken. Overall I'm satisfied with your last edit, but am curious as to why you swapped the "Spontaneous" and "Traumatic" bits around. It doesn't bother me - what I had done was just follow example set in for the CAD entry. Kind regards, VAPhD (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will respond on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good advice. Perhaps, the the bit on the limitations of the studies could be shifted up under the heading of "Causes", because it applies to both "Traumatic" and "Spontaneous". I have suggested this here for you as a gesture of courtesy. VAPhD (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You posted on my talk page 28 November presumably about possibly reporting an edit war. Sorry I didn't see it. I'm glad that it's settled, but somehow expect to hear more from QuackGuru. VAPhD (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the benefits of loggin in. QuackGuru is free not to respond if he will interact in a civil manner and follow basic editing guidance like WP:AGF, WP:BRD and so on. JFW | T@lk 09:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Thanks for message!

Hello Jfdwolff, This lousy t-shirt has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Anytime, thou of glorious username. JFW | T@lk 09:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Dr. Wolff, I hope everything is going well. I do have a question. My name "Persi" has shaired letters with one of the pages that I have exapnded namely "Persian Gulf." I just realized that I was linked after I clicked "what links here" on my personal page, that I found my name on three dates due to the fact that my name "overlaps" the name of the page I edited. Since you are more experienced in this, does this mean I should avoid editing pages that share letters or portions of my name in sequential order, or does it mean it is ok? Thanks :) Dr to be Persi! Dr. Persi (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dr. Wolff for the message. I get it now. Have a great weekend man! Dr. Persi (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

website for Amiodarone

At this page, I think you mentioned you were making a website regarding Amiodarone. Talk:Amiodarone. If that website is up, please let me know. My father might have died from taking Amiodarone. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear about your father, but I never said that. The edit in question was made by AGlossop (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited for over a year, and the site he mentions doesn't seem to exist (or at least returns a 404).
As I said in my response there, the side-effects of amiodarone are well known and anyone receiving the drug should be monitored closely with regular thyroid and liver function tests. I'm personally no fan of long-term amiodarone for these and other reasons. JFW | T@lk 02:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Hasmonean/s move

Hi Dr. Wolf: Happy Hanukkah! I came across the page Hasmonean (no "s" at end) and tried to move it to the correct form Hasmoneans (with an "s" at the end) that would also be consistent with the Maccabees ("s" at end) article -- that is in the plural (how could it be that there are many Maccabees and only "one" Hasmonean?) and after all it is about a royal dynasty (unless of course it should be moved to something entirely new similar to House of Stuart, House of Windsor etc which would not be in keeping with tradition), but it is like the Tudor dynasty etc many listed at the Dynasty page.) The Hasmonean article requires an admin to move it to Hasmoneans so here I am asking you please. By the way, the Category:Hasmoneans is correct and its main article should match it. Thanks in advance, IZAK (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

zymogen granule

Hi. I see at [[WP:MCB]] that among your "Special interests" are "Clinical biochemistry and clinically relevant enzymes/proteins", and hope you don't mind my bugging you with something bothering us over at Wiktionary. The term granule is defined at [[granule (cell biology)]] to mean "any structure barely visible by light microscopy". Is this how the term is actually used? What is a structure (as used in that description)? If someone doesn't know the term zymogen granule and comes across it, would he know immediately that this is not a speck a zymogen but rather a body containing zymogen? Thanks.—msh210℠ 18:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On light microscopy level, very few granular structures are clearly visible, unless one includes PAS-positive inclusions in certain diseases (e.g. Whipple's). So this statement sounds correct. The word "structure" here refers to any component of the cell. JFW | T@lk 22:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What about my last question, please? If someone (educated in the field) doesn't know the term zymogen granule and comes across it, would he know immediately that this is not a speck a zymogen but rather a body containing zymogen?—msh210℠ 06:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be reasonable for the educated person in your question to assume that any <unfamiliar word> granule is either a clump of <unfamiliar word> or an intracellular structure that contains <unfamiliar word>—and also reasonable for this person to consider this no more than a reasonable guess that requires verification. Biology is not always consistent in its nomenclature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (I was assuming he knows what zymogen means, actually.)—msh210℠ 06:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religious text primary

A TFD has been opened on Template:Religious text primary. The TfD was opened on 2 December; so is due to close in two days time. Notification being sent to all participants in the previous discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_30#Template:BibleAsFact. Jheald (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru

I've raised the issue of QuackGuru blanking his talk page whenever anyone posts to it, which is making it hard to track how troublesome he's being. I saw you recently raised the same issue on AN/I, so in case you want to comment again, please see the discussion here. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have responded there. JFW | T@lk 06:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Comments on an image

[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coeliac Edit

In regards to this edit, I've seen weight gain reported as an uncommon but not unheard of occurrence in undiagnosed Celiac. While I realize it's only personal experience, I had this issue myself, rising to 210 (at a height of 5'8") despite "eating like a chipmunk", as my partner put it. Once the Celiac was diagnosed, I started steadily losing about 2 pounds per month despite eating much more than I previously had, since I was now no longer nauseous all the time.

In a quick search, I found a several articles on reliable sites, such as these two: [5][6]. While reliable for regular articles, it would probably be best if we could find studies on some of the typical MEDRS sites instead.

If I had to guess, based on absolutely no medical knowledge whatsoever, I would say that it's probably due to some chemical imbalance similar to how thyroid issues can cause weight gain, or perhaps even a "panic" reaction by the body not getting enough of certain nutrients and trying to latch on to anything else it can get. – RobinHood70 talk 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. I'd prefer to use a WP:MEDRS. The mechanism for such a phenomenon would be unclear. Polyphagia would make sense, as there is a real energy shortage; I always learnt that children with coeliac disease were voracious eaters. But weight gain would be unexplained, as that would be a marker of adequate energy. Of course one could form theories about incretin production being impaired due to mucosal damage, leading to overeating, but I think this awaits confirmation. JFW | T@lk 11:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a quick PubMed search, I found a couple of relevant article discussing people being overweight at diagnosis and then losing weight. [7][8]. While it wasn't the focus of the study, the second one includes the statement "Almost half of adult patients with CD have a body mass index (BMI) >25 at diagnosis." The implication of that statement is that children tend to present with weight loss/failure-to-thrive, but adults maybe less so. This closely matches what I went through, as I was positively scrawny as a child/teen. Oh and no worries about the late response...doctors do tend to be busy people! :) – RobinHood70 talk 20:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that those two studies were done at major centers (Peter Green is an authority on coeliac disease), it's a matter of time before this will be discussed in secondary sources. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00750.x is another study showing similar results. I can't currently access the fulltext for these studies, but I'm very curious if anyone has attempted an explanation for the phenomenon. I rather like my own little theory about incretins... JFW | T@lk 21:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really comment on the incretin theory, as I've only just glanced at the Wikipedia article and it forms my entire knowledge of the subject. From the description given, though, it seems at least plausible. Maybe you should do a study? :) Anyway, thanks for the follow-up. – RobinHood70 talk 22:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Vertebral dissection MRA image

Arrows and labels would certainly be useful, as even I have have a hard time spotting the abnormalities. Arrows to the key features are even mentioned in the description on commons (and in the original journal article). Feel free to add them. --WS (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern

How can you justify this revert, calling it gibberish? He cites the peer reviewed journal Facebook.

I feel a letter to The Times coming on. --GraemeL (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. It probably makes more sense in Croatian. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the undoing of the Some more about... of Jean-François Monteil

(79.90.42.155 (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC))(Jean KemperNN (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)) The contents of the text by you deleted can be found in a paper written in French and published by the Cahiers de Tunisie the review of the University of Tunis. If you type Default normal template Maimonides you can see that the Jewish scholarship has registered the important discovery. I've made a knol entitled: ENG Knol 103 Something new about... I add that the Jesuits of Lebanon published in 2001 an Arabic version of the paper in their review El Machriq. Yours sincerely. Jean-François Monteil[reply]

The only thing I removed was: "The work is a masterpiece of clarity and conciseness. A reservation: if conciseness and clarity are sisters, they may conflict with one another sometimes. This occurred in Chapter II." This is a value judgement in obvious violation of WP:NPOV. If it was a direct quote you should have attributed it as such. JFW | T@lk 11:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Jean KemperNN (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)) Thanks for your explanation.In my opinion, the eminent qualities of clarity and conciseness of Maimonides are universally recognized and therefore constitute an objective fact which cannot be considered as the matter of a value judgement. But I accept the deletion of that detail. The important thing is the difference between the Arabic text and the three Hebrew translations. Would you object to the mention of the discovery in the article ? Two scientific reviews made it known, to say nothing of the mention of my paper by the Jewish scholarship. Yours cordially. Jean-François Monteil[reply]

(Jean KemperNN (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)) PS Please find below the state of the page on November 25 at 22h. Afterwards, I deleted myself the mention of the discrepancy between the canonical text and the three translations. This mention was entitled Something new about the Treatise on logic and I replaced it by a more neutral text.[reply]


Something new about the Treatise on logic mentioned above [* Treatise on Logic (Arabic: Maqala Fi-Sinat Al-Mantiq) has been printed 17 times, including editions in Latin (1527), German (1805, 1822, 1833, 1828), French (1935), and English (1938), and in an abridged Hebrew form.]

As indicated by 'Maimonides default normal template', the Cahiers de Tunisie published in 2001 an article of Jean-François Monteil : De la traduction en hébreu d'un texte arabe de Maïmonide: le chapitre II du maqala fi sina a al mantiq ou traité de logique. In 2001 too,a version in Arabic was published by the Jesuits of Lebanon in their review El Machriq. An English version of the article can be read in ENG Knol 103 Something new about Maimonides'treatise on logic. There is a most significant difference between the canonical text and the three Hebrew translations. The discrepancy concerns the crucial problem posed by the Aristotelian indeterminate propositions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean KemperNN (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are discrepancies between the versions of the Treatise on Logic, then I agree this needs to be mentioned. I would use those two reviews as the sources to this claim, per WP:CITE. I would strongly caution against using your own work as a source, and I refer to the WP:COI policy. JFW | T@lk 20:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C1 Inhibitor

Your edit of the C1 inhibitor article was a heck of a lot better than mine. Kudos on what, in my opinion anyway, is an excellent contribution. Spiral5800 (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That section was clearly in need of a bit of organisation. JFW | T@lk 20:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic

I appreciated the work you did at Vertebral artery dissection. It was straightforward and unpolitical and good. Any chance you'd give Chiropractic a look?? We have all of the sources, and just some lingering disputes about weight, some marginal studies, and criticism by chiropractors of studies. A new editor USER:Puhlaa has been working to rework some of the sections on Evidence, Risk-Benefit, and Safety. I'd like to avoid a typical battle between hardline critics and supporters. Maybe your presence would be just what the article needs. I know you work in MEDspace but maybe not ALTmed space, so this might not be your cup of tea. But if you get the urge, efforts can be made to keep things saner than normal. Ocaasi (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, but I am not touching that article with a ten mile bargepole. Arguing about such things has in the past pushed me to the brink of Wiki-burnout. The fracas over VAD was about as much as I could handle. JFW | T@lk 11:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

X-mas wishes

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! JFW | T@lk 17:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Greatest of Wishes as well from me

khag khanuka sameakh! Happy Holidays Dr. Wolf! Dr. Persi (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! JFW | T@lk 17:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chumleychat (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

When you get a chance - please consider applying your expertise to the following - Kosh Agarwal Thomas Diflo Deborah Axelrod Any doctor that appears - and there about 50 plus or more when you type the words Dr. weill into the wikipedia search engine such as Antonio Gotto Thanks for your help Chumleychat (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, I avoid biographies of living people after some negative experiences in the past. While I do not dispute Dr Agarwal's standing, I'm not entirely sure whether he is notable for a biography on Wikipedia; I have therefore nominated the article for deletion (AFD page). I am not entirely sure what your request is with regards to other doctors. JFW | T@lk 21:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

File source problem with File:VWF.png

Thank you for uploading File:VWF.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 02:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. JFW | T@lk 07:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dexamethasone.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dexamethasone.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Kelly hi! 18:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Two paradigms....

User_talk:Sasata#Thyrotoxic_periodic_paralysis_FAC probably explains best my position. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Your message alerted me to the fact that the article got promoted! JFW | T@lk 14:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested European history moves

Hi Dr. Wolff: Hope all goes well. I have spent a few hours reviewing all the links connected to Template {{Jews and Judaism in Europe}} and fixing a few broken redirects. There are about 60 (sixty) of them and they almost all link to articles titled "History of the Jews in ____" -- however, there are three exceptions that require an admin to fix them and so I am turning to you to please fix and redirect:

Thanks in advance for all your help! Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four Award

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis.

Great work! LittleMountain5 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need for your experience and authority

Dear Dr. Wolf, I hope everything is well with you and you are enjoying the new year!

I have a bit of an issue that I believe a more experience older forum admin such as you is most qualified to resolve. It is regarding the article Avicenna. Originally and as per sources verifiable through Google books and the literature, it was written that he is "Persian." One of users named "Artacoana" whom I believe has the best of intention but who also has a serious misunderstanding about the way Wikipedia works continues to lateralize the discussion by adding "Persian (Tajik)" as his origin. This would absolutely be fine with me as I do not much care about the content, had it not been for the fact that the source he uses is absolutely irrelevant. The source that he uses is as of now a reference to an encyclopedia that explains the origin of the peoeple of Tajik origin. I read the source page to page and there is not a single mention of "Avicenna" in the source. I further wrote on his wall explaining the reason for my reversion of his edit to the previous status. In my view and as per the fact that he simply has no relevant sources (not to mention the countless historical issues with the claims he is making) his assertions are POV and or at best good faith errors in perception. At any rate, he reverted me back and I even made a point of it at the bottom of the page at the discussion. I will not revert his edit back again because to do so would constitute edit warring and aside from being a childish act takes the maturity out of the process. I do however like to know if you are inclined to have you intervene trusting your admin neutrality, educational level, and understanding of the rules to be paramount factors qualifying you to resolve this. If I simply revert his edit, he will continue to revert mine and it would lead to pointless warring. If you can, please give a definite word on what you think on the issue. I will fully support you on your final decision! Thanks! Dr. Persi (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr Wolf,

  • Avicenna is one of the most important polymaths, physicians and philosophers of the 10th century.
  • Iranians are insisting on the fact that Avicenna was only Persian.
  • Avicenna came from Central Asia with the native Persian speaking TAJIK population of Iranian origin. His father was from Balkh, Afghanistan and his mother from Bukhara, Uzbekistan.
  • The only Persian speaking natives of Iranian origin in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan are formally called TAJIK, and not Persian.
  • He lived during the Ghaznavid rule whose cultural centers and capitals were located in Ghazni and Bost, both located in today's Afghanistan.
  • Avicenna lived in the 10th century and the term Tajik was used during his time (please refer to the given references to the definition of Tajik).
  • Both terms Persian and Tajik should be used to refer to the ethnicity or origin of Avicenna, as he belongs to all Persian speaking people of the region and not only to Iranians.
  • Only using the term Persian creates confusion and the fallacy that Avicenna must have been originated from Iran (with tody's borders).

I think that's what they want, as we can see from their insistence. I as a Tajik of Afghanistan feel as a victim that my cultural heritage is being stolen by some chauvinist Iranians. I believe that Wikipedia is a free and fair source that is not seeking biased information and I trust your fair mediation. a request for mediation has been sent. Please refer to the site for more details. Kind regards, --Artacoana (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been keeping an eye on this debate and I think that Artacoana, despite his passion, is overlooking some fundamentals when presenting his argument. 1) Iranians are clearly not the only ones that refer to or insist that Avicenna was Persian. That implication is borderline a WP:PA violation. 2) Avicenna came from Central Asia, an area that has historically been part of the Persian Empire, 3) The Persian speaking natives of Iranian people origins in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan are NOT only called Tajik, not even close. 4) The Ghavanids dynasty was a PERSIANATE dynasty... 5) Persian does not necessarily only refer to the modern country of Iran. Nor does it create a confusion or fallacy that Avicenna must have originated from modern Iran. Persian and Iranian are not fully synonomous. 6) Lastly, this argument, by the admission and tone of Artacoana, is being motivated by a strong POV that accuses a racial group (in this case Iranians) of being "stealers" and "chauvinists." Again, a WP:PA/civility violation. Some thoughts on the issue being presented. Will be reiterating my points when needed.... GoetheFromm (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr GoetheFromm, My response to your raised points are as follows:

1) I didn't say they are the only one. However, most of such users are Iranians. 2) Central Asia was not always part of Persian Empire. The history of Central Asia is much older than Persian history. An example is the existence of BMAC culture surrounding Oxus river during the Bronze Age. Also, most of the dynasties of Central Asia were not part of Persian Empire, such as: Greco Bactrians, Kushans, Hephthalite, etc. 3) Tajiks are the only major Persian speaking people of Iranian origin. The other Iranian people are Pamiris of Wakhan region, but they don't speak Persian. Even they are mostly categorized as ethnic Tajik. If you know any other Persian speaking people of Iranian origin rather than Tajiks, let me know then. 4) What do you mean by "Persianate"? Persian language was originally called Dari (See ncyclopedia Iranica: Dari) and it was the language of the people of Balkh and Greater Khorasan (today's Afghanistan). Most Persian literary existed in the eastern parts (in Afghanistan and Central Asia). The earliest poets such as Rudaki lived in Central Asia and not Iran (with today's borders). Persian language is originated and flourished in Afghanistan and Central Asia. 5) Persian is a synonym used today for Persian speaking Iranians. Have look at the definition of Persian in the following known dictionaries:

6) I didn't say all Iranians/Persians are chauvinists or stealers of cultural heritage, I said only FEW. And I have my reasons for it. Let's have a look at the following examples:

Well, if you don't call this chauvinism, then tell me what is it then? --Artacoana (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I have very little knowledge of the geography of Central Asia and the various historical shifts in the area. I see that the main dispute seems to be over sources. If there is a disagreement, it is not WP:TRUTH we are after but reliable sources that support one side or the other. If there are conflicting sources of equal WP:WEIGHT, it would be the best to mention both opinions per WP:NPOV. I see mediation has been requested, so I suggest the discussion is held either on Talk:Avicenna or on the relevant mediation page. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jfdwolff, if you want to insist on only sources, then a valid one should be used and that is the Encyclopædia Iranica. Iranica is dedicated to the study of Iranian civilization in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. This Encyclopædia is an international, collaborative project, based at Columbia University in the City of New York. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE ETHNICITY OF AVICENNA in Iranica. What Iranica does mention is his birthplace and the birthplace of his father and mother and at the same time "Iranica states that The Tajiks are an Iranian people, speaking a variety of Persian, concentrated in the Oxus Basin, the Farḡāna valley (Tajikistan and parts of Uzbekistan) and on both banks of the upper Oxus, i.e., the Pamir mountains (Mountain Badaḵšān, in Tajikistan) and northeastern Afghanistan (Badaḵšān)." AND "By the eleventh century the Turks applied this term more specifically to the Persian Muslims in the Oxus basin and Khorasan" (i.e. the homeland of Avicernna). Iranica must be the only valid source used for disputed articles.--Artacoana (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I am qualified to judge the relative merits of various sources. If you cannot achieve consensus, please continue with mediation. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is it not the case in Wikipedia for a "source" to support its statement? The source that this user uses has no bearing on the point it makes! I do not care really WHAT he is saying. The point here is the principle. Is this not perceived the same by you JFW? Dr. Persi (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's the rub. I have no idea how authoritative this "source" is (or not). Don't care if it's biased (we all use biased sources), but it needs to be representative of a school of thought. Clearly, different groups seek to claim Avicenna as one of their own. I would suggest that unless one of the two schools of thought is clearly a fringe theory, I would mention both and "teach the controversy". JFW | T@lk 09:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA

You have contributed to another GA. Congrats... :-). --Garrondo (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review and sensible suggestions! JFW | T@lk 13:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. I only regret the afterwards discussion over the Ernst article. I do not feel comfortable enough on my knowledge on the issue to give my opinion although I tend to lend towards your POV on the issue. I hope some consensus is gained soon and the GA is not disputed since what I am confident is that the article is a GA with or without Quacksguru proposal. If you need anything you know where to find me. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru is riding a very creaky old hobbyhorse of his. The "systematic review" is totally unsuitable, but don't let a sensible view on sourcing get in the way of turning any article into a WP:COATRACK. JFW | T@lk 20:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the Multiple Myeloma article....

I see you are on top of correcting incorrect or flat out garbage information being put into the Multiple Myeloma article and I just wanted to say thank you. My husband has MM, and subject is important to me. I know much more than I would like to about this cruel disease, but not being a medical doctor, I certainly do not know all about it. Cheers, Trista (user Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your warm words and all the best to your husband. I've so far not had the chance to expand the myeloma article, but I will continue to watch it and ensure that the current content remains intact. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

FYI

You were correct to assume that our concession at VAD would not appease QG. He is at it again at Fringe noticeboard. I personally am very satisfied with the current discussion of CSM and VAD, however, I have proposed a revision to counter QGs. When he continues to push a POV it makes it difficult not to try and push back with my own (opposite) POV! I certainly am having difficulty understanding the contribution he makes here? He only seems to 'contribute' on articles where he can push a specific anti-DC POV, and at each of these articles (Pseudoscience, Chiropractic, VAD) he simply makes progress very difficult and expends the time of other editors with circular arguements. Sorry for the vent, I am sure you have dealt with him much longer than I and know all this, I just needed a vent :) Regards! Puhlaa (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made enough concessions in this silly debate, and at the moment I have no intention of engaging with QG again. He is not interested in consensus, and pays lip service only to the policies that he keeps on referring to. JFW | T@lk 09:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dengue fever

Attempted to address your concerns. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the management section could have greater detail but uncertain how specific one should get in an article which should probably remain a general overview.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at everything tomorrow night. JFW | T@lk 10:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ganfyd for deletion

The article Ganfyd is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ganfyd until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 10:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's

Thanks. It has been more than a year of work to get the article here. I will aim soon for FAC. Hope to hear your comments before and or during such proccess. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Exploding animals

Category:Exploding animals, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't remember creating that, but go ahead. It sounds like the stuff of distant wiki lore. JFW | T@lk 01:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Tahash article

Have you seen this article: Tahash? I don't even know where to start. Jayjg (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Rabbi N.W. Dessler

You've done wonderful work on Rabbi E. E. Dessler. Perhaps you have info to add to R' Noach Dessler (his son)? Joe407 (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of any useful sources on him? JFW | T@lk 09:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needle coping strategy revert

Hi JFD, I saw the policies you linked to, but I wasn't entirely clear where you saw the COI on my recent addition (I also added to the article on treatment of MS).

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Citing_oneself states:

"If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality and conflict of interest policies. If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. In fact, expert input is encouraged and experts often have specific knowledge of the relevant literature. However, as with all editors, this policy does prohibit experts from drawing on their personal knowledge without being able to cite reliable sources."

Please advise, thanks. --PaulWicks (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have expected you to recommend the source on the talkpage for others to consider. The study is interesting, but I doubt that it meets the guidelines set out in WP:MEDRS. JFW | T@lk 10:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that. --PaulWicks (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice JMIR paper BTW =) --PaulWicks (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the underlying study?

The results of that palliative study are quite strong ... have you read the whole thing? Basically, best practice for MOST terminal lung cancer patients is ONLY palliative care! We do need to make it more specific to late stage patients. Note that the study found best practice is to include palliative care options very early in treatment (offered at time of diagnosis), which is why I placed Palliative Care first under Treatment.Earthsales5 (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you seem to be of the opinion that this study completely changes the landscape of lung cancer care. I think the study is correct, but we need more data (ideally from secondary sources) before giving it the prominence that you accorded to it. Many patients, even those with end-stage disease, will still regard palliative care as not a cancer but a "person" treatment. We make this worse by letting oncologists give the chemo & radiotherapy but asking palliative care physicians to do the rest. JFW | T@lk 05:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Post Finasteride Syndrome

Dr. Wolff, please take a look at the Propecia discussion board and give your comments on my wish to include PFS on the finasteride page. I myself, am an unfortunate victim of the medication, and my father has been researching the topic intensely for the past few months. It is notable that he is both an MD and an MPH from Harvard University which should give him credibility and he has uncovered a worrisome methodology that was conducted in the clinical trials and more explicit evidence in other research on 5-alpha reductase inhibitors.

I really just want these risks to be public knowledge so that others make properly informed decisions. While you initially may perceive this to be overblown, which is understandable, the reality is that it is quite an outrageous situation. -Doors 22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doors22 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to have a look at a few Wikipedia policies. Of particular importance is WP:MEDRS, which makes it clear that we cannot base our content on anecdotal reports and small case series. Discussion boards are never suitable sources for medical content. Please post any relevant sources on Talk:Finasteride, so others can consider them. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Wolff, I've taken a look at WP:MEDRS and feel the evidence meets the criteria for a reliable source. Even if you disregard the medical blogs, discussion board, and news articles, there is peer reviewed research available. The following article from Dr. Traish is essentially a literature review of the sexual side effects of finasteride, which is considered the highest quality of evidence according to your link. You may not be able to access the article without paying, but it references several other studies that confirm the side effects do not reverse. I've posted this on the talk page but feel your opinion is valuable. Thanks. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02157.x/abstract Doors22 (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you to post this on Talk:Finasteride, because I am not the sole arbiter here. What is needed is WP:CONSENSUS. The source you have indicated (PMID 21176115, doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02157.x) seems reasonable to support a single sentences that states that X% of men will experience persistent ED/decreased libido after using finasteride. It might be better to wait until the article has appeared in print. JFW | T@lk 13:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henoch–Schönlein purpura

Dr. Wolff,

I noticed that you recently removed a wiki entry that I made relative to treatment of this terrible disease, referencing the post as "quackery." With what educated basis have you formed this opinion? Have you performed any research in this area, or initiated a study that somehow refutes the idea the coconut oil and milk does not have an impact on HSP? I specifically added that entry to inform parents of an option that we found worked with our child. Our son had a severe case of HSP and was hours away from being put under the knife to combat intussusception, that nearly resulted in gastrointestinal hemorrhaging, which was described to us as a life threatening condition. The only thing that saved him from being subjected to the surgery was coconut milk. A bit of history is in order. When we first started to battle this disease, our medical practitioner said there was nothing that could be done to combat this disease, and our only option was to wait it out. We watched in horror as he missed weeks of school and the rash continued to worsen and affect his skin all over his body and internal organs. Out of desperation, my wife took him to the local Whole Foods and asked the homeopathic adviser what he recommended for the rash, and he suggested trying coconut oil. At first I took the attitude that you did, I thought was nonsense and would not have any impact. Thankfully, she did what she did and to our complete amazement, his skin condition immediately improved. With repeated daily treatments his rash continued to get better, but did not alleviate the severe abdominal pain that he was experiencing. Finally we got the idea to try coconut milk to combat the internal rash. Every time we started to ease up on the treatments, he'd experience a resurgence in skin rash and abdominal pain. Once we finally started consistent application and followed through until all symptoms disappeared for a weeks time, we were able to beat the disease into submission and it has not returned since.

As an asthmatic I'm kept alive by medicine developed in the west, but I continue to be aggravated by the lack of creativity or open mindedness of most western doctors. More and more, if a pharmaceutical company hasn't created a pill to treat the ailment, doctors are at a loss for suggestions or guidance, resulting in medical practitioners being anything but that. This line of thinking is absurd and dangerous. I respectfully request that before you start deleting posts that could help one just *one* parent deal with this hideous disease as "quackery," you do the right thing and do your own research. Perhaps you can run a clinical trial proving that this treatment is effective, and you could help the many other people that suffer from this disease. But please- I'm begging you- do NOT delete the comment again until you become informed enough to actually do so. If this post upsets you- hopefully it will motivate you enough to do the research yourself. With all due respect, if you DO decide to embark on such a study, hopefully you'll keep the information free as it need be, meaning, you don't engage some pharmaceutical company to sponsor the research so they can overcharge for a pill form of something that is cheap and readily available today without a prescription. I don't know anything about you or what you stand for so please don't take offense, but as a frustrated citizen I long for the days when medical doctors weren't subjected to cash incentives to push whatever the latest drug big pharma is selling, and moreover were willing to entertain and suggest ideas that seemed plausible if they *actually worked*.

Best regards, J Bonnell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.6.76 (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about article content, and you should therefore post on Talk:Henoch–Schönlein purpura if you want other contributors to provide their opinion.
What you describe sounds interesting, but one would not expect to open a normal encyclopedia and find an anecdotal experience from a very small number of people that has not been evaluated in some form or description. The clinical trial you propose should be performed before this makes it into medical textbooks or encyclopedias. The onus is on you to provide evidence that it works, not on me to somehow support your unsourced contribution with evidence that doesn't exist yet.
Your arguments about "big pharma" and "lack of creativity" are frequently heard in these discussions, but they do not change the basic premise that we cannot discuss treatments without supportive evidence. JFW | T@lk 06:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree- Wikipedia is meant to form the collective knowledge of society, not the whims of one one person. I appreciate that you started the article but that does not make you the sole provider or content owner. I've provided first hand knowledge and supportive evidence that the solution suggested *did* work, so the onus is on you to prove that it's not affective if you insist on deleting the content. If you'd like to caveat my statements in the wiki entry as needing verification by the scientific community, fine, but given that the mission of wikipedia is to collect the knowledge of all society, it should be treated accordingly. If you insist on continuing to delete the entry I will insist on no longer financially supporting Wikipedia, and I will inform the organization accordingly as to why I will no longer do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.6.76 (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not own the article, but your arguments are very unconvincing. What you describe is an anecdotal report. I have already directed you to WP:MEDRS, the guideline which governs the standards for medical content. I urge you to read it before passing judgement on what I have said above. It is not me who is the arbiter here but a large body of people who together shaped this guidance. You are completely within your right to withdraw funding if you wish to take this issue so personally. JFW | T@lk 18:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Health issues in pregnancy

Hello there,
How are you?
I'm writing in reference to a very interesting and important comment you made last August (namely, "There is barely a medical condition that cannot become a health issue in pregnancy") in the (now archived) discussion regarding the Category:Health issues in pregnancy. I'm a layperson, not a doctor, but am trying to research this topic and I'd really appreciate it if you could please point me to some good-quality citations that support this statement. (Since it's such a broad statement, I'm not sure how to go about searching for reliable medical citations on it.) Thanks very much! Sincerely,  TyrS  chatties  05:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, this was a point made on the basis of professional experience rather than a high-quality reliable medical source. Of course there are conditions that are unlikely to have a major impact on pregnancy and childbirth (I deal you the ingrown toenail).
Some conditions are aggravated by pregnancy, while others become a bit better (but sometimes rebound after delivery). Others cause diagnostic conundrums because the tests are perceived to cause harm to the fetus (e.g. CTPA for suspected pulmonary embolism), or because the treatment is teratogenic (e.g. doxycycline for infections) or complicates childbirth (e.g. anticoagulants). The nascent field of "obstetric medicine" (or: "maternal medicine") devotes its time predominantly to medical diseases in the pregnant woman. JFW | T@lk 09:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your answer, JFW! One more question: is "maternal-fetal medicine" the same as "maternal medicine"?
-- TyrS  chatties  10:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the MFM article, it seems to concern other things. Maternal physicians deal with things such as diabetes and thyroid disease in pregnancy... It might be a typical British thing. JFW | T@lk 22:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Atrial fibrillation

I have replaced the multiple wavelet theory, now with a reference to the ACC/AHA guideline concerning AF. In fact, the multiple wavelet theory is more widespread accepted than the rotor or trigger theories. Interestingly, those theories are not totally opposite, the pulmonary vein triggering in AF, the multiple wavelets combined with electrical, contractile and structural remodelling of the atria maintaining AF, even while the trigger is terminated. Best regards, Maxwvb (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CKD 5 possible treatments

Wikipedia was design to be a collective knowledge of society, not the outdated beliefs of one person. Editing a few pages in wikiepdia.com doesn't make you the sole content provider. The Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and the Brigham & Women's Hospital of Harvard Medical School have already done proving wnt7b kidney regeneration works. ,the challenge is on you to prove that it does not work and not the other way around if you insist on deleting the content. If you'd like to caveat my statements in the wiki entry as needing verification by the scientific community, fine, but given that the mission of Wikipedia is to collect the knowledge of all society, it should be treated accordingly. If you insist on continuing to delete the entry I will insist on no longer financially supporting Wikipedia, and I will inform the organization accordingly as to why I will no longer do so.

P.S. And, yes kidney stem cell therapy does exist in India illegally. Have you not traveled to India Mr.Jwolf? I suggest you visit these websites www.http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Kidney-institute-uses-stem-cells-to-cure-nephritis/articleshow/4562207.cms http://www.stemcellpatents.com/news-show-356 Also watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HZsIJJA0hY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchewizzard (talk • contribs)

Experimental and investigative treatments should only really be discussed if they are regarded to be holding immense promise, as supported by secondary sources by uninvolved commentators; I suggest you have a look at WP:MEDRS for sourcing standards for medical articles. Following WP:MEDMOS, this kind of content would normally be in sections called "research directions" at the bottom of articles.
Health tourism for "stem cell therapy" is amongst one of the most worrying trends I have heard of recently. If only these centres objectively quantified their successes and published them in peer-reviewed literature, a lot of the current problems would disappear. Instead, they bank on people's hopes and insecurities. I am not obliged to disclose my travel history to you. JFW | T@lk 09:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Medicine interview

The Wikipedia Signpost Would like to interview you with regards to WikiProject Medicine. If interested, could you reply on my talkpge? Thanks, Thomas888b (Say Hi) 20:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you answer the bold questions here? Thomas888b (Say Hi) 21:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's disease

Hi... How are things going? A few weeks ago you commented on the Parkinson's disease FAC. I tried to address your comments with best or worst luck. It would be great if you could give your opinion on them, make further comments and/or say if you believe that the article fullfills the FA criteria. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that most points are covered, but the images still bother me. It looks like the various shapes are not aligned, making them very difficult to understand. I will need to check whether anyone else is bothered by this. JFW | T@lk 09:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I told you at FAC I am not sure where are you saying this occurs. Moreover it is FP so if there is a mistake it would be a good idea to notify the creator. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pain

Hi. Back in August, you deleted my addition "however, in the case of tooth pain, this might simply be due to the need for nerves in the mouth to be particularly sensitive in order to detect the tiny tooth movements during chewing, etc." as being speculative, as indeed it is. However, is it really a coincidence that areas of the body which can be affected by severe pain are also areas which are sensitive to touch (eg, mouth, toes, fingers, genitals, etc)? Perhaps evolution has resulted in an increase in all sensory receptors where increased touch sensation is required, because it is not possible for the receptors to evolve independently. This might be a useful avenue of research, if it has not been considered already, as this "coincidence" seems to require some explanation.Tjandspallan (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that this is still speculation on your part? We can only include information that can be supported by reliable medical sources. It is very difficult to confirm evolution experimentally. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with admitting that a Talk page was probably a better route for my speculative conclusions than putting them directly on the site. However, it is clearly an issue worthy of some rigorous research, but I don't know whether this has ever been done. I was hoping you might know as a frequent contributor, but obviously this is not a well-researched area.Tjandspallan (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the other contributors to the article might be aware of previous studies. Do try the talkpage. I cannot advise on the feasibility of particular lines of research I fear. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Stroke

I may or may not remember to come back to the stroke article in the next week. If I forget, and it looks like things have improved on the talk page, feel free to unprotect the article at your own discretion. NW (Talk) 20:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see if Potionism/128.97 holds out that long. JFW | T@lk 21:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Industry involvement

Re [9] Has anyone approached any of the umbrella bodies or individual companies? If not, would you support the idea? There would be huge blowback from those who think our content and behaviour policies are not robust enough to keep the articles neutral. I'm not 100% certain, myself. And the cacophony from the fringe. Hopefully, the academic community will eventually come on board and keep them honest. Maybe we could also approach their peak academic bodies and invite them to take up that policeman role.

I just saw Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine). Haven't read it or its discussion yet but the title is promising. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think any attempt from Wikipedians to contact umbrella bodies would be open to misinterpretation, especially by those who believe that all healthcare professionals are big pharma shills anyway.
It will probably take one or two large-scale incidents for those in the healthcare products business to see things differently. JFW | T@lk 09:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By "misrepresentation" do you mean the reaction of just the pharmanoics or somebody else too? As for "large-scale incidents," if you're talking about tragedies, I'd prefer it was on the record that we had at least approached the professional bodies and manufacturers for their help, at a highest possible level, before the event. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I hadn't seen WLU's essay. I wasn't really referring to tragedies, but more the fact that people may refuse to take medicines because some outrageous claim on Wikipedia went unchallenged. I lack the energy to engage with the "this drug is rubbish" crowd on a regular basis. JFW | T@lk 09:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pharma is very nervous about Wikipedia. They don't want to be seen as responsible for a page's content by making input to it. On the off-label note you might be interested in this [10]. --PaulWicks (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't take much credit - Mastcell used the term, google turned up the slate article, and it's been expanded by several other editors. I'm very pleased it rates an "Ooh" though :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 04:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD that may be of interest

Hi JFW, you warned the creator of the MAGIC Foundation article in May 2007 for spamming. Therefore I thought you might be interested to know that I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAGIC Foundation. Graham87 15:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling. It seems a reasonably large organisation for a rather rare bunch of conditions. JFW | T@lk 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011



Hello, Regarding the Medicine article, I have proposed to create a category of 'neuroscience-related medical specialties' - just like how specialties have been grouped together under surgery, internal medicine or diagnostic specialties.

Having such a grouping would help, especially for those outside the medical field (main target audience of Wikipedia), to appreciate that neuroscience/nervous system is a common theme across many seemingly distinct medical specialties.

There are numerous sources to support the changes I have proposed. See, for instance, the University of Pennsylvania (one of the top 5 medical schools in US) Institute of Neurological Sciences: <http://www.med.upenn.edu/ins/cnst.html>

Quote: 'The nervous system is the only system of the body commonly represented by an undergraduate major, and many medical students come to the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine especially interested in Neurology, Psychiatry, and Neurosurgery. These, and closely allied specialties, including neuroradiology, neuropathology, ophthalmology, otorhinolaryngology, anesthesiology, and rehabilitation medicine, constitute the clinical neurosciences.'

Other than the above, 'Addiction medicine' definitely would be a neuroscience-related specialty - as addiction mechanisms are brain-based. See, for instance, <www.camh.net/Research/Areas_of_research/Neuroscience/clinical_neuroscience.html>

'Pain management' is certainly neuroscience-related as well - as pain perception is based in the central nervous system. See, for instance, University of Manchester <www.medicine.manchester.ac.uk/clinicalneurosciences/research/humanpain/>

I think it is self-evident that 'Clinical neurophysiology' is neuroscience-related.

Some other sources supporting that physiatry (i.e. rehabilitation medicine), opthalmology and anesthesiology are neuroscience-related:

Physiatry - Washington University (one of the top 5 medical schools in US) - physiatry residency program is offered through Dept of Neurology <http://neuro.wustl.edu/education/pmrresidency/>

Ophthalmology - see: University College London <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/neuroscience/Page.php?ID=11> Quote: 'At UCL, clinical neuroscience research spans the entire spectrum of neurological, ophthalmic and psychiatric disorders in both children and adults.'

Or: Karolinska Institute Dept of Clinical Neuroscience Research: <http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=36147&l=en>

Anesthesiology - with a major focus on pain control, it is certainly related to neurosciences. See, for instance, 'Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care'

Thanks. Waithought (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are creating a classification that currently does not exist in this form. Of course all the topics you mentioned are related to neuroscience (especially when it concerns research), but that does not mean that clinicians in rehabilitation medicine would regard themselves as practicing neuroscientists.
If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest you drop a message on Talk:Medicine, so other contributors interested in the article might be able to comment. JFW | T@lk 17:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the UPenn link that I provided has referred to these various specialties as 'clinical neurosciences'. And from that page, you will see that they have created a 'clinical neuroscience track' at the UPenn medical school 'to train clinical neuroscience specialists who will participate at the forefront of clinical and academic practice, and disease oriented research. The program combines curricular enrichment in the neurosciences, mentoring, special extracurricular activities and research opportunities within the four-year medical school structure.'
Clearly, at least at UPenn, the term 'clinical neuroscience' is not only referring to research endeavours, but also clinical practice and beyond.
Also, by referring these specialties as 'neuroscience-related', I did not imply that a clinician in rehab medicine should regard themselves as 'practising neuroscientists'. They certainly should not do so. All I was trying to get across is that there's a common theme across these specialties, namely the nervous system. If 'neuroscience-related' is too strong a word, one could consider 'nervous system-related' specialties - but that may be too awkward a term.
Thanks. Waithought (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I am aware of your point of view. Please don't continue the discussion here, but go to Talk:Medicine. In the meantime, you should also stop reverting to your version - please see WP:BRD. JFW | T@lk 22:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I did not simply revert to my earlier versions - I had tried to compromise by removing certain specialties (e.g. ophthalmology, anesthesiology, physiatry) that may be more disputable and have left the ones that are pretty indisputable. (This is reflected in my editing comments) Meanwhile, I have participated in the discussion in the Talk:Medicine page.Waithought (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really relevant to our actual disagreement. JFW | T@lk 08:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsive mechanical stimulation of nociceptor

Hey there—long time, no see :)

I was about to nominate this for deletion as some whopping OR when I saw you'd recently moved it. Any reason you chose not to AfD? I would have thought this was a hoax (or a misguided attempt at explaining an extraordinary case of dermatillomania) if not for the creator's long history of productive contributions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to give the author of the article some time to add references. I agree that I made no attempt to check the verifiability of the contents. Feel very free to send this to the rubbish dump. JFW | T@lk 10:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Tahash Timeline

Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to have spammed invitations to this dispute to at least half a dozen, apparently randomly selected editors. As I see that you have responded, I'm declining the opportunity to become involved, since too many cooks usually spoils the broth. I have, however, attempted to explain some basic facts on his user talk page, and hope that will help. If you decide that you need my presence at the article, then feel free to come fetch me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NNT change

I did not know how to change the table as I couldn't find it in the simple editing section. I'm not a programmer just a student who was doing some research and realized the equation was backwards. I figured it out and fixed the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo1738 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for fixing the table. I know the table markup is a bit daunting, although still a lot simpler than HTML table code. No need to worry for anyone using NNTs for clinical grading - they are used to communicate outcomes of studies between clinicians.
Hope you stay around and fix other stuff. We can always use more dedicated contributors. By coming back to fix the error you spotted you have shown more dedication than more people who edit Wikipedia! JFW | T@lk 21:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help when I can. --Neo1738 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

MEDMOS better?

I believe its much more mossy now. :-) Rcej (Robert) - talk 09:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonably well mossed now. JFW | T@lk 21:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pancreatic cancer‎ - Aternative Treatment

You commented "anecdotal treatment - please only add treatments that have a demonstrably high uptake" and deleted an entry citing PUBLISHED CASE STUDIES. Given that the prognosis for patients with pancreatic cancer is extremely poor, and that research into the ALAN approach has been promising, what justification do you have to remove information that could potentially save lives? The National Cancer Institute is interested in this work, and large scale trials are expected to occur. Shouldn’t people who have run out of other options be informed of this work, now, before they have run out of time? The cited information you removed doesn’t benefit any specific person or company, only patients who have run out of other options. I believe it belongs on Wikipedia and I am offended you took a hatchet to it without first engaging in discussion. Therefore, I have put it back. Please “talk” with me before you act in such a heavy-handed manner again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLBenjamin (talk • contribs) 18:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, and therefore we will normally only discuss treatments that are actively in widespread use (e.g. chemotherapy with gemcitabine). What we don't normally do is discuss treatments that are under investigation; this applies even to enormous trials that may potentially alter the landscape of a condition's treatments. WP:NOTCRYSTAL explains why we do things that way.
Of course any treatment for pancreatic cancer is important, but we should not confuse experimental treatment with established regimens. There's an awful lot of stuff being written about LDN, and not all of it is persuasive. With regards to alpha-lipoic acid, I am prepared to look into anything associated with Frederick Bartter (I wrote his Wikipedia article), but this simply needs more data.
There is no need to be offended. I was following the principles of WP:BRD, a well-established editorial method on Wikipedia. Please discuss the merits of your additions on Talk:Pancreatic cancer. Simply putting it back is not going to be helpful, seeing that we seem to having a disagreement over it. JFW | T@lk 18:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough (This is my first time editing Wikipedia, and I have just read the wiki-links you sent). Perhaps the TONE of the entry is to blame. Perhaps it would be better if I said something like "Currently under invetigation is...". One of the main reasons that I added the article entry is to help make more people aware of the LDN approach, so that more MDs will be referenced than just Dr. Berkson (who held the IND for ALA along with Barrter). I do realize that the fact that he is referenced on all the articles to this approach actually weakens its objective validity. But I have reviewed his data on over 70 patients and believe objectively that it is promising and would like to get the word out for others suffering as my friends have suffered. Any suggestions on how we might compromise would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLBenjamin (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDMOS, the style guide for medical articles, allows for a section called "research directions". In large articles (such as Parkinson's disease) we use this to discuss treatments that are undergoing testing and may soon reach practical use. At the same time, we tend to build these sections on secondary sources such as reviews. I am therefore struggling to find a real way of incorporating this until a bit more clinical data is "out there". JFW | T@lk 19:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jfdwolff/Archive_33&oldid=1079373279"