This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jfdwolff. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'd make a separate list with all the comments still waiting to be resolved. If you have addressed every point, ask Delldot if they're happy. JFW | T@lk18:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Image:Fluvastatin.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Fluvastatine.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Fluvastatine.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification!
Hi! Thanks for the considerate intimation regarding premature birth being selected as the MCOTW. Ironic, as it might be, I won't be able to devote any time to the article's improvement in spite of having nominated it in the first place. I do feel guilty about it, but my personal obligations wouldn't allow otherwise. Thanks and sorry.
No need to apologise to me. Hope you will soon have enough time on your hands to resume your good work on Wikipedia. We should be able to repeat the experience from ascending cholangitis! JFW | T@lk07:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Overweight is defined as a BMI of >25 and therefore includes obesity and preobesity. Therefore it is hard to completely divide these two terms as there is some overlap. Not sure how to completely resolve this.--Doc James (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I won't be able to help you unless you can explain where this needs resolving. Clearly, the classifications such as WHO reserve the term "overweight" for BMI 25-30, although I grant you that semantically Jabba the Hutt is overweight as well as obese. JFW | T@lk19:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
That the thing. The WHO guidelines defines obesity as a BMI of >25 not as a BMI of 25-30 and I think we should make sure all the pages reflect this. See page 5 of 33 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_894_(part1).pdf
The statement doesn't claim that one should, it just says it might be possible. There is currently an ongoing study. This just mentions the current state of knowledge and what is being looked into.
It however may be possible to treat low risk patients at home.[1] An ongoing study is looking into the safety of this pratice.[2]
PE home treatment is already being done, but it lacks a firm evidence base. The BestBETS page is not up to date - a further recent study was done in Reading, UK last year. The Lausanne study looks interesting. The ESC guideline mentions home treatment in passing but without referring to any trials. If we should include this at all (and I'm not sure if we should, because clinical practice is inconsistent) we might be better off citing it to the ESC guideline, which is at least authoritative. I don't think we should link to ongoing clinical trials unless absolutely necessary. JFW | T@lk07:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi JFW. I am in need of some background material for a patent on a cholesterol biosynthesis inhibitor and was wondering if you would allow me to use your material posted on Wiki. please email me camox1675@yahoo.com if you have a moment, thanks. Camox1675 (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia material is released under the GNU free documentation license. As long as you stick to the terms in that license you are free to use the Wikipedia content to your heart's content. Are you certain that Wikipedia content will be acceptable for a patent application? JFW | T@lk07:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. I have decided to submit this article to peer review in order to qualify for Featured Article status. Would you kindly click on the above link and add your comments or suggestions? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes I would agree that BestBETs are not the best sources, but I do think they are of good enough quality to belong on Wikipedia. They do reviews of simple questions that others often do not ask. They are better I would say then referencing the primary literature and they add to the many pages that have no references. Started a discussion. --Doc James (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
... with the IUPAC names. I think I went a little overboard with rewriting every single one of them -- and I will not do that again. However, I still will add the names, IUPAC or otherwise, to substances that don't have any in their box, and create/upload images also. I find it a shame that the drug box doesn't have a field for alternate names, though.
P-kun80 (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Niemann Pick Type C Edits
Hi JFW. Thanks for your input on my postings. I hope I am posting correctly back to you as this is my first time responding to someone. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and would like your help to improve my pages and what I am posting and to make it "A" Class. Why it the page "B" Class. I don't understand how to add the references so I need help here.
I am working with my children's doctors (they are identical twins with NPC) at the Mayo Clinic and the National Institutes of Health on these Wiki pages -- they do not post on Wikipedia but are providing me with information -- previously there was nothing on Wikipedia that was even remotely helpful.
NPC is a cholesterol metabolism disorder at the cellular level -- I would like to add information in the cholesterol area regarding this. Maybe another page needs to be on Wiki specifically on cholesterol metabolism but this is a critical area that needs to be built out. Cholesterol is not simply about "blood" cholesterol -- scientists are now discovering how cellular cholesterol works and my kids cells are being studies by some of the leading researchers in the world.
Brown and Goldstein (they won the Nobel Prize for discovering cholesterol in blood that has led to the billion dollar statin drug industry today) are now studying NPC and pouring lots of money into understanding it because of it's important to the human body. You can look at this recent paper -- [1] and other papers here on NPC [2]. There is even research being done on the connection of NPC1 and NPC2 and HIV/AIDS by Dr. James Hildreth (one of the leading AIDS researchers in the world). Dr. Hildreth believes that for AIDS to replicate in the human body, NPC plays the key role due to HIVs need for cholesterol.
Not only do I need to add information into a cholesterol area, I need to add information on the dementia page as this is part of this disease in a profound way. Here are other things I need to update that were provide by Dr. Marc Patterson at Mayo - he is one of the leading pediatric genetic neurologists in the world - [3].
Depression; major depression; psychotic depression
Drop attacks
I am sorry if this is not posted properly -- I am trying to learn and make my contribution to the Wikipedia site. My personal email is chris@hempelfamily.com if I have not posted my sig file below properly.
Chris | T@lk 26 October 2008
Niemann Pick Type C Page
Hi - I am wondering if you can help me -- don't know if you did all the citations for me on the Niemann Pick page but if so thank you -- the page is going from B Class to A Class. Some new research has come out on NPC -- I have posted it on my blog Addi and Cassi Blog and the article is here Nature Medicine. Basically, it says that Niemann-Pick disease type C1 is a sphingosine storage disease that causes deregulation of lysosomal calcium that results in cholesterol accumulation. This is new news because the mechanism has not been known -- they talk about myriocin correcting the phenotype. The question I have for you is I am not sure how to best incorporate some thing like this in -- where do you put it? Also, it should go on sphingosine and also myriocin pages. What do you suggest? Can you work on this with me. I really want my NPC page to be A class.
Chris | T@lk 02 November 2008
Erm...
I'm sure some admin will inform you at some point, but there's been an interesting post at WT:MED with a heck of a lot of personal information about you. I've no idea what's going on, it's just been permenantly removed by the looks of things, but it's something for you to look into. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Well done Tim - I knew what needed to be done, but you were so quick. It seems I have a lot to learn. And, JFW, all the best. Graham. Graham ColmTalk22:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009
It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I suppose there is a really simple solution to this. I reckon Alpinist (he doesn't like me using his real name) would like me to stop editing certain articles. I can think of Simon Wessely and Julia Newton. What might be useful if he used one of his numerous army-themed sockpuppets to inform me which articles he would like me to stay away from. I'm fully willing to consider such an agreement, but firstly, it would be nice if the outing stopped first, and secondly this is a one-off opportunity. JFW | T@lk18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Concerning cancer wiki page, section 4.9, why was the comment on odds' algorithm and sequential treatment removed? User:Yvswan (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2009
Because without a reference the content seemed to be original research. Please provide a good reference that supports this concept. In general, most oncologists would not be using odds algorhythms when deciding on the use of cancer treatment. They might use its implicit reasoning, but usually not in a numerical sense. JFW | T@lk23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. I've added two references. Hope it suits. User:Yvswan (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2009
A fairly new editor came by and "wikified" the obesity page. All he did was take paragraphs and separate them into single sentences. Should I just revert all of he changes? Also he started the see also section which I have worked to eliminate.
I noticed your post on his talk page. He's had several blocks for OR, including a month's block last September and an old ArbCom case banning him from articles on weights and measures (metrology). dougweller (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The latest discussion is here. As a previous participant in a AFD discussion for this article, you are encouraged to contribute to ongoing consensus of whether or not this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Ex-queeze me? :) Since when has the addition of drug interactions been discouraged? I agree it was unnecessarily lengthy and poorly formatted, but it was well-sourced and (mostly) relevant. I left David a message yesterday regarding this very "case"—perhaps we should be discussing this? I apologize for being uncharacteristically confrontational (really, I do), but I am absolutely baffled by the fact that three of our finest editors have now reverted this addition—which, at its very worst, was innocuous—without batting an eye rather than taking the time to make it comply to our standards, particularly a) on an article about such a wildly popular drug and b) in an area (interactions) in which Wikipedia drug articles are sorely lacking in information. We can afford to take our time to improve articles. Can't we?
My main concern was that the contributions were unnecessarily elaborate and lacked a reliable source. David Ruben rightly added that most of these interactions apply to multiple members of the same class of drugs.
Perhaps the whole topic of discussing drug interactions should be discussed on WT:PHARM. There is a place for the most important interactions (as indeed we have done on warfarin), but always with a good source and not in excessive detail. JFW | T@lk00:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Matthew Modine is not a doctor, but he played one in Gross Anatomy (film). I believe he is the only actor-doctor I have shot? I'm so not up on which roles actors play. Thanks for all your hard work on such a difficult topics--medical--for most people to edit. The inscription is in the description --David Shankbone17:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey JFD The page on Obesity is coming along. Have it up for GA nomination. Need some copy editing for FA status, but wondering if you think it is getting close? Maybe with one last push we could get it there?
You've done some amazing work on it. I seriously lack the time to undertake a full GA review of that page. I haven't even completed the last GA review I started. I'll keep an eye in, and can deal with specific questions... JFW | T@lk00:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Explain why you reverted my entry into the Varenicline article. I had added a recent incident, including reference, and you removed it with no explanation. I improved the readability of the article with the asterisks for each incident, and you removed that with no explanation. I have reverted your edit on the article, you had no valid reason to revert mine MrShamrock (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Just a note to say that the above user that you blocked last week, is actually highly Unlikely to be User:Guido den Broeder, per Checkuser. Just to let you know. If you'd like me to update the block log to reflect that, I'd be happy to.
Why was the checkuser initiated? This is a user who, after putting lots of maths stuff on their talkpage, suddenly went to Guido's old haunt at the CFS page. Even if this is not Guido, this is a single-purpose account with an agenda as a stated intent. I don't expect to unblock the user. JFW | T@lk00:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in reading an e-mail I received from a psychiatrist in Utah concerning your editing of Brown Sequard syndrome:
"I just took a look at the article history...what a mess! And what is
that "bored admin" change??
You know, what I am seeing reinforces my concern about the whole
system...well-informed, reliable information can be lost in the
shuffle of personality/power trips, and BS can rise to the top. Maybe
that is too simple and crass, but it makes it hard for me to trust the
wiki system. Maybe there is some other forum out there that would
better respect what you have to offer..."
I have received many similar e-mails concerning the recent deletion of the case material from Brown-Sequard. I am publishing this message on every relevant blog. A E Francis (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
If that is a threat, I'm less than impressed. For one thing, it would be useful to get the facts right. The "bored admin" charge was nothing but changing the title of the article from Brown-Sequard Syndrome (Syndrome capitalised) to Brown-Sequard syndrome. That required administrator privileges, and this was rightly performed by Stevenfruitsmaak (talk·contribs). This is in keeping with Wikipedia's naming conventions, and has nothing to do with the unrelated issue of deleting the case material.
Whoever felt it necessary to add 19 case studies to the article clearly mistakes Wikipedia for something that it is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You wouldn't expect case histories in a conventional encyclopedia, much because they don't add to the basic informational content of the article. The article should list common causes of the syndrome, and diagnostic investigations. I hope this sounds logical. See WP:MEDMOS for our guidelines on the content of medical articles.
The fact that you perceive what I have written as a threat says a lot about you. I have threatened nothing. I am only reporting to you what many other professionals are writing about your editing philosophy. That isn't a threat. But it is a statement about your philosophy. A E Francis (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from making personal attacks. When you state that you will attract attention to a discussion in blogs, that constitutes a threat. That doesn't mean that I feel threatened (which I do not), but that does not entitle you to communicate with others users in such a fashion. You have obviously put a lot of work into the content, and I can understand why you are troubled by the idea that it may be removed, but please respect the opinion of other editors. JFW | T@lk20:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I am threatening nothing. Writing about Wiki on other blogs hardly constitutes a "threat" in any way. I am only pointing out your editing decisions on relevant blogs. If you are comfortable with your editing decisions, this should not trouble you. But I think it is fair to give some of the feedback I am getting. I fail to see how commenting on an anonymous group of editors, hiding behind pseudonyms can be considered a "personal attack". A E Francis (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. Rather than questioning my motives and sharing random comments from unnamed Utah psychiatrists, a how about you address my actual concerns? As I tried to explain, you wouldn't find case histories in a normal encyclopedia. Do you accept that premise? JFW | T@lk21:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I am at a loss for how to improve the article as it stands. Recently my edits have mainly been focusing on minor copyediting, and at this point I feel as though it's time to jump the cliff and hope for the best. I was advised by my teacher (JimmyButler to wait until my diagram images have passed OTRS verification. At that point, would you support a move for FA? Kind regards, FoodPuma21:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Surname spelling for surname category sort keys, relating to Victor McKusick
For a surname which begins with Mc or Mac, the category sort key should always be typed as Mac with the remainder of the name in lowercase — for example, Macdonald, Maccluskey or Macmorris — regardless of how the surname is actually spelled. Remember that the sort key only affects where an article is listed in alphabetical order — it does not alter the appearance of the title.
I have great respect for your greater experience with WP compared to mine, so I'm guessing that either I shouldn't be following this guideline or I'm misunderstanding it. Could you clarify? --Scray (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
In my experience many hospitals use a triflo meter to test the lung function, like this one: [[5]], even though i think it was developed for training rather than measuring breathing function. I've asked nurses many times to report to me how many balls a patient can move breathing in and how many breathing out. Do you agree that it measures peak capacity, rather than vital capacity? And that that is indeed a fine measure of breathing muscle function? Are the neurologists that taught me to do this wrong? Or can the triflo indeed be used as a measure in MG patients? Pizzaman79 (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with the Triflo, but I suspect it will give a PEFR (peak expiratory flow rate) rather than a FVC (forced vital capacity). I can't currently access doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcn152 , but it seems that PEFR is more a measure of bronchoconstriction, while FVC is a better measure of ventilation. JFW | T@lk00:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The editing per your comments at Talk:History of malaria has been completed. Since you wanted to know when that was complete, I'm following up on my previous note to that effect. Given your role as primary reviewer in that nomination, I figured you would be the most appropriate person to formally close it. Cheers, Emw2012 (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me. I think I missed your previous message. I will review the article again, hopefully tomorrow. JFW | T@lk22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
A sedentary lifestyle plays a significant role in obesity.[3] Worldwide there has been a large shift towards less physically demanding work.[4][5][6] This has been accompanied by increasing use of mechanized transportation, a greater prevalence of labor saving technology in the home, and less active recreational pursuits.[4][5][6]"
Narayanese who is doing the GA review however doesn't like it a removes it saying that the WHO doesn't provide references for their opinion. I have added evidence supporting at the page exercise trends.
Does it really matter if the WHO supports its views with references? This is fairly uncontroversial stuff, and you are citing other evidence that is verifiable. JFW | T@lk22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that their is this fringe group mostly out of the US that believe it is okay to be obese. Unfortunately they have good advertising and a strong lobby group. I think they are similar to the global warming deniers. Will leave a message at the GA review.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
We are already covering this activism elsewhere in the article, and they are in the distinct minority. WP:WEIGHT (no pun intended, truly) comes into play here. JFW | T@lk00:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Rashash
Hello sir, you do not know me, and I admit that disambiguation pages are "small potatoes," but. . . I wonder if you might have a look at the Rashash disambiguation page when you have a moment, specifically at its history of reversions. Cheers. חנינא (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, i see you are a very active user, and for that i ask you for help to support me in starting the task force as the cardiology articles needs allot of working, and many articles are missing, please if you are interested to support me or help, do that on the proposal pageMaen. K. A. (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I am just frustrated, as it is not an engaging discussion. He was told not to delete that section by an admin, instead he cuts and paste it where it doesn't belong. I wish an admin will actually read his "edits" and see it as vandalism.--Northerncedar (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see your point. The discussion isn't about Mohs surgery vs. simple excision. It has to do with the methodology to determine "negative margin". Mohs surgery is only one of the many methods of margin determination. But the whole section was deleted and dumped on the Mohs surgery discussion. Simple excision is fine, as long as the pathologist do serial thin sectioning, or margin controlled sectioning. In the US, there is clinical guideline that described the discussion content very well. I can forward it to you, but it is in the reference for both the discussion and Mohs surgery.--Northerncedar (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think I said on your talkpage that I was not going to get involved in a content dispute, but that you should not be labelling your opponents as engaging in "vandalism". Seek out his motives and try to come to consensus. Bye. JFW | T@lk00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
JFW, I was wondering if you could carry out full protection on this article for a week or so, so we can try and get these two locked into discussion rather than edit warring? Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I have protected the BCC page. There is currently no edit war on the Mohs page, so I will leave that one alone for the time being. If the edit war spreads there we can always protect it. JFW | T@lk21:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice work
The Original Barnstar
For thoughtful contributions over a wide range of wiki-work, and especially for writing, editing and reviewing articles, I award Jfdwolff this Barnstar.--ragesoss (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I've decided that letting people know their work is appreciated is quite a bit more important than we often realize, so I've been trying to give out at least one barnstar every day, with the condition that I only give them out in cases where they are really deserved. We'll see how how I can keep that up. Cheers.--ragesoss (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You have repeatedly removed an external link on the Achalasia page to the Achalasia mailing list at Yahoo Groups, which is an active and useful resource, especially for patients. Its website includes both patient-created content and links to scholarly articles. I don't think any other contributor has removed this link but you. I have not found any Wikipedia guideline about including external links to mailing lists. Are you aware of one? Sssuuuzzzaaannn (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe I explained this to you before, hence the lack of explanation. Have you any further plans with the achalasia article? JFW | T@lk08:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Meningitis
It it taking me a while to read the article (thoroughly, as a don't support a FAC lightly). I made those notes as I read (thought they were too detailed and minor for FAC). Once I reach then end, I'll register my opinion. Looks very good so far, and highly readable. Colin°Talk16:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Table for causes
The table would provide an overview into the Causes section and help commion readers relate to the rest of the article quickly.I believe a table speaks more clearly than lot of text. It could be expanded to include bacteria in age groups . The source is by a practitioner which from my basic sense of good sources is credible if guidelines are meant to make the article good and encourage good content and am sorry if it states otherwise. It is alright you removed the table except for the thought i could have put the time to better use.But i understand done is done and it is for good. DOCtraind (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I just saw the contributions. It is overwhelming. Keep the good work going. Thankws for making wikipedia a better place!DOCtraind (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Sir, thank you for the info.Does it mean only the 'american' websites that are referred in WP:MEDRS can be used for references? It would be helpful if you could tell me where in WP:MEDRS it is stated that other websites should not be referred to, so that i can be more careful editing wikipedia? -thank you DOCtraind (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Brown Sequard syndrome
I see you are intent on deleting my work on Brown-Sequard syndrome. Do you realize you are the laughing stock of the world by doing this? Please leave my work alone either as part of the article or in a separate one. A E Francis (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been tinkering with the live donor section; there's still more to do, for instance organ trade is legal in some countries. Please take a look, I hope you like it.:) StickyParkin13:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. I did some minor editing. A couple of things...
(1) About changes in the article:
In "Signs and symptoms," Spiess mentions all of the listed symptoms except coughing. However, Patient.co.uk (Achalasia patient information), which is an external link in the Achalasia article, does mention nocturnal coughing and also notes the frequency of some of the symptoms. I'm not sure how to credit both of these sources properly in footnotes (and indicate which facts come from which source), but if you would like to do that, I would be grateful.
Spiess does not mention computed tomography or CT scan, and that is not commonly used in the diagnostic process, unlike endoscopy. So I deleted the mention of CT scan.
Food debris is noticed in endoscopy, not a barium swallow, so I moved that.
(2) I have found some references for the "Alternative medicine" section, which is currently marked as needing references, but I'm not at all confident about how to cite them.
A reference about emotional stress:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=403008&blobtype=pdf "Achalasia of the Cardia (Cardiospasm)"
"Intercurrent infection, nervous strain, and emotional upset may bring on an attack, and concomitant with release from the psychic disturbance the attack may terminate spontaneously,
with complete relief of symptoms for a long interval."
I couldn't find any references in English for traditional Chinese medicine, only in Chinese.
Not trying to be picky, but the medical emergency article you have cited in the article is regarding bacterial causes. Viral cases need evaluation to exclude danger but many are routinely discharged without any intervention being needed. If you want to keep it as "medical emergency" it can be easily solved by changing it to "Bacterial meningitis is potentially life threatening due to the inflammation's proximity to the brain and spinal cord; therefore it can be a medical emergency." [emphasis added]--MartinezMD (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I have submitted the term "Injection Fraction" to the US Library of Congress as a reasonable inversion of "Ejection Fraction", decision forthcoming. If accepted may I then speak more freely upon this volumetric estimation of Diastole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I know you did not do it alone, but your leadership (as always) was key to success. It's truly an outstanding article and worthy of the notice it will receive. Well done!! --Scray (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice work indeed. I read the article after it got promoted; no time to do it before, and you had no shortage of expert reviewers. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you chaps. Hopefully I'll have a bit more time for major article work soon. Any requests? Professionally I'm focusing on acute neurology and gastroenterology, so please let me know if there are any topics from that area that you feel deserve my attention. JFW | T@lk09:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hepatitis B virus and Hepatitis C virus are in need of work, but they have pretty good images and (from my noob perspective) I think they could get to FA without too much effort. They are very important topics in terms of numbers of infections and deaths worldwide. Not sure if that's the part of gastroenterology you're interested in, though. Hepatitis C is likely to become a truly hot topic in the next 6-12 months when new small-molecule treatments are likely to become available. --Scray (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
For some reason I've never been too interested in hepatitis, possibly because it is (thankfully) quite rare in the UK. There are some excellent guidelines on hepatitis C so it shouldn't be too hard to bring this up to date. Let me know if you're planning major work. JFW | T@lk14:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed your speed and determination to keep articles from being vandalised and looking at your contribs you seem to revert several vandal edits every day so thought that you had more than earned a barstar award.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?06:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! For some reason certain medical articles are not very well patrolled. I try to do my bit by looking after a couple of them. JFW | T@lk21:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Once again I am hesitant to disturb you, but the Rashash disambig page remains caught in a revert-revert cycle. Please do have another look when convenient.חנינא (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Nbauman is now edit warring on WP:MEDRS based on a logical misunderstanding of a cited opinion piece. It is time this trolling stopped. Colin°Talk21:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
A penny for your thoughts?
In my own rather limited contributions to Wikipedia medical articles, I’ve seen your name and edits come up again and again. I’m impressed with your dedication and work.
I’m very interested in the broader implications of Wikipedia’s medical articles and how the general population does and should use them. I’ve had the somewhat uncomfortable realization, from time to time, that the most accessible source of information about a patient’s rare disease is on Wikipedia. Without the time to proof-read and fact-check every detail, I feel somewhat squeamish referring them here. I suspect that you may have had similar qualms. Despite Wikipedia’s stated policy that Wikipedia is no substitute for a real doctor, I recognize that many people get medical information and general advice here.
I’m working on an essay on this topic that I hope to publish in a medical journal, although I have no guarantee that I will be successful in this endeavor. As somebody who has clearly dedicated substantial time, thought and effort to making medical Wikipedia articles better, I wonder if you would be willing to answer some interview questions to be used in the essay. My goal is not to invade privacy, laud or degrade, but simply to gain a better understanding of what motivates some prominent Wikipedians with an interest in medical articles. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the questions below. Any suggestions of other editors who may be interested in sharing their thoughts would also be welcome.
Thank you!
Wawot1@yahoo.com
What prompted you to begin your involvement contributing to Wikipedia?
What motivates you to continue contributing?
What role should medical Wikipedia articles fill for the lay public?
What role do medical Wikipedia articles fill for the lay public, do you think?
Are Wikipedia medical articles dangerous? (For instance, when editors introduce inaccurate medical information, whether intentional or not.)
What responsibility, if any, should Wikipedia have to protect its readers from inaccurate information?
Will your role as a Wikipedia editor ever be finished? If so, what goals will you have achieved?
Over on Talk:Pain I mentioned that, with the exception of the BMC journals and a few other open-access journals, peer review seems like a black box. Saw an interesting article related to this the other day: Eye-opening access. II | (t - c) 04:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm well aware of your opinions with regards to the scientific publishing process. I can think of various reasons why peer reviewers should be named, and I can also think of various reasons why they should remain anonymous. Clearly, the anonymous process risks personal biases and deliberate ostracism, while the open process risks publishing unpublishable cruft and vendettas against peer reviewers. Like in any human endeavour, in the scientific process personalities often matter much more than we wish them to. (Naturally, this observation stretches, mutatis mutandis, to Wikipedia as well.) JFW | T@lk19:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Although I don't think I've stated my opinions on peer review prior to the other day at talk:pain, I can't blame you for making an educated guess. There are separate issues; one is blinding peer review before publishing, the other is seeing the reviewer's names and comments after the publishing. The two are not mutually exclusive, and there's a lot of pros and cons, certainly. I'd rather have an open process, but a possible compromise is to keep the blinding during review and reveal the information afterwards -- if not the names, then at least the comments. Reviewers could still face vendettas, but they should be held accountable for the reviews they do. I don't think anyone would blame a reviewer for not picking up research mistakes (like the one in the article above). II | (t - c) 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Odd association I've discovered -
I recently looked at a group of Parkinson's patients, about 500, who were diagnosed in 2003. I looked at their serum lipids before diagnosis (following up on the Hawaiian story) and found that while LDL was the same as an age and sex matched comparison group, trigs were significantly elevated starting 10 years prior to diagnosis. As soon as they were diagnosed, of course, trigs dropped because their docs immediately put them on statins. I've been doing some searching on pubmed and google scholar, and can't find anything about an association between either Parkinsons or dopamine and trigs. There may be something about slowly falling dopamine that raises trigs, or maybe whatever zaps the striatum nigra also raises the trigs; I just don't know - do you have any thoughts on the matter? --Dan (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Good to have you around, Prof Dan. Could it possibly have to do with appetite regulation? Just a hunch. Wondering whether such an observation could be properly blinded so you could demonstrate whether adequate control of PD also influences trigs.
Yeah, that article is good, but limited to the Japanese men's cohort in Hawaii - it's what got me looking at this association in the first place. I found LDL to not be different from controls. That bunch in Hawaii, especially Web Ross, know what they're doing. --Dan (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is just observational longitudinal data, so it's a ways from blinding and such. My first thought was that early unrecognized PD symptoms were causing lack of exercise, hence the lousy lipid profile, but that should affect HDL & not trigs, which are more dietary. So, I'm stuck. But let's keep batting this around - enough knowledgeable people hang out here that maybe we can come up with a testable hypothesis. --Dan (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi JD. I don't like to edit medical articles much and I wondered if you had a moment (well, I know you don't really, but hey) to have a quick look at Polypill and Polycap which over the last day or two seem to have become a little stronger on Polycap than I would think was strictly neutral. I may just be overreacting because I am allergic to the editor's use of bolding all the time though. I'd be pleased to read what you think about this, even if it's just that I am talking nonsense and it's fine. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi JD. I have done what I can with templates and the COI noticeboard but I am essentially clueless in these matters, so I'm backing off and hoping someone else will take a look. Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello again and thank you very much for the message. I'm glad you think what I did was roughly OK; and I'm relieved that others are now looking at it. I am really quite keen, having squeaked about the existence of a possible problem, to now leave it to other, wiser editors to sort out. This is not only because of my own lack of confidence/competence/whatever, but also because I work somewhere not a million miles away from related issues, and I want to be absolutely clear that I'm staying well out of any possible COI of my own. I am much safer editing articles about choo choo trains in Yorkshire or piccolo trumpets or Stefan Zweig than I am straying into polypillism or folic acid or whatever. And yes, we have interacted previously but I had a different username then: I sort-of love Wikipedia but sort-of hate it too, and have walked away from it once or twice intending not to return. Hmmm. When I started editing here, about 6.5 years ago, it all seemed a little simpler! :) Anyway, thanks again and best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
...And almost immediately onto the front page, I second that, seems that you are going to run out of bubbly at this rate :) L∴V00:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Malnutrition articles need help!
Congrats, by the way, on Meningitis.
I've started updating the kwashiorkor article; it will be an ongoing project, as there is plenty to do. Marasmus is also in need of some TLC. Just thought you might like to know, if you're in search of a new project.
Cheers --Wawot1 (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Should be named Spontaneous abortion, surely? As a medical article, surely it should be titled by its medical name, with miscarriage the redirect? I would appreciate your opinion - thanks. KillerChihuahua?!?22:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. A lay term will do provided it is sufficiently precise. However, if the term "miscarriage" had any incorrect/vague meanings attached to it, I would support the more precise term. If you plan to list this under WP:RM, could you post a message on WT:MED outlining your proposal? JFW | T@lk20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Notable dermatologists
There are multiple dermatologist articles that I think lack notability, and so I wanted to know if perhaps you would help me review Category:Dermatologists and weed through which are notable and which are not? Also, in the process, I would like to create a list of notable dermatologists (I am not sure what the page should be titled?). Additionally, I think a general category "dermatologists" is needed, but not necessarily subcats based on nationality... what do you think? Regardless, thanks again for your work on wikipedia. kilbad (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the accolade. I think a nationality category would be useful only if it was going to contain more than, say, 5-10 entries. Given that we will certainly have more than that number of American and German dermatologists, I suspect a nationality system will be sustainable.
WP:MED doesn't currently offer guidelines for notability of individual doctors, but I think this is a fairly intuitive thing. For a doctor to be notable, they need to have made a major (probably international) impact in their field, ideally more than one or two discoveries, or played a major influence in some war or another. Setting up a service, improving on existing procedures, writing case reports etc are not necessarily notable.
I'm not sure if I'm enough of an "insider" to judge notability of dermatologists, but I'll happily help you decide with difficult/gray cases. JFW | T@lk20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Confused about PNAS deletion
I am confused about your deletion of my PNAS addition particularly your use of WP:MEDRS. If my reading of the paper was wrong I could understand. But PNAS -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA is one of three top journals in science (after Nature and Science). From Wikipedia PNAS "PNAS is the second most cited scientific journal". Anything published here can be taken as reliable as well as important. --LittleHow (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I just happened to notice this, while I was writing a note to Jfdwolff. I don't know the merits of the particular article you refer to, but "PNAS is the second most cited scientific journal" mainly because it is published so damn often, and covers everything under the sun, the moon, and the stars. Its editorial process allows NAS members to supervise the peer review process for their own articles, and to nominate others for such treatment. Sometimes, publication by PNAS reflects past glory rather than present merit. Thus, there are some poorly reviewed articles in PNAS.Metzenberg (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is basically a synonym for endarterectomy. I can't imagine an additional article to be useful. JFW | T@lk22:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Requesting your review
You and I seem to have some of the same interests (medical genetics and Judaism). I have worked for a long time on Tay-Sachs disease and I am interested in getting it to be a featured article. I don't really pay much attention to how wikipedia works. I just like to write and edit, so I am not sure how to nominate it for featured article. Would you like to take a look at TSD and see if you feel it's ready for nomination? Metzenberg (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yee Ha! .... and now Garrondo is starting to talk about FA. Thanks for your patience and faith holding the MCOTW open - not to mention your escellent review and edits which put it in a good state of readiness! Now the MCOTW has a good article achievement to add to it's list :) Ok we may have stretched the collaboration a bit this time, but I think it's worth considering the idea that if a future collaboration deems an article to be a GA or FA possibility, we come back to it or stick around during the process to give editors a hand ( if they wish ). As for the standard length of time on an article I feel a week might be too short, two weeks is works for me, and a number of collabs use a month, but need some balance to maintain momentum ( which I appreciate might be a bit skewed at the moment but hopefully we have achieved a slingshot effect). Once again thanks - we're going to need a bigger drinks cabinet at this rate ;) L∴V11:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Medicine Collaboration of the Week
Due to the huge public interest in this topic at the moment, would it be possible for you to make an "executive decision" and swap this for swine influenza? We are getting about 300,000 readers a day in this article and it is not very well-written or complete. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't need, want or care about a response from you for removing my book link post on the Wiki Celiac Disease page. But, as a rhetorical question to you: Did you remove my post because of your personal dislike for the particular author of the G-Free Diet book? That position makes your "opinion" that the book isn't helpful/appropriate on the Celiac page is highly debateable, at least - even given your claim that you are a doctor. I think this book link is absolutely appropriate and helpful for those who are looking for solutions to the constant grind of Celiac Disease. Canihaveacookie, May 11, 2009
I have absolutely no personal bias against any person in the gluten free community. I removed the link because this is not the way books should be referenced on Wikipedia. If you think the book is important enough to be referenced, please open a discussion on the coeliac disease talkpage. JFW | T@lk20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. Things have not remained quiet at the Rashash disambiguation. Particularly vexing was the anonymous revert of 15:28, 3 May 2009, for which the edit summary purported to argue in favor of wording different from the actual substance of that edit. What do you make of all this? חנינא (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
What about all the vexing reverts of User:Hanina? Did this editor ever consider any of the anonymous suggestions? Ostensibly not. By the way, this anonymous revert of 15:28, 3 May 2009 was later explained in the edit summaries. Dishonesty will not pay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.37.153 (talk)
Get used to the fact that you might be editing against policy. Hanina is appropriately reverting to a version that meets the guidelines for disambiguation pages. I resent your allegations of dishonesty.
If you have suggestions, try to discuss them in a straightforward and non-personal manner on the talk page rather than shouting in edit summaries. JFW | T@lk09:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The vexing editor started this particular usage of edit summaries. Just reading those summaries would prove the point of dishonesty. 59.92.69.95 (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
JFD we are currently having alot of trouble on the ADHD pages. It is currently at ANI. It revolves around a user who does not use references. As this is a medical page would appreciate it if you could provide the opinion of an administrators who has knowledge about medical matters. [6] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I have not really monitored the conflict, but I know for sure that I won't promote it to MCOTW for the forseeable future. JFW | T@lk01:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help categorizing MALT lymphoma. I apologize for including it in the lymphoid-related cat. I just recently finished trying to organize lymphoid-related skin conditions, and found it to be a particularly challenging section in terms of naming and organization. Hopefully my futher attempts to categorize articles will continue improve the overall organization of dermatology-related content. Thanks again for your help, and I apologize if I stepped on any toes. ---kilbad (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment
I wrote this on my own user page, but my sister took over my account and made those edits from awhile ago but didn't tell me; glad you and the other users were able to clean up the mess! Sorry! Mikntosh (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Jeff, this is your favorite person from Myelomaforums.com can you please tell me how I can participate in the discussion about allowing my link? Just trying to help sick people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.70.12 (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
My name is not Jeff.
The page is not actually protected. The protection expired on 26 May. Still, you will need to get other participants to offer their views on insertion of your link. You could consider an "unofficial" request for comments on WT:MED, or an official RFC on WP:RFC.
I grant you that the aim of your website is to help people with myeloma and their carers. Despite these noble aims, which I warmly endorse, this is not a guarantee that you could get a link to your site on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk22:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in this topic. I note your interest in statin therapies and the huge amount you have published on this matter and whilst my work acknowledges the cardiovascular importance of this medication we must look at the detail of its action within the mevalonate metabolic pathway along with squalene epoxidase inhibitors. Some very powerful medical opportunities for such drugs are being overlooked because their role in cardiology is dominant. E.g if the immunomodulatory use of statins might benefit mankind in a flu epidemic (cytokine storm) etc. We do need to assemble a table of mevalonate implication from all inhibitors operating in this area. Caution over dose and selection for statin therapy might benefit pharmaceutical reputation which is looking very unbalanced at the moment? Do we find any common grounds here?
Thanks for looking at this.Glynwiki (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The whole concept of "mevalonate inhibition" is based on original research. Studies that show the benefits of statins in non-CVD settings (e.g. sepsis in renal failure patients) should be discussed on the statin page because there is no direct evidence that this effect is even achieved as a result of mevalonate inhibition. JFW | T@lk20:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks re: context and contributor bias guidance
Thanks for your guidance on this matter, and I am considering an improved context and style of contribution if that becomes a wider consensus. I do acknowledge the undoubted success of statins in addressing cardiovascular issues. I took simvastatin and experienced its non-cardiological effects in a preventative context - based on a blood plasma cholesterol test in 2004. Being very aware that personal experience can create bias, I set about reading up on the subject (largely via PUBMED). I first studied the mevalonate metabolic pathway in my undergraduate biochemistry course in 1969, and that knowledge did save me in the 2004 incident. I do see the broader and complex context of my personal experience of simvastatin.
Cholesterol Lowering Therapies and Cell Membranes
Realising that the lipid raft hypothesis had by 1997 created a huge paradigm shift in the functional understanding of cholesterol and the work of FW Pfriger was fleshing out some interesting perspectives on the memory issues, I have been reading avidly to undrstand the bigger picture. I do not want to bring the consequences of the biosciences paradigm shift into conflict with the cardiovascular debate, but the cardiovascular success is in danger of overshooting and destroying the benefits by excluding the implications of lipid raft developments. Last year I decided I was ready and to write a biochemical review paper on the matter. That paper in now in press for publication this summer. My medical co-authors assisted its redraft to address the clinical perspective. Our paper "Cholesterol Lowering Therapies and Cell Membranes" acknowledges cardiovascular success but also reviews non-cardiovascular clinical issues of the broadening criteria and lengthening usage of cholesterol reduction therapy. It concludes by making a case for more research into long term effects of statins. Quality and Disability adjusted life years are important measures in the assessment of medical outcomes. A hard lesson for me has been the encounters with a very biased and vociferous attacks on the implications of the lipid raft research - but paradigm shifts have never been easy. I have been assured that although your opinions on this matter may not align well with mine we do share a common interest in presenting a balanced and factual review of current knowledge on the hard won benefits and longer term risk profile of these powerful medicine. Cholesterol Depletion refers.
I hope we can agree a mutually beneficial way to resolve this issue between us and.... Thanks - I do value your time and guidance. Glynwiki (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The most impressive criticism of the page has come from the guy who thinks it is too complicated and I agree.
Perhaps we can agree to take it down and I will develop it in my user area and invite you back to see a better version.
I'm a little embarrased by its complexity - could I leave an under development note and redirection to a user version.
That way people can help prepare it and the current battle is avoided?
Glynwiki (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Hi JFW, I sympathise with you with your problems with these editors who just seem to want to disrupt wikipedia. I have an editor now at the moment on the benzodiazepine featured article review and on benzo talk page who is intentionally distorting what I said, distorting what refs say, denouncing the article with untruths to make it fail and I am on the verge of asking the featured article nomination to be withdrawn? What can I do? I am very stressed out with these editors (after dealing with mwalla and someone you know scuro) and now Sceptical Chymist. I am not asking you to get involved as your hands are already full but I am asking for guidance as you are an admin but this is pretty urgent because FA reviews usually take only a week or two. Should I go to admin noticeboard, I took problems with scuro there and they denounced it as just a "content dispute" when it wasn't, it is now in arbcom though. So I do not have much faith in the admin noticeboard.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?00:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is similar to scuro, no one can really understand that a person is trolling if they are misrepresenting refs on talk pages unless they read the refs. They look like someone who just has a "POV" when they are really being disruptive and personal.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?00:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Just would like to clarify that I did post to FV but then remembered that FV had drastically reduced wiki editing of late (I think due to exams) and realised that they might not be back on for a while. My post to Raul was only to request that he close the FA nomination, not to intervene as Raul is the senior reviewer. I only posted to Jdf because I figured FV might not log on for a while. I just wanted to clarify that I was not spamming admins, I just wanted urgent intervention. I am currently trying to resolve the dispute on Sceptical Chymist talk page unsuccessfully although the editing environment seems to be calmer. Thank you. Sorry for any trouble.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?21:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank You
JFD (and other readers), allow me apologize for any misgivings, errors, misdeeds, or other problems associated with this post. I'm not certain this is an appropriate use of a post here. I just created an account to specifically post a note here. My mother is an incredible 62 year old mom, wife, and grandmother, who suffers from Primary Biliary Cirrhosis. She was diagnosed approximately 8 years ago. She is currently awaiting a transplant and she is increasingly experiencing episodes of hepatic encephalopathy. We have been waiting for months with her being moved around from #1 on the transplant list to currently #6 (an issue I fail to understand and won't get into here). I would characterize her encephalopathy as Grade 3 (hypersomnolence and semi-stupor) lasting for 12 to 24 hours at a time. I write this post to advise you the information you included on the discussion section of the "Hepatic Encephalopathy" page was very informative and much appreciated. Many thanks also for the comment on the human side of things regarding compassion for those suffering from liver disease resulting from autoimmune disorder (I can't recall the word you used to describe that). In any event, the PBC, encephalopathy, limited treatment options (the lactulose is of limited value and she seems to be wasting away) and worry of waiting for the transplant has been difficult. Many thanks again for your shared experiences and observations - they were therapeutic, as is writing this post I suppose. Leep1234 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind message, and sympathies with your poor mother's situation. I'm sure you picked my talkpage because I left some comments on Talk:Hepatic encephalopathy, but the article was the combined effort of a large number of people, some anonymous. We strive to keep Wikipedia health articles factually correct, neutral and reliable, and I'm glad to hear you found the content useful.
I used the term "cryptogenic", although in retrospect this is not actually the right word for it. Any disease is "cryptogenic" (of unestablished cause) until the cause is found; what was previously cryptogenic cirrhosis is now often attributed to metal overload, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and so on. Only a very small proportion of cirrhosis is truly "cryptogenic".
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dr. Wolff!
Might you make an exception for ASCO abstracts? They are peer reviewed and generally considered quite authoritative by oncologists and cancer researchers. The special issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology with the abstracts is widely circulated and can be found in most medical libraries, as well as online.
Suggest you take it to the talk page. The concept in itself (diabetes influencing prognosis) is important, but I think better sources are still needed. JFW | T@lk01:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Blog
Hi,
I started a new Dutch-language blog about evidence based medicine. It's aimed at GP's. I'd be very interested in your feedback.
Very nice! Will keep an eye on developments. Let me know if you need me to write up specific items. Can't really promise to be a regular contributor... JFW | T@lk19:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I wasn't sure whether to delete that marginally interesting Phase II study completeley, but if you think so, that's fine with me. Nbauman (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It might be relevant on curcumin as an illustration of current attempts to find clinical uses for that substance, but I think we have too little evidence that this will ever enter the mainstream treatment for pancreatic cancer.
The article still needs a push, but sadly I have not really found myself willing to take it on. JFW | T@lk02:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated ASTEROID trial, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASTEROID trial. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
I have reviewed Blood type for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry that I closed this as "keep" but unfortunately, you were the only one arguing for deletion. Looks like this one is heading for a "keep" too but it has a few more days. It's not too often that editors AFD articles they create.
Could you please pay some attention to the lack of participation of the vexing editor in the discussion page on Rashash ...? The vexing editor was very prompt to denounce legitimate changes in the disambiguation page... but when it becomes constructive, where are the proponents of the official consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.111.130 (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hanina and myself are in agreement that disambiguation is necessary here, because there is no evidence that the Sar Shalom is more prominent than Shtrashun. Could you perhaps take your campaign elsewhere? JFW | T@lk19:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to consult you about the revert you did for Parkinson's disease disease article, If you dont mind, I ll revert that back, and remove unnecessary citations, as many of those are really good quality articles, and I wanted to ask you, can we add a furtherer readings section, and still adhere to the good article criteria??, because there are many free full text researches and reviews are available. thank you for your time MaenK.A.Talk11:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, I think after all i ll revert all the edits I made to the article and start all over MaenK.A.Talk23:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I now understand and respect your wishes about having the Diabetes template appear as the second template. Here is my concern. When I first researched "diabetes" in Wikipedia, I was redirected to the DM article. The logo and the DSM's or whatever were of no concern or interest. So far as I knew at the time, this was the only article on DM. It contained topics I expected and was interested in, such as type 1, type 2, etc. Searching further, the many other associated articles began to surface. Frustration! That's when I created the "see also's" in an attempt to cross-reference the articles. That's when I 'met' you. Sorry it was under those circumstances.
Many readers will have their monitor resolution ramped up to larger type due to their vision challenges. Only in very high resolution does the {{Diabetes}} template even begin to stand out (in my opinion). This is too important a topic for us not to do everything reasonable and legal to assist the user in knowing what other relevant articles are on Wikipedia.
Pending action on your excellent suggestion, please allow the "seealso" to be reinstated if the Infobox must remain first. Another alternative would be to place the {{Diabetes}} template on the left approx. opposite where it now resides. Afaprof01 (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The "main" diabetes article is very well supported with links to subarticles, and the infobox contains whatever is needed to navigate the article series. I will not support the "see also" collection because it is in direct contravention to the hatnote policy. JFW | T@lk04:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm getting quite tired of your repeated attempts to place the {{Diabetes}} template at the top in the diabetes mellitus article. This is presently being discussed on the talkpage, and so far the only other respondent (apart from me) feels that the {{diabetes}} template should not be at the top. You are free to await other responses or take the issue to requests for comment, but please stop wasting others' time by repeatedly introducing the same change. JFW | T@lk 8:47 am, Today (UTC−5) [transferred from AFAProf01 Talk page]
Similarly, I am wearied and saddened by your 100% nonnegotible positions on our differences. I have attempted to see your point--when you shared some rationale--and to develop a workaround. You, on the other hand, have avoided any effort at being conciliatory or even to acknowledge my concerns. Your concerns give the impression that there is one and only one way to do things--your way. You have shown no attempt to be reasonable, but you make it abundantly clear that you want it your way.
I intend to remain cooperative and negotiable. But I do not intend to cave in to your rigid and at times rude demands. Our purposes seem quite different. You want form over substance:
no alternative suggested for the "head notes" which would solve all of my substantial concerns;
you insist on blue circle info box's location for some standard positioning (form over substance);
you change the left alignment on "Diabetes" template so that it cannot appear opposite your blue circle info box, complaining that it somehow "belongs" on the right side ????? Incidentally, the Colorado article has been cited as a good example of having relevant info at both sides of the top.
There is no standard size for the blue circle logo. It could be proportionately reduced in size, along with the obtuse rectangular box.
I believe the greater good here is served with substance over form. You write nothing to address my concerns with the patient, with the visually impaired, with those scared to death that they or a loved on has a fatal disease. The info box is "form," with very little substance even for the physician. It takes up a lot of room. Its Ee10.htm+ e10 10 is a dead link. Having that at your favorite spot will not contribute to the healing or management or anxiety of even one patient or loved one. But I assure you,
knowing that there are many more related articles,
knowing how to find them, and
being able to keep to an 800x600 or smaller resolution to compensate for lost vision and still see the "big picture" of the article ARE matters showing care about and sensitivity to the victims of this dread disease.
Please be redemptive in making suggestions toward achieving both your and my objectives I will greatly appreciate a modicum of cooperation from you. I wish to be cooperative. I also wish you would show an ameliatory bedside manner. Meanwhile, I am not relinquishing my patient advocacy position. Respectfully, Afaprof01 (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
If you belive this is worth your time, perhaps you could turn the attention of a few other people, besides the few people there already there, that you think would not mind having a look/say. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Linezolid
I've explained some of the more jargon-heavy stuff, such as Gram-positive, post-antibiotic effect, high bioavailability etc. If you have any further suggestions, they'd be greatly appreciated, after working on this article for eleven months, it's safe to say my strategic distance is completely shot :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for asking my opinion. I think the article is of good quality and well sourced to reliable sources. I have no comments currently. JFW | T@lk12:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Cluster Headaches
Hello,
I'm not sure why you felt the links to articles and information, provided by the City of London Migraine Clinic, that I added to the Cluster Headaches were inappropriate. It is a registered charity providing an invaluable service. The Clinic and I have nothing to gain from passing this information on so it can be of used by those that would benefit from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssim24 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you please pay some attention to the lack of participation of the vexing editor in the discussion page on Rashash ...? The vexing editor was very prompt to denounce legitimate changes in the disambiguation page... but when it becomes constructive, where are the proponents of the official consensus? You did not even comment on the proposition... just argued that we "do not seem to agree". There is no problem of agreement, simply a disdain of what is proposed and a lack of discussion. What can be wrong in the propostion of making the Sar Shalom Sharabi page the main topic and the other Lithuanian Rabbi referenced in a hatnote. So many disambiguation pages use this third scenario. What would be wrong to do so here? (except having to disagreee with a false consensus)
84.109.111.130 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Again... that does not change the facts stated above. Sad... but in these 3 weeks, it better stay without more comments from my side. 84.109.111.130 (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hypopituitarism
7/20/09 I would like to know if you have experience with hypopituitarism? I have a three year old son who was born cortisol dependent also low thyroid and he is on a growth hormone. My main concern is he has had severe eczema for the past 1 1/2 and he is now seeing a specialist in dermatology but will not link the problems together. There has not been any medication creams that he has tried which had been over 20 different creams and medications to Help his eczema, but it has not changed or helped his skin at all. Do you think there is a possibility it could be because he is cortisol dependent?--Indigo3 (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You asked your question on Talk:Hypopituitarism#Moved, where it was answered by myself and Alteripse (talk·contribs). I think you should put this question to your paediatric endocrinologist. Alteripse also gave you the link to the Magic Foundation (http://www.magicfoundation.org/www) which might be helpful. I really can't say anything about the link, and in fact I even undertook a Pubmed search to clarify this for you. JFW | T@lk22:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Since she's quoting you in her response, I thought it only appropriate to invite you to comment on the RfC. For the record, while I can only speak for myself, I acknowledge a psychological basis for some cases of CFS. My concerns have never been with suitable references being added to CFS or any other articles - my concern is more to do with weight and accurate representation of what the sources say, not to mention the numerous issues mentioned in the RfC, of course. --RobinHood70 (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it is fair that RetroS1mone quoted me, and I have very little else to say on the matter. Suffice it to say that my involvent in the medically unexplained symptom articles has previously earned me some unpleasant company. JFW | T@lk20:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, I have no problems with the quote whatsoever. I'm sorry to hear that you earned some unpleasant company as a result of your involvement. If there's someone who's inflaming the situation in some way, I would hope that you'll bring it up. If nothing else, I would appreciate a private e-mail explaining the concerns, if you think it's appropriate. RetroS1mone has mentioned Guido mailing her privately, which would most certainly be inflammatory, given the CFS page history, and I would hope that he stops it. He's e-mailed me twice previously, the latter of which I considered to be in extremely poor taste and deleted without reply. If he, or anyone else, is doing the same or similar to others, I think it should be brought out into the open so that it can be addressed, and if necessary, reported to the appropriate ISP. The last thing a controversial article needs is people who are deliberately making the situation worse! --RobinHood70 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, about all I can say is that I'm extremely unimpressed with that type of behaviour and I hope it stops (or already has). Oh and thanks for fixing the inadvertent external link above...I wasn't thinking. --RobinHood70 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Re [8]. I don't think it would require a bot doing constant maintenance or updates, just a one time run to replace instances of {{MCOTWprev}} and {{MedportalSA}}. I've asked for clarification on the WPMED banner discussion. -Optigan13 (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm looking into some Guido activity. Can you look at the thread I've linked to here and let me know in that thread if you have anything to add? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
No, nobody has targeted me since I made a tacit retreat from the "medically unexplained symptoms" quagmire around January. I now occasionally offer commentary from the sidelines. JFW | T@lk21:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you will see the fallacy in your argument. Other stuff exists is not a reason to keep your own autobiography and external links. You will also notice that Cabot's article got deleted today.
Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, even if your motives are entirely altruistic and you don't stand to gain from publicising your own work. JFW | T@lk09:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Happy Jfdwolff/Archive 32's Day!
User:Jfdwolff/Archive 32 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jfdwolff/Archive 32's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Jfdwolff/Archive 32!
I had despaired of ever getting to an acceptable DKA article, and had nudged a couple of the MDs active in diabetes articles. I think you for your intervention and good work. I'm a long standing editor and a not much less longstanding admin, but I've never learned the barnstar rules. So, in lieu of an actual legal one, please accept a virtual one with a large glucose crystal mounted at the centerpoise. Perhaps it could be called the anti DM urban legend barnstar? Thanks again. ww (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
"Ultra-Orthodox" in Haredi article (courtesy note)
That's fine, but I find it odd that no source could be found for this. In my perception, the addition of "ultra-" to anything indicates that it exceeds normal boundaries. That's not how a Haredi would describe himself. JFW | T@lk20:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't open a bottle of bubbly at the mo - getting over a sort of flu :( ! but a beer will do ! )Huntington's Disease article got granted a star ! Many thanks for your help, support and direction, see you around MCOTW or wherever and peace to you... L∴V00:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Da's toch leuk: een voormalige klasgenoot en kampgenoot op wiki tegen te komen. Bij deze nog een mazzeltof met je broers benoeming:alhoewel thans dichterbij bij jou, hoop ik dat jullie een dezer jaren toch nog oostwaarts zullen gaan.. :-) Wat heeft je doen besluiten op nl, niet (meer) actief te zijn? Ik zou je edits op de joods-gerelateerde onderwerpen zeer op prijs stellen. Have a great day, Metzujan (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jfdwolff. We appreciate your help on the article. Please, give us another help by reverting edits by 82.5.170.188. This person is vandalizing the article, and I dont know how to handle. Please check the article. Regards. --MCohenNY (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
My knowledge of genetics is not sufficient to check the veracity of the anonymous editor's contributions. I would suggest that you engage in a discussion with the editor, and if there is no response to ask for semiprotection. I would suggest that you do not refer to the edits as "vandalism", unless of course you have proof that the editor is trying to deface the article rather than add relevant content. JFW | T@lk22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You dont have to know nothing about DNA. I need your help on the article to stop someone from being vandalizing the article. How can we ask for semiprotetion? Please... again, this person is only vandalizing the article. --MCohenNY (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
As the harsh reality of a busy tourist season fades ... peace descends and rational thought can return...
I have a couple of tricks up my sleave, another attempt to break the accessibility of wikipedia is order - stilll people in meat space don't realize then can and ought to edit on wikipedia :( !! I'm still polishing off the HD article - and then bviouysly it's ancillary articles and any links which aren't up to scratch - like a good virus :) but that is ongoing ...
So here we go ..
improve help/contents/tutorials pages - I have dabbled in the past as they have way too few editors addressing them so big improvements can be made quite quickly.
Improve communication - I have a crazy idea for a proposal that will turn talk pages into a quasi-message board. They will look the same, but as in message boards any sections you post (or reply to) get watched, so if you mmade an comment on an article/idea some years in the distant past and another editor comes along with the same idea , the two can be brought together for collaboration / dialog. Think this might fix the 'empty halls' effect ...
I think the MCOTW is the key to community collaboration, I had some really fun experiences with it - in fact it was key in getting me into WPMED and other aspects of WP. Strange how it goes up n down though, my own editting style means I dip in occasionally, sometimes get snared if an article takes my fancy or just plain annoys me, leave alone for a bit, but always come back to. It'd be nice to build up the editor base again, I think the switching subjects once a fortnight was optimal - unless there is momentum on the current article of course, and would cater for more tastes.
A possible easyish goal would be List_of_genetic_disorders to featured list, just need one or two good references and a bit of tidying up - more of a gnome objective though.
In a perfect would all of these and more will be achieved, will see how time and destiny prevail, peace L∴V23:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think talkpages should turn into messaging boards, but I do try to watchlist talkpages in case someone posts ideas that might be useful for articles.
Tutorials could still be better, and should be publicised, e.g. in medical journals.
MCOTW is quiet and I don't see how we could increase collaboration further.
I have the same editing style as you, I spend much of my time patrolling and only once or twice a month will do significant content work. JFW | T@lk00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well ok , some system of always being alerted as one does with 'new pages on your talk page' when a reply is made to a discussion you participated or are watching, rather than any discussions is the goal, like I say I think MCOTW might pick up speed if it were made biweekly - unfortunately the first few colabs might be undersubscribed but I have a gut feeling it will pick up... Otherwise just keep improving bits here and there, eventually we'll get there eh? L∴V22:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
As a resaonbly frequent editor at the article in question, I would agree with the tentative withdrawal of semi-protection. It's been over a year now, so I think it makes sense. If anonymous vandalism becomes a problem again, it's easy enough to re-instate. Assuming that you both agree, the only question here is whether MastCell (as the most recent admin) of Jfdwolff (as the admin who for all intents instated the protection) should do the actual unprotecting. —RobinHood70(talk • contribs)23:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no specific objection to unprotection, although I think it should be automatically reprotected in case on any manifestations of Guido, Alpinist, One Click, MEAgenda and whoever else has spoilt my mood there. JFW | T@lk21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
LOL! Agreed, absolutely! If there are any significant partisan edits by anons, you'll definitely hear from me if no one else. Who's One Click, btw? I don't see a user page for that person anywhere, and even in the Simon Wessely history, I only see one vague reference to "One Clickers", and I'm not sure if that's even relevant. —RobinHood70(talk • contribs)02:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
One Click? Well, it's a collective. Just Google "One Click Group", but you should probably wear sunglasses and heat-resistant gloves before opening their homepage. JFW | T@lk08:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hadn't heard of them before. Thanks for the redirect. I didn't look at their site for very long, but I was definitely less than impressed by what I saw. —RobinHood70(talk • contribs)09:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jfdwolff, this article, in whose AfD discussion you participated in a couple of years ago (the AfD resulted in redirect), has recently been restored by an editor. The question of what to do now has deteriorated into a big, stinking mess, with a procedural question regarding the extent - if any - to which the original AfD result still applies, and a substantive question as to whether that result was/still is a good one. The reason I'm telling you about this is that you made a hypothetical suggestion in the AfD that I think has potential as a compromise solution, namely to rename the article Palestinian statehood. You also seemed to have a relatively nuanced view, you're an admin, and (as far as I can tell) you're not suspected of being a partisan in Palestinian issues, so your input could be especially helpful. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the trust invested in me, but I think that there is reasonable grounds to keep the article under the present name. Clearly there is an entity referring to itself as the Palestinian state, and this entity is recognised as such by a number of countries and official bodies. The fact that it is not recognised by Israel, the USA and several other countries does not detract from this; rather, this fact needs to mentioned prominently. JFW | T@lk14:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You can be disappointed all you like, but I will contribute to the discussion to stop this unnecessary merge from happening. JFW | T@lk20:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Diabetes
Please read the citations before you conclude "promotion" or "doubtful." I just found this article today in the Economist ... [[9]] There's lots of critical information missing from that article. I took out "vegan," in case that's a hot button for you.Zinbarg (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
No offence, but I think it's good practice to get input from multiple people on any issue. With that in mind, I do not see what's wrong with putting a small message on the project page to announce the discussion: you cannot expect everybody to be watching the specific talk page.
Also, you should consider putting personal messages in the user's talk page; it may be considered offensive to put a curt reprimand on somebody's editing of Wikipedia on a public page when that doesn't add any value to the public discussion on that page.
Thanks! — SkyLined (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not common practice to open discussions on a talk page and a project page simultaneously. Only if a talk page discussion is not followed by replies would one consider posting on a project page. My reply was indeed curt, but I dispute that it should be regarded as a reprimand. Apologies anyway. JFW | T@lk20:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I am very tired to deal with user that is vandalizing the article for the past 24 hrs. Can you deal with him? PLEASE, I URGE YOU TO TAKE ACTION. Regards --MCohenNY (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from referring to a content dispute as "vandalism". You obviously misunderstand the difference between vandalism (causing damage for entertainment) and a content dispute (disagreement between two users on the way an issue should be presented).
I appreciate your attitude on the article. I just want to let you know, that I understand perfectly that all users are very welcome to participate and colaborate in Wikipedia. However, this unregistered user made over 50 edits on the article, without any type of prior discussion on the discussion page. I invited this user to discuss the edits so many times, but user was not up to talk. I just called vandalism after so many tentatives to estabilish communication with user in the discussion page. User was not up to give up on the edits. Regarding the content dispute, I bealive that user will figure out soon that the article is not making any discrimination as I pointed to him on the discussion page of the article. Best Regards! --MCohenNY (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks terrific, I see Doc James has reviewed it. Sorry it took me 2 months to look at WP messages. Have been touring the world. Hope all is well JFW -- Samir03:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude but I've some spare time at the moment, could probably write up a quick stub/start if you want. Feel free to expand with your books. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 15:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Can't find too much information on it other than it's the membraneous part of the interventricular septum, just above the tricuspid valve. However, although it's not labelled, this is probably an appropriate image to include. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hadn't checked yet, but I suspect that we need an article on the anatomical entity in addition to the pathology. JFW | T@lk20:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey JFD Once again trying to get obesity to FA. As you have already contributed extensively to this page help in this process if you can spare it would be appreciated :-) Thanks in advance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Will try. I think the referencing system needs sorting (references need links to recurring citations). Perhaps the Haslam & James paper needs to go in the citations section. JFW | T@lk19:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
If inappropriate material has been introduced into the article perhaps it would be as well to restore semiprotection. --TS21:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have edit warred too much on that article to be impartial wrt protection, but please feel free to semiprotect if you feel this is relevant. JFW | T@lk22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Well the question for me is whether the material you deleted from the history had been added recently (say, since the current period of unprotection began on 6 September 2009). As I don't have the privileges to see what you removed I can't make the decision whether or not to ask for semiprotection.
I'm fairly favorable towards unprotection but in the case of a biography of a living person (BLP) I'm aware of the need for caution and even sometimes pre-emption. If you tell me you deleted material added recently I will unhesitatingly post on Requests for page protection recommending reprotection. --TS23:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Help with Jewish philosophy article
Hi! Long time no see. I'm not so active anymore - but I do pop in from time to time. I was wondering if an administrator can help with the Jewish philosophy article. This once fine article has been hijacked for many months by one person, who makes edits every few minutes, and has turned it into his own personal belief system.
This person first made edits anonymously, many times a day, and simply rode roughshod over all others. Then he made a username, and now he does the same thing - sometimes every few minutes - for days and weeks on end. He is exhibiting bizarre behavior with this article.
Nothing he is doing has anything to do with philosophy, nor does he cite references, nor does he follow any Wikipedia standards of community and cooperation. He has just totally taken over. We need an admin to lock this article; find a reasonable, stable version, from about a year ago (or more) and then lock that version in until we can find out what is going on with this article & user.
In order to be a "POV Fork" it need to be a fork of SOMETHING. What article are you alleging that the child marriage article is a fork of? Newman Luke (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
As for your more serious allegation, I have to say neither of us should express an opinion about what we might end up thinking as the result of reading encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not censored. Details that we might find embarrassing are not removed because of that. We have Black War, even though its content is quite embarrasing - damning even - to the UK.
Why are you putting thing up for AfD when they've only existed for a few hours, or even less? That seems to me to be absurdly hasty. Could you please start demonstrating WP:FAITH more obviously. I feel you're not being very constructive to Wikipedia's goals at the moment. Newman Luke (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Create proper content rather than copying & pasting rubbish from JE. Please read my rationale for that AFD. That content that I AFDed had no merit and cannot even reasonably serve as a starting point for a proper article.
As for WP:FAITH, you need to urgently clarify why you are creating one article after another about Judaism topics with heaps and heaps of original research culled primarily from your interpretation of primary sources. The kind of content you are currently creating is in no way "constructive to Wikipedia's goals". JFW | T@lk23:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
How exactly is copying stuff from the Jewish Encyclopedia "original research"? I think you need very urgently to go and read WP:RS. And I don't think much of your attitude to JE. Calling it 'rubbish' is really quite an extreme view to take about a widely respected encyclopedia. Newman Luke (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
You have misunderstood. The JE article is not OR - I was referring to much of your other work. The JE content is just speculative rubbish by early 20th century writers who did not have anywhere close to the data we have currently about health amongst Jews. The content should not have been put on Wikipedia because it serves no purpose, and it cannot even serve as a starting point for something better. Just as an example, how will the present article shed any light on Tay-Sachs disease, Gaucher's disease and some subtypes of familial hypercholesterolemia, all of which are common in Jews but were described (apart from Gaucher) well after JE appeared? JFW | T@lk00:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
No, the speculative nonsense from JE needs to be removed. It might have been encyclopedic then, it is not now. JFW | T@lk00:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Something doesn't cease being encyclopedic by the passage of time. If it was encyclopedic then, it is still encyclopedic now. It may be superseded, but it remains valid data for that point in time. History doesn't vanish just because its become now. Newman Luke (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh good grief, the data is unreliable and for all intents and purposes unhistorical. I am not arguing a point of principle. On what data are the claims of dyspepsia and hyperchlorhydria based, and neurasthenia? I take your point (in the AFD discussion) about haemophilia, but that does seem to be an exception to all other content. JFW | T@lk00:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
If you'd care to look up the original Jewish Encyclopedia article [11] you'll see the identity of the various doctors who compiled the statistics - if you want their full names and publications once you've found that out, check the bibliography at the bottom of that page.
Ethnic disparity in disease is highly noteworthy, indeed its a starting point for a lot of important genetic research. Take the Parkinson's thing for example. Or Tay-Sachs. So too are things brought on by cultural behaviour. For example, the fact that haemorrhoids, in Eastern Europe (obviously before the holocaust) were so common among Jews that it became a proverb, so common that for a Hasidim to not have haemorrhoids was considered a curiousity, like a bearded lady. If there was a Jews in Eastern Europe before the holocaust article, it would contain the statement "Eastern european Jews are physically characterised by their shorter stature, and haemorrhoids" (perhaps that could be worded better, but the core point still stands). This is noteworthy. Newman Luke (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I was not suggesting that ethnic medicine is not relevant. I was suggesting that the data used by JE was over 100 years old and not collected according to current epidemiological practice. The maximum I would tolerate is a completely fresh article based on modern sources, with possibly a very short section on theories previously held about illness in Jews (where JE might be a reliable source despite its numerous shortcomings as a source). JFW | T@lk11:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I split the illness among Jews article into this reasonable article on a defined and notable topic and left the remainder. I'll watch the original article for a bit and see if anything useful on that broad topic is found. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe you shouldn't have undone the change regarding metformin. That one small research paper years ago did say that the intestines MAY have a role in metformin glucose, but that is not what is in current textbooks as the accepted mechanism.
From:
Davis Stephen N, "Chapter 60. Insulin, Oral Hypoglycemic Agents, and the Pharmacology of the Endocrine Pancreas" (Chapter). Brunton LL, Lazo JS, Parker KL: Goodman & Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 11e: http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=958974.
"Metformin also may decrease plasma glucose by reducing the absorption of glucose from the intestine, but this action has not been shown to have clinical relevance."
"Lactic acidosis has been reported as a side effect but is uncommon with metformin in contrast to phenformin. While therapeutic doses of metformin reduce lactate uptake by the liver, serum lactate levels rise only minimally if at all, since other organs such as the kidney can remove the slight excess. However, if tissue hypoxia occurs, the metformin-treated patient is at higher risk for lactic acidosis due to compromised lactate removal. Similarly, when kidney function deteriorates, affecting not only lactate removal by the kidney but also metformin excretion, plasma levels of metformin rise far above the therapeutic range and block hepatic uptake enough to provoke lactic acidosis without associated increases in lactic acid production. Almost all reported cases have involved subjects with associated risk factors that should have contraindicated its use (kidney, liver, or cardiorespiratory insufficiency, alcoholism, advanced age). Acute kidney failure can occur rarely in certain patients receiving radiocontrast agents. Metformin therapy should therefore be temporarily halted on the day of the test and for 2 days following injection of radiocontrast agents to avoid potential lactic acidosis if end-stage chronic kidney failure occurs."
The kidney does secrete lactic acid; it does so in the pars recta, the straight part of the proximal tubule. It also filters it, of course. Please let me know if you have any questions or anything. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Pedigo (talk • contribs) 22:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Replied over there. I was under the impression that lactate is removed by the kidneys but not excreted, at least not to an appreciable extent. I'll reword this addition and format the refs. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I actually didn't know that existed (new to editing); I posted it on there. Thanks!
Any chance you have an interest in the treatment of menopause? I've had a long running dispute over the BHRT page and have not succeeded in attracting any interest at WP:MED. If you're interested and have the time, I would appreciate an extra set of eyes - at this point my objectivity is impaired by my irritation. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem too bad at all, but I can understand that Riverpa (talk·contribs) as a "true believer" may be a bit uncomfortable with the solid response from professional organisations and the way this response has been presented. Profesionally I deal more with the consequences of HRT (thrombosis, malignancy, ischaemic heart disease) than with the actual drugs themselves, and the phenomenon of BHRT is not widespread in the UK.
It is clear that BHRT can only really be offered through compounding and that the practice is unregulated and potentially harmful. It is therefore not much different from other non-evidence based "natural" hormonal treatments such as desiccated thyroid extract.
Well, you've been conspicuously absent from the article :) Here is a discussion that could use your input, and here is a workspace where I'm hoping to get more people involved. Best as always, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Currently, I'm conspicuously absent from all of Wikipedia. Have a bit of a writers' block. Let me know if I can address particular issues, which is easiest for me. JFW | T@lk12:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Please explain what you mean. I see no link to click on in the Sontag reference in the GERD article. If there's some obscure way to access the article, that serves no purpose, unless one wants to prevent people from seeing it. --Jonathan108 (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, mea culpa. I think I can see where we went wrong. The PMC identifier had been put under the wrong tag (PMCID= rather than pmc=) and was therefore not being parsed into the template. All sorted now. JFW | T@lk12:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
On reflection, the vandalism is actually quite mild (1x/day for a fairly popular topic). I think we should monitor it for the time being. JFW | T@lk21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi JFW, I didn't want to clutter up the Update Tracker section, but I wanted to thank you for the effort you're putting into the Coeliac Disease article. I've long thought it could use some re-working, but don't have anywhere close to the medical knowledge required to contribute meaningfully. I think you're probably a better writer than I am from what I've seen, but I will follow your changes and do any WikiGnome type work that I happen to spot. Thanks again! —RobinHood70(talk • contribs)23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the thumbs-up mate. I took coeliac to FA in 2007 with the help of a couple of exceptional Wikipedians (such as Colin and Samir). My current effort is simply aimed at reducing accumulated crud from 2.5 years, and trying to replace "bad" sources with MEDRS-compliant ones. In other words, I'd like to pre-empt SandyGeorgia from sending it into quarantaine. I am very open to any ideas you might have about its content and structure. JFW | T@lk23:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm in the process of reviewing the sources and checking all the info. I will try to get it done ASAP however I am busy IRL with the holidays and everything. Triplestopx300:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. I made it 5 years ago and clearly has been replaced with something better, so get rid of it if you wish. JFW | T@lk11:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dr. Wolff: Not "disambiguated" but redirected. This is about keeping to standardization or article terminology as you can see in Category:Hasidic dynasties. Someone went ahead and moved Premishlan (Hasidic dynasty) to plain Premishlan but it's also the name of a town (and that creates confusion). In order to keep the uniqueness of any Hasidic "following/movement/sect/group" the convention on Wikipedia is that they are qualified by the brackets "________ (Hasidic dynasty)" to differentiate them from a simple geographic location, that is why Category:Hasidic dynasties works so beautifully. Thus, as an example the Hasidic movement Belz (even though by those in the Haredi it is called in abbreviation "Belz") but in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, the article about it is not just Belz that refers to a town, but to Belz (Hasidic dynasty). Hope this clarifies as does the fact that Premishlan should REDIRECT to Premishlan (Hasidic dynasty) and then the name "Premishlan" alone can be used as a disambiguation for for the town and the Hasidic dynasty that's was known by that name, otherwise it would defy order and creater disorgnaization. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dr. Wolff: Please take a look at this User:Hayesgenius, a twelve year old Chabad-Lubavitch child editor on Wikipedia, in his edit history [12] he leaves information about who he is and what he's doing in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE for a start. Does Wikipedia need his pre-Bar-Mitzva photo uploaded at File:Sholom Myers.jpg? Looks like a troubling development. In your professional opinion as a doctor and as a Wikipedia admin do you think it's safe and correct and SANE for kids to get involved like this, even post their personal pics in violation of WP:NOTFACEBOOK? Will Chabad now send even 12 year olds to the Wikipedia "front lines" because many of them are online so much? This needs some guidance and guidelines. Please take a look. IZAK (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no way of knowing if this editor is indeed 12 years old then presumably his parents agree to this, and there is little one can do unless there are frank policy violations. Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy is an essay, not a policy. I would however nominate the photo for deletion, for the following reasons: (1) NOTFACEBOOK as stated, (2) because the minor may not realise that his likeness may be used to his disadvantage, (3) because I have the feeling this photo is not of the contributor but rather some stock image (it looks too professional and photoshopped). JFW | T@lk10:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Unsure why you forked the "religion" section for no reason and with no attempt to establish consensus before doing so. I have taken the liberty of putting it all back. There are much larger sections that would lend themselves to forking much quicker. JFW | T@lk22:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't have to establish consensus before editing, there is nothing in Wikipedia that requires me to do so. Or else, everybody would have to wait days and days before editing and lots of people would leave the site, if you would have your way. Besides, the section about sectarian positions is out of place in an article about medicine. See for example religion and AIDS or Christianity and abortion, where similar forks are freely carried out. ADM (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's just say that it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the religious, social, ethical and political impact of diseases within the context of any article about them. This is exactly why I would recommend attempting a talk page discussion before forking, especially if it concerns a featured article. I don't really understand how an open discussion about forking would have anything to do with editor retention. JFW | T@lk23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you create a special category about coeliac disease instead ? Then you can keep your featured article status without being needlessly offended when forks are naturally created. I don't think it's a quality article by the way, all quality articles need to have some specialized categories within them, or else they are just good articles, but not excellent articles. Also, I would add that not only do quality articles require categories, they also require relevant splits into sub-articles, often created by anonymous users through forks. ADM (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There is already a fair number of related articles, and currently there is insufficient content to warrant a subarticle on religion and coeliac disease. It is not "my" FA status, and it received FA status after it was reviewed by a large number of editors with whom you now seem to disagree. Your insistence that every featured article needs subarticles and forks is not borne out by Wikipedia policy, unless there is a policy of which I am yet unaware. JFW | T@lk23:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to ask you to restore the entry. There can never be any consensus when one editor tries to impose his views on the other, especially through unfair behavior like unilateral deletions. ADM (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi JFW, How's things? It's been a while since we communicated last! I've taken an interest in sorting out hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, and as I found it, there's a stale move discussion going on there. I was going to just go ahead and move the page to Lynch syndrome since its just a redirect, but it won't let me do it for some reason. I've briefly stated my reasons on the talk page and provided a supporting reference, to satisfy your curiosity. No-one's commented on this since November, other than me, which leads me to think everyone else has completely lost interest. So, could you kindly move it please? Thanks for that, Mattopaedia Have a yarn11:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's sufficient consensus there. Let me know when the others have agreed on something and I'll act on the move. JFW | T@lk19:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Jfdwolff! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 35 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Never touched that since creating it in 2004. I will leave it to others to fix this given my minimal knowledge of the subject. JFW | T@lk00:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely to be User:Guido den Broeder, per Checkuser. Just to let you know. If you'd like me to update the block log to reflect that, I'd be happy to.
— 16 March 2009
Done JFW | T@lk 14:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Meningitis_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2002.svg){kind=link}
Hello Jfdwolff! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 35 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article: