Thanks, Jfd, for your supportive comments at my RfA. I've decided to withdraw on this occasion, and take stock of all the excellent advice I received. Thanks again. Jakew 16:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shame, you would have been a splendid admin. But then, some people know Wikipedia well enough to function on admin level without really needing those extra buttons. All the best anyway. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a really nice thing to say. I think I'll try again in a few months, but I want to give people who aren't familiar with my work a reason to feel confident in me, and that means addressing some criticism. An organised activist lobby (no further comment here) is opposition enough. Best wishes, Jakew 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

= Phospho Soda and Renal Failure ==This is a timely topic- I am a colonoscopist who is preparing a talk for area medical staffs. If you would like to contact me-my name is Noel D. Collis M.D. (drnoel@jandmcomputers.com) Physicians are reluctant to use this prep because of heavy trial lawyer advertising on television (I was giving it to one patient myself when the ad came on in the patient's room). Note:the FDA reports that NO (as in zero) cases of phosphate nephropathy have been associated with a phosphate dose less than 48grams.Failure to use phosphosoda will result in suboptimal clearance of the right colon (between the appendix/cecum and liver). There is mucous and chyme in the small bowel that can easily camoflage small right colon polyps if A.M. phosphosoda is not given. At the Digestive Disease Week meeting in L.A. (for gastroenterology physicians) in 2006, I listened to a panel discussion in which the expert panelists felt that the sensitivity (ability to detect) small right colon polyps dropped from the 90% range down to 50% in the absence of an A.M. phosphosoda dose (i.e.nearly 50% less effective without an A.M. phosphosoda dose) - which provides both a "mucolytic" and additional cleansing effect. Now think about this for a miute- about 5% of all Americans wlii die from colon cancer. Let's conservatively say that phosphosoda (in a completely safe dose of 48grams) will detect and prevent even 10% of these. That is 5000 lives saved right there (do you realize how many Minneapolis bridges that is)? Even the full dose/high dose oral phosphosoda produces only 4 (four) adverse events per million doses (yes-you read that right).A trial lawyer at DDW this year tried to justify their position by saying that- "These colon polyps are so slowly growing that it will take five to ten years for the cancers to show up"--i.e.-spread around the body and become lethal. There is the legal position in a nutshell. I told him to go to hell. My ethical imperative is to work and advocate for a patients best interests- not to kowtow to a bunch of scumbags. Think about this. Are we to condemn innocents to colon cancer because of a malicious and greedy trial lawyer community? Or alternatively, are we to do what is right for our patients and spare them the ravages of a death from colon cancer? As for me,I took an oath to do what is right for the people. Threats and scumbags will not deter me from my mission- bring em on! Noel D. Collis M.D. 811 2nd St. SE Little Falls, Minn. 56345

Here is an article you should read on Phospho-Soda as a bowel prep causing renal failure: Markowitz GS, Nasr SH, Klein P et al. Renal failure and acute nephrocalcinosis following oral sodium phosphate bowel cleansing. Human Pathol 2004; 35: 675–684 Then go look at the FDA website: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/OSP_solution/science_background.pdf Do your homework on the subject and you'll find that whoever wrote the wikipedia phospho-soda page is SERIOUSLY mistaken about dosing and that taking 3oz of PS is considered an overdose and will likely lead to extreme injury. I am curious as to where this person discovered a single 3oz dose is appropriate?? (please let me know). If you insist on keeping such a limited description of Phospho-Soda up, at least show some responsibility and adequately describe the useage and dosing. Mlaszlo 17:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly on a crusade. Perhaps you should limit your contributions on this topic to the article about Phospho Soda, rather than blasting it all over every renal article. That was actually what I was getting at. As discussed with other contributors below, I'm still unsure as to whether this link PS/ARF deserves the attention that you wanted it to have. JFW | T@lk 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could say crusade, I say concern, but bottom line is that people should beware of this. This site is accessed for information - hopefully accurate information. The Phospho-Soda page is INACCURATE. If nothing else, please have the editor of the Phospho-Soda page post the PROPER doseage. As far as the warnings are concerned, if you are not interested in supplying as much information as possible, even of a rare but possible side effect, dont. I'd bet you wont be reccommending PS to your family & friends however. Mlaszlo 16:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The PS page is at your leisure - I really have no view as long as you keep your additions reasonable and cite your sources. JFW | T@lk 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Canadian warning on phosphate preps and risk of ischemia in doses > 45 cc about 2 years ago. Sodium picosulfate is slowly creeping into the market as the preferred low volume prep. The acute renal failure evidence exists, but is limited to case reports and series. The bigger point is that the dangers of phosphosoda needn't be mentioned on less-than-relevant pages. -- 74.12.91.47 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching chronic renal failure -- your revert. Interesting is that the prep used for colonoscopies can cause renal failure --see PubMed search for "colonoscopy, renal failure". The reason I didn't change it is... the occurance is quite rare. Most of the literature is case reports... and they only thing I could find that suggests anything about prevalence (indirectly) among the renal failure pop. is a paper on 31 cases in a series of 7349 renal biopsies.

I wonder about where one ought to draw the line on complications. As I'm sure you're aware, even for very simple procedures... there can be dozens and dozens of rare complications. I wonder whether we should have a policy about complications-- that things in articles are based on the "reasonable person standard" used by physicians when discussing complications of a procedure. Renal failure due to oral contrast medium-- I'd say falls under the rubric of "drug reaction" in terms of a discussion about risks, if I were to tell a patient about what can happen in a colonoscopy. If WP takes the approach of listing everything-- the articles will look like the complication lists in pharmaceutical monographs and (1) won't be every useful in my opinion (2) unsettling to patients/a distraction from what are the more common things (i.e. dying from colon cancer as opposed to renal failure due to a constrast medium allergy-- got in doing a colonoscopy). For every strange & rare complication... it seems there is a Wikipedian that has had it and sees it as their duty to warn everyone by modifying the given WP article... Nephron  T|C 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...was just thinking, perhaps, this is a discussion for WP:CLINMED? Nephron  T|C 07:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps phenomenon can only be notable enough to make into a medical article if they've made it into a published review, rather than a case report? Just a thought...Felix-felix 15:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say that in the UK we obtain informed consent for this kind of procedures, and obviously we do not warn patients about bowel prep-induced renal failure. I think that is where we should draw the line: risks of <1% should not be emphasised in the way this novel editor did (whole paragraphs). In any case, most bowel preparation nowadays is done with sodium picosulfate or macrogol/polyethyleneglycol-based agents. JFW | T@lk 13:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to present phosphate related ARF a while ago (in the context of tumor lysis syndrome, as it happens)and phosphate containing bowel preps can cause ARF-but have been reported in one or two case repotrs only, as I recall. In my book (and I'm sure, yours..) this would make it a non-notable cause of ARF. I left a similar mesage on the relevant editor's talk page.Felix-felix 15:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hum Pathol article is interesting but it is observational. Phospho Soda is not exactly a popular bowel prep in this country, which may be why I may need to be convinced as to the relevance of the whole thing. JFW | T@lk 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Wolff,

I’m working on a news story about Web 2.0 and medicine for the journal Nature Medicine. Would it be possible to speak with you?

Sincerely,

Brandon Keim

Nature Medicine T 617.233.5346 E b.keim@natureny.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brandonkeim (talk • contribs) 19:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I will send you an email. JFW | T@lk 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jfdwolff! I noticed you (once) were a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aids. If you're interested, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies has taken off and is very active. Stop by and take a look around, and if you're interested, sign up with the project. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. My interest in AIDS is from a medical perspective. JFW | T@lk 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for Peer review of Eicosanoid. Since you've helped the page, I'd like your input.David.Throop 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've done some splendid work there, probably more than I could ever come up with! I'll have a look at the part that I understand... JFW | T@lk 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFW, thanks for drawing the original eicosanoid synthesis illustration. Any chance you could convert it to .svg format? I got comment on the Peer Review page indicating that its appearance would be improved.David.Throop 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eicosanoid_synthesis.svg - hope it's OK. JFW | T@lk 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JFW, sorry to stick my nose in, but the image isn't displaying properly—would you mind if I ran it quickly through Inkscape to see what the matter is? (with your permission of course :) Fvasconcellos 14:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. I tried to get it to display better, but OOo was not helpful.

One of the reasons I don't like SVG. JFW | T@lk 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Just a bit too much whitespace, now gone. I uploaded to Commons, I hope you won't mind. Fvasconcellos 22:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete the version on en then. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'll add it to the Eicosanoid article. Fvasconcellos 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dank voor het mergen. Ik wilde als Leidenaar niet de spil worden in de strijd om de Nederlandse en de Engelse betiteling van het LUMC. Bovendien had ik even nog geen tijd. Nogmaals hartelijk dank! Vriendelijke groet, Tubantia 21:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ik ben niet bang voor strijd; maar als het LUMC zo dringend een tweetalig briefhoofd moet hebben dan hebben ze dit maar te accepteren! Zeg eens, welk jaar zit je? Ik ben benieuwd of er veel veranderd is (ik deed co-schappen 2001-2003). JFW | T@lk 22:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, here is one source http://hsphsun3.harvard.edu/press/releases/press05012006.html of dozens of sites to back up the stat.

The World Health Organization states this was well. It should absolutely be in the article.

2.6 million people died prematurely due to indirect Obesity and Overweight complications in 2006 and 300,000 people died due directly to Obesity and Overweight causes. The problem is so great that the Obesity crisis is now referred to as a Pandemic rather than an epidemic. Julia 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name is not Jeff. Please use the regular channels for this, i.e. Talk:Diabetes mellitus and Talk:Obesity. You have not addressed my concerns re. the wording of your statistical claims. The exact source should not be a press release but an academic one: Ezzati M, Martin H, Skjold S, Vander Hoorn S, Murray CJ. Trends in national and state-level obesity in the USA after correction for self-report bias: analysis of health surveys. J R Soc Med 2006;99(5):250-7. PMID 16672759. Fulltext. JFW | T@lk 22:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up an RFC in light of this user's attacks on the Cancer article among others. In light of your contact (albeit brief) with this user, could you provide input? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sunlight001 Mdwyer 04:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. Wolff: What do you make of Nazuraiun? Thanks, IZAK 10:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazuraiun. Thank you. IZAK 13:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a wikiholic but I do think it's important to include the topic of diagnostic delay in this article. I self-diagnosed after 20 years and was mis-diagnosed by two GP's, both of whom refused to send me to a gastroenterologist or do a blood test for a proper diagnosis. I went to a hospital emergency room to get a formal diagnosis. Anyway, I hope this is an adequate study:

Green PHR, Stavropoulos SN, Panagi SG, et al. Characteristics of adult celiac disease in the USA: results of a national survey. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(1):126-131.

I hope you will add this as I'm afraid I may mess it up if I try to edit the page myself. I would also like to thank you for helping me get this diagnosed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.96.34.244 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you could cite the relevant information from that article I could work it into the Wikipedia entry. If that study confirms the present of a "doctor's delay" (as opposed to a "patients' delay) then your point is justified. But I removed the "POV rant" because some patients may see their own experiences as typical and try to project their dissatisfaction by putting that on Wikipedia.

Coeliac disease is notoriously protean, and only continuing medical education, adequate guidelines and public education will rectify this matter. JFW | T@lk 07:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-230X/3/8 This is actually a different article than my first post.

In the results section it fairly strongly points to doctor delay. Four or more family doctors for 30% surveyed! Thirty seven percent of individuals were told they had either osteoporosis or osteopenia, which is just a symptom of the underlying problem. I myself, as a teen and early twenties, was prescribed tetracycline and metronidazole(IIRC), by two separate doctors, for the dermatitis herpetiformis on my back. I will completely trust your judgement on this subject as I know we are at least in agreement that both continuing public and medical education will solve the problem of delayed diagnosis, whatever the reason. I feel better now that I have ranted on your page and thank you for your response and dedication.

Hi, Tojo sockpuppets obviously can get blocked and article edits reverted, but what about the remaining continued editing in wikipedia, namely on talk pages - do these postings need to be kept or should an indef banned user have sockpuppet article-talk page submissions deleted on sight (on basis that it takes up further editor action and further disrupts other editors from getting on with useful collaboratinve work)? David Ruben ^Talk 00:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably have a subpage (Talk:Parkinson's_disease/Tojo) where we can store any previous exchanges. They may be useful sometime, e.g. to slap him around his face with his own words.

He may know a lot about Parkinson's but (1) that does not make him a good Wikipedian, (2) that does not mean that he is a scientist, (3) that does not make him a clinical neurologist. JFW | T@lk 07:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slap me around my face with my own words ! What a joke. It's you that's getting slapped around the face with my words because the blunt honest facts can hurt. "That does not mean that he's a scientist" !!! Compare my site - all of which is backed up with references - [URL deleted] with the error ridden PD article on Wikipedia. It's infinitely better. My knowledge of PD is way beyond yours and all of the other amateurish editors put together. General Tojo

"useful collaborative work" ! I don't see any on the Parkinson's Disease article. You delude yourself. Your delusion : experts in Parkinson's Disease rationaly discussing and adding accurate information. Reality : a disparate group of people with little knowledge of the subject deluding themselves that they are experts, adding either nothing at all, endlessly reverting, or adding information that is false, inconsistent or irrelevant. General Tojo

The page would have been so much better if you had demonstrated the most basic of collaborative skills. I do not question your knowledge on Parkinson's (and I admit that I am not an expert), and your website looks very informative too, but that does not make you the one to have the final word on what Wikipedia should say about this disease.

I had hoped that your absence would have served as somewhat of a cooling-off period. I think most editors would not principally be opposed to your return if you could keep your cool when challenged (and stop insulting others). However, the present state of affairs is just a waste of everyone's time. So far, all your previous threats have proven to be ineffective, so I would discourage further "warnings" along the same lines. JFW | T@lk 21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a false assumption. I have no intention of editing the text of the Parkinson's Disease related articles in future. When I first saw the Parkinson's Disease article it was very poorly written. Some sections weren't bad, but most of it was false or inadequate. So I started making major changes to it, including completely replacing entire sections. People basically left me to alter it all myself.

The way that Wikipedia should work is that those who know the subject best should write most of it. Those that know less should still add lesser points or ensure consistency or correct formatting. Rational and objective discussions should take place for contentious or uncertain issues. That does happen with some subjects, but with Parkinson's Disease and other articles it certainly doesn't. I've seen people who did a bit of science when they were students 40 years ago make sweeping changes; others that have a naive knowledge of the subject revert just about everything; some with ego problems keep on trying to add what little they think they know just because it's from them. More recently, the article has been subjected to frequent petty vandalism such as "poopoopoopoo" by six year olds or people with the intellect of six year olds. A lot of what goeson is based on ego and grievance rather than providing information to those that want it.

It became obvious to me that any effort was a waste of time because it could be wiped out in an instant without rational reason. That is why I prepared my own Parkinson's Diseasse web site. Nobody else can aletr that one. Some of the pages are based on an assessment of as many as tens of thousands of studies for each page. I don't quote the references solely because it would take up so many pages.

The site was banned on Wikipedia before it was even available ! Not because of adverts, pornography, or racism, but solely because it was associated with me. The mere mention of the best web site in the world on Parkinson's Disease being banned from an article that "claims" to want to provide information on Parkinson's Disease shows that a lot of people on Wikipedia don't care in the sightest about the readers. They put their inadequate egos and animosities well before providing information to those that want it.

My sole aim in future will be to side step the arrogant by adding the web site to the Parkinson's Disease related artciles on Wikipedia. Of course a cat and mouse game of add it / revert it / retaliate/ add it / revert it / retaliate will go on for a long time, but it will end up on Wikipedia anyway, after dozens of frustrated administrators have wasted a lot of their time trying to prevent it.

Banning my usernames was never any use. Dozens of other people just get banned in the process due to the mistaken assumption that they are me. Even this week some people have been banned for life due to the false assumption that they were Tojo SP's. They must be wondering what happended. I must have had over 600 ID's by now. I just get another one every time. It takes less than a minute

Blocking my IP address is a waste of time as well. Dynamic IP addresses from different computers plus the use of proxy servers make me unblockable. One of the largest ISP's in Europe was blocked solely in an attempt to get at me. Thousands of people were affected but I wasn't one of them.

Even though my viartis.net web site is banned (without good reason) I can add it using a vaste range of shortened URLs. They will no doubt be banned, no doubt blocking a lot of other legitimate sites. I'll just get another one.

When the web site is added and remains, and it will be, General Tojo will disappear for ever.

General Tojo

You make a gross misrepresentation of your own work on that article. In editing the article you have been pushing an agenda that places undue emphasis on specific issues (such as filling enormous amounts of space with toxic causes, unsubtly pushing Dopavite) and attacked every person who has challenged you in doing this. For the umpteeth time, if you had actually given rational responses to those challenges and yielded to consensus when achieved you probably would not have gone down that spiral of insults, vandalism, reverting people's edits on other articles, and getting blocked, and getting hordes of sockpuppets, and those sockpuppets being blocked, and feeling a need to return once every little while to annoy the **** out of everyone.

Disappear only when your site is added to Wikipedia? How can you morally stand behind the content of your site if you get the URL added to Wikipedia only through unsubtle blackmail? Surely you're joking, Mr Tojo. JFW | T@lk 07:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gross misrepresentation of my work on that article ! For example, on the prevalence section, I went through the entire published research amounting to several thousand studies. I have references for every single fact on that page. Challenge me if you doubt it. Compare that to the brief set of fallacies on the epidemiology section of Wikipedia. For Parkinsonism, I went through over 20,000 ! It wa very tedious but I did it.

I am not pushing toxic causes at all. I doubt if toxic causes add up to 10% of cases, myabe not even 5% of cases. However, it is fact that some people's PD is due to toxicity, so in order to be comprehensive I included all known and possible toxic causes.

Unsubtly pushing Dopavite ! I listed AND linked 25 other treatments before even mentioning it. If I wanted to push it I would have only put Dopavite. It's good enough for Addenbrookes Hospital to be arranging a large clinical trial of it. It's good enough for clinical trials in other countries. A lot of people have been continuousy reducing or have rid their symptoms using it. In a comprehensive web site it would be stupid not to even mention it at all only briefly amongst the nutrients section.

I was initially banned solely for using the name General Tojo. Check my page at the time. The evidence is still there. Since then I have been blocked because of having been blocked. Novices such as PaulWicks and Profsnow wanted me out of the way so that they could impose their views without them being criticised. They were the ones that kept on listed me for blocking. Now they have disappeared. I retaliated to being blocked. I never initiated conflict. I was always ready to take part in rational discussion. Only one other peson was.

It's not unsubtle blackmail about adding the web site. It's a statement of fact. Check Wikipedia a year from now. It will be there. People with PD are prolific web site sharers. Other people will be adding it as well, as it's the best web site in the world on Parkinson's Disease.

General Tojo

You have been banned repeatedly for sockpuppeteering, personal attacks and WP:OWN. Your initial ban was indeed for your username, which is clearly just a symptom of your lack of respect for the remainder of the Wikipedia community.

If you have read 20,000 articles to write one paragraph you have clearly not been selective in your reading.

If a clinical trial of Dopavite is still necessary it should probably not be mentioned. The section on toxic causes was at one point littered with references to your Parkinson's forum at forumforfree. Don't tell me you were not (1) overwhelming the toxic causes section, (2) pushing your website.

In a year you will still be making episodic returns to Wikipedia, and in a year a small group of combative admins will still be stopping you from editing. However good your site, Wikipedia is still #2 on Google (after the UK Parkinson's society website). Perhaps, if in a year your site comes higher than Wikipedia on Google, there may be a point in adding the URL to the external links section. Otherwise I really cannot see why a personal website not endorsed by either a patients' or a professional organisation should get the exposure you want for it. Please also be aware that Wikipedia now uses the "nofollow" function. That means that the presence of the URL in the Wikipedia article will not boost its search engine status (because search engines will be ignoring it). JFW | T@lk 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of fallacies and inconsistencies in what you've written :

1. The reading of 20,000 studies was not for one paragraph. It was for the whole of Parkinsonism.

2. Stem cells have not been clinically tested, nor has GDNF been successfully tested, or has gene therapy, etc, etc but they are all listed on Wikipedia.

3. The forumforfree is not a viartis.net site, and is not listed anywhere on the Wikipedia article.

4. "In a year a small group of combative admins will still be stopping you from editing." - If that were true, how is it that ALL of the changes resulting from the last 50 edits were made by ME in various guises ??? They don't know who is who. I presently have dozens of usernames. I made dozens of edits elsewhere on Wikipedia today. Your administrators are nowhere near as competent as you assume. They look like headless chickens to me : blocking one of Europe's largest ISP's yet not affecting me at all, banning dozens of people for being Tojo Sp's who were not even me. Obsessively wasting their time blocking names, despite it taking me only 15 seconds to get a new one !

5. "Wikipedia is still #2 on Google (after the UK Parkinson's society website)" - That's solely because Wikipedia's thousands of articles increase the search engine ratings. Rankings aren't based on quality or even use. I've yet to come across anyone who has any regard for Wikipedia's badly written PD article. Nobody ever refers to it unless it is to criticise it. Check out Yahoo. Despite its newness, Viartis.net comes up first for "history of Parkinson's Disease", first for "biochemistry of Parkinson's Disease", first for "toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease", first for etc etc etc.

6. "I really cannot see why a personal website not endorsed by either a patients' or a professional organisation should get the exposure you want for it." - It's not a personal web site. There is no mention of me anywhere on it. Wikipedia's PD article does not have the endorsement of any patients or professional organisations. Viartis.net is on most of the PD patients sites : National Parkinson Foundation, Neurotalk, Braintalk, WeMove, PLWP, Topix.net, etc, etc. Wikipedia isn't on any of them.

7. "Please also be aware that Wikipedia now uses the "nofollow" function. That means that the presence of the URL in the Wikipedia article will not boost its search engine status (because search engines will be ignoring it)." - I use short URL's that don't even contain viartis.net in the URL. So that's of no relevance to me.

General Tojo

1. Fine; it is still an act of unselectivity.

1. Stem cells are under investigation and should be listed as such. If the article mentions this in error, please don't just slash it but gently point this out on the talkpage.

1. No, the forumforfree links had to be removed repeatedly, and the site was blacklisted. Don't pretend ignorance - it doesn't help.

1. This claim of editing under guises is nonsense. You have no proof that those contributions were from you.

1. This in incorrect too. Individual PageRanks are calculated for each keyword. Google does not (yet) give Wikipedia special credit for being Wikipedia. Without a link I will not be able to replicate your Yahoo results. As for "biochemistry of Parkinson's disease" etc - you are clearly good at search engine optimalisation (SEO).

1. That is a circular argument and you know it is.

1. Nofollow of course does not affect short/redirect URLs either - search engines will not be deluded by your links. In fact, you have made exactly one attempt at this, and this failed. You might as well stop bragging about it. JFW | T@lk 12:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. No it's not. It's an act of thoroughness. I always review the entire scientific literature of any subject I study. You can nopt posibly know what is in the research unless you check it all.
2. So is the formulation I devised under investigation. We are more progressed than stem cells. We already know it is effective in idiopathic PD - unlike stem cells, GDNF and gene therapy - yet you still list them. All of which are scientifically unsound.
3. It did not HAVE to be removed. I wrote the entire toxicity section - way beyond what existed. Information concerning each toxin would be updated independently. Toxins aren't one subject. So separate links for each toxin were justified.
4. I was David Leslie, Parkie Son, July Walton, Hebron Tambo, Phil Manzanera, Agfa 4000, Dr Voller, etc. If they weren't all me, why have they been blocked for being Tojo's ??? As David Leslie, I even added your point about dopamine agonists and gambling.
5. False. Most search engine rankings take account of the links with other pages. Wikipedia ranks high because there are tensof thousands of interconnected pages. Ranking is no guide to quality anyway. If it were, Wikipedia's PD article wouldn't be there at all.
6. You claimed that viartis.net should not be listed because no other patient or professional sites listed it. But of course, it's Wikipedia's PD article that isn't listed anywhere else. Viartis.net islisted on all of them.
7. I don't want to increase search engine rankings on Wikipedia. As you pointed out I made only ONE attempt. It was on SIX PD related articles without being noticed or objected to. Now I know the weaknesses, it will be even easier. A year from now it will be listed without anyone objecting to it. The fact that some people try to block the inclusion of the world's best PD web site shows that they have no interest in providing information to those that want it - which iswhat Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Instead their sole concerns is their own egos, resentment and animosities. They are going to be caused even more time wasting and grief only for the web site to end up being added anway.

General Tojo

1. My point remains that "the entire literature" is not a good starting point for anything. Obscure papers in non-English journals that are not cited by anyone are probably not worth the reading.
2. If your formulation is being trialled, it certainly does not carry the same hopes as stem cell therapy. Hell, every disease is supposedly treatable with stem cells. Your concoction probably fails general notability guidelines, but I suspect you will disagree with me on this count.
3. Yes, you bloated the section hopelessly and used your own forum to support your work. As this did not qualify as a reliable source (not authoritative, not peer-reviewed, prone to bias because of conflict of interest re Dopavite), the links were removed.
4. So many other sites link to the Wikipedia article. Cool. That proves my point. If you then argue that these site cite the article only to criticise it, please give me one strong example of a high-profile site that criticises the Wikipedia Parkinson's disease article. And that excludes any site associated with your person, for obvious reasons.
5. Most of those editors were tolerated because the contributions were not controversial. We still have a policy to assume good faith. I suspect many more editors would be contributing to the PD article if not for that thundercloud called "General Tojo" perpetually hanging over it.
6. Okay, I'll rephrase that. Viartis is a non-peer reviewed site by someone who does not personally diagnose or treat movement disorders, nor participates in clinical research on the subject. That makes it relatively suspect to various forms of bias and inaccuracy, however much you have read on the subject. See WP:RS and WP:EL for the relevant policies and guidelines.
7. Your lack of respect for the Wikipedia is shocking, but that is hardly news to me, and you obviously don't see any need to respect the Wikipedia community because they chucked you out (or certainly have tried to). It still strikes me as odd that you spend such a stupendous time pushing your website if it is that obvious that the links are not appreciated, there is NOFOLLOW functionality now, and they are likely to be removed at some point. You've even felt the need to resort to plain blackmail. Aren't there things that are a lot more important? JFW | T@lk 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was proposed for deletion. I am the one who created the article. I did so not as some kind of fan of Gregory Cochran's work, but rather to get the material (which I find distasteful) off the Ashkenazi Jews page. I consider Cochran's theory to be an attempt to justify a genetic interpretation of race and IQ differences in general. Better material has been written about "Jewish Intelligence" and there is no agreement on the environmentalism versus genetics issue. I don't like to see the baby thrown out with the bath water. I would rather see a much better article written that would be balanced and inclusive. Barring that, I would like to see the Cochran material moved onto the page about Gregory Cochran himself, not back onto the Ashkenazi Jews page. Unfortunately, the Gregory Cochran page is one of those "admiration pages". Please see Ashkenazi intelligence and add your opinion if you wish. --Metzenberg 11:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the need for a seperate article, which is likely to spin out of control anyway. I have read Cochran's paper superficially. His claims - while certainly sounding fascinating - are completely speculative (which may explain why it's taking such a long time to get it published). Wikipedia should not be fisking papers - Wikipedia should cite the main conclusions of papers, and possibly any commentaries/criticisms that have arisen after its publication. At the moment, we cannot responsibly cite this work. We are not a blog, after all. JFW | T@lk 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Wolff: Please see the discussion at Talk:Jewish feminism#Does Jewish feminism really exist?. Thanks, IZAK 11:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... just a heads-up - I just sent you an email. Take care. MastCell 22:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. No need to remind me about emails, btw. Thunderbird checks frequently & thoroughly (no Outlook for me). JFW | T@lk 10:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry. I am out of it today. I will make the page. I totally didn't follow protocol. Let me finish the other one I'm working on and I'll go back to this one. //BankingBum 09:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC) ^$$[reply]

I apparently made it but screwed up my list. I think after this last edit, I'm heading to bed :) //BankingBum 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC) ^$$[reply]

I'm glad you had no trouble picking up the relevant part of my message :-). I think your summary of CFS & problems is a good basis for working on the article. Count me in (or I'll count you in) as one of those who want to get the article right. AvB ÷ talk 21:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the helpful sugesstions JFW! You are teaching me so much about editing, webconstruction, and pyroluria, on the pyroluria wiki. OnaTutors | T@lk 14:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi JFW! I posted the following in the discussion forum of Pyroluria and I am Italic textstill awaiting a response from a n y o n e. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.:

Clearly the pyroluria page is not on the watchlist of many people. JFW | T@lk 08:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of questions removed as duplicate JFW | T@lk 08:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to hearing from you, at your earliest convenience. Thank you, JFW. OnaTutors | T@lk 07:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my replies. JFW | T@lk 08:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your criticisms of the Lipid hypothesis article as it previously stood. Instead of deleting it, however, I've tried to rewrite it so as to provide the reader with useful information. I hope this version will overcome your reasons for urging deletion. JamesMLane t c 11:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition was copied word by word from a blog towards which you have also included an external link. In my view there is absolutely no point in having a seperate article; I would support a merge with cholesterol or preferably the THINCS article.

Conflict of interest: have previously clashed with THINCS members when they wrote on their views in the medical literature. JFW | T@lk 12:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say that the addition was "copied word for word" might be read by some to imply plagiarism. To clarify, what I did was to include a verbatim quotation from one of the adherents of the dissenting viewpoint, with a statement that it was a quotation and with a citation to the source. That makes it research, not plagiarism.  :) I was following WP:NPOV, which directs that competing viewpoints should be summarized in terms that their proponents would consider fair. As for deleting and leaving only a redirect to the THINCS article, that would imply that the term is unique to THINCS. The organization was founded in 2003 (according to our article), but the term was in use at least as early as 1978 ([1]), so its use is not confined to THINCS. JamesMLane t c 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the term predates THINCS then perhaps cholesterol or hypercholesterolaemia are the more suitable merge candidates. At the moment I am disinclined to change my vote. JFW | T@lk 19:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "lipid hypothesis" definitely predates THINCS. I found the earliest reference in PubMed to be from 1976 [2], as well as "cholesterol controversy" being used as early as 1978 [3]. In the scientific literature, the lipid hypothesis is attributed to Rudolph Virchow who formulated it in 1856, although I don't know if he called it "lipid hypothesis" since I don't have access to his publication. - tameeria 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. My point is (as I've said repeatedly) that this hypothesis is now only referred to as such by those who question it. JFW | T@lk 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that a link to the complimentary healing should be established, as it is very relevant. I myself being a shining case after being diagnosed with arthritic hips, and now completely curd on different lifestyle. Goodbye 2 00:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did your lifestyle changes involve eating more tofu? JamesMLane t c 03:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. But please keep those lifestyle measures on-topic. Your hip arthritis was probably not due an inflammatory spondylarthropathy, so excluding starch would not be supported by the article you quoted. JFW | T@lk 08:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to have another doc take a look at this drama. Ruben was too busy to really get into it. You may be too, but Sarah tried to fix things and it didn't work because it was a poll. The two sides are knowledgable and are basically arguing on which studies said what. However, nobody even quotes directly from these studies to support their views, I think because each side considers it extremely obvious. I keep saying I'll dive into these monsters, and I will, but I'm not a doctor (I think only Oliver is) so I don't think I can really help make anything clearer. I hope you could at least help steer people into the specifics of the studies, since that's the source of the problem. I think that's the only way the conflict can really be solved. Hartelijk bedankt Dikke poes 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been peripherally involved, but my feeble mind is insufficient to deal with the obvious battle of the titans that is taking place there. One needs not be a doctor to understand the relative (un)importance of certain studies. In medicine we grade evidence by the strength of the analysis, and case-control studies rate pretty low. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, in contrast, are accorded a lot of weight because of their methodology. I'm happy to comment on individual studies and whether certain conclusions can be drawn from them, but I will not be able to contribute much more. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• nice to be elevated to "Titan" status. I left a note for you & Dikke on the BI talk page about how others less into the nuts & bolts should be able to get a grip on the body of literature on this using easily available 3rd party sources Droliver 02:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good points, he just wrote it had no religious signifcance which botherd me. If we could merge it into Amen that would be good, but I was going to do that but I thought it would look like that word was always present before Amen. The only problem, as you point out with putting it in Kaddish, is it is used elsewhere. Could you assist the topic in moving it to Amen? Epson291 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Hi Jfd, Back in November 2005 you responded to my inquiry about adding a link in the Ketubah article (Talk:Ketubah). The link I added has recently been deleted. I would like to put the link back, but I wouldn't do that until communicating with an admin. If you have a moment, might you provide me with your thoughts? Thanks! - Aafish 22:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Ketubah. JFW | T@lk 02:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PJTraill 12:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Dear Dr.Wolff, Last week on Talk:Ten Commandments#Murder vs kill I queried a couple of your reversions of my edits - I wonder if your could find the time to reply (there). I feel you have rather misunderstood what I was trying to do, but maybe you could suggest a better approach.[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jfdwolff, When you have a moment-would you like to check out renal tubular acidosis? I've been polishing the article for a while now, and would like an expert's outside eye to see what changes need to be made before I think about nominating it as a good article. Cheers.FelixFelix ^talk 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An expert in what? I'm not a renal physician! Last time I checked you were the expert. I'll have a look. JFW | T@lk 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. Wolff,

The external link to ClotCare is not spam and it is not advertising. The site contains a wealth of information about the medical use of warfarin. All information is presented by anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy experts from across the US and Canada. The author is provided with each posting and a biosketch of each editorial board member is available at http://www.clotcare.com/clotcare/eb.aspx. I invite you to review the information on ClotCare's world-class editorial board. I'm sure you will recognize many of the individuals as respected authorities in this field. Nearly half of them have served on the American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Conference on Antithrombotic Therapy.

ClotCare subscribes to the HONCode standards for health information on the Web. The information on ClotCare is relevant and useful to anyone seeking information on warfarin as used medically. The information is current, continuously updated as new information develops in the field of anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy, and it supplements the information on warfarin provided in Wikipedia. Further, ClotCare's Editorial Board responds to direct questions submitted by both patients and healthcare professionals such that an individual can always find the information he/she seeks. Additionally, the site is free and sells nothing.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Marie --Mbwalker 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be truthful, your site is visually hard to distinguish from the many sites that are frequently spammed on Wikipedia (e.g. photos of smiling doctors), save from the editorial backing and the higher quality content. I agree that editorial names like SZ Goldhaber are hard to ignore, and if other contributors agree (try Talk:Warfarin) the link may be returned. Have a look at WP:EL, which summarises the project's policy on external links.

Will you be making contributions to Wikipedia's content? JFW | T@lk 23:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I see your point regarding the stock photo of the doctor in the left-hand margin and appreciate the feedback. I have removed that image (which was put up years ago when we were developing the site and had just never been addressed as a concern). The only doctor images on the site now are actual images of the board members. Also, I did add my comments to the warfarin Talk pages. I am new to Wikipedia and still learning the ropes. I do intend to contribute to the content and actually added a few things to the warfarin article today with appropriate references and links to the references on PubMed. I noted that the term vitamin K antagonist is often used to refer to this class of drugs and added a paragraph about purple toe syndrome.--Mbwalker 04:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have any idea how hard it is to write the book on something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veganfanatic (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your supportive comments! Look forward to working on future medical articles! Scope2776 04:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I simply used The New York Public Library online catalog, CATNYP. Or one could have used OCLC's WorldCat which has even more in it. kosboot 15:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Thanks for doing that. Good bibliography is the backbone of any good article, especially about living and recently deceased people. Were you close to the Rav at all? JFW | T@lk 18:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't close to him, although I did get invited to his home for Shabbos lunch twice. Actually, Rav Schwab was occasionally controversial among some people in his community because they felt he was abandoning the community's traditional stance and becoming more "yeshivish." But I think this is just a symptom of many communities' general move to the right, so I don't think it's worth mentioning.

Ah - one thing I think you should mention is the now-famous piyut that he composed for 9 Av. I feel embarrased that I can't recall the initial words, but I know you must know it - it's printed in most modern machzorim for 9 Av. kosboot 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you review my edits to this article to ensure I haven't changed the meaning. Also, note the edits of 13:21 and 13:26 today, which I've reverted. Colin°^Talk 23:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions, if you had any other comments, corrections or general suggestions, you could contribute to the article's featured article candidacy page. Thanks! TimVickers 00:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to use this picture of yours in german wikipedia [4]. Therefore I uploaded your picture to wikicommons, I hope you are alright with that. With kind regards, TableSitter --172.174.134.75 15:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with that. I'll check if the image on EN can be deleted now. JFW | T@lk 20:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patients suffering from PV have access to 2 large listservs, one on ACOR (MPD-NET) and the other on AOL (Myeloproliferative Disease Support List (AOL). I tried an experiment yesterday and added a link to the ACOR mailing list, following the link to the AOL list. In less than 24 hours you have removed the link to the ACOR list but have left the link to the AOL mailing list. Please explain your decision. --Kosherfrog 14:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I only examined the new links, and did not bother checking the AOL one as well. Generally, forums and support groups are not suitable for inclusion (see WP:EL). I have no way of knowing which listservers MPD patients use, and Wikipedia should not be in the business of (1) providing traffic, and (2) pushing larger lists over smaller ones.

Given that the AOL link also disqualifies, I will remove it. Thanks for pointing this out. JFW | T@lk 15:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for demonstrating the power of Wikipedia!

The same situation applies to the following entries in wikipedia:

Essential_thrombocytosis Agnogenic_myeloid_metaplasia and Chronic_myelogenous_leukemia

What is the procedure to get those entries rectified too?

--Kosherfrog 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD. JFW | T@lk 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have met you over the last few days, and thanks for your attention. Having read what the extraordinarily narcissistic (if wonderfully aptly named) General Tojo put you through, I'll be try to be quite kind to administrators and editors now, and as time goes on. yikes! You've suffered enough!

I did get to his website, which is amusingly reminiscent of ancient (pre-galenic) writings on medicine, and entertaining in its own way (just not informative, or, like, sourced, dude.) If I were convinced researchers came to Wikipedia much (they aren't likely to mention it to anyone, so who knows) I might argue for a "Mysteries and Anomalies" section for every medical condition - and it might entertain the masses too, come to that. But with sources and maybe not a Gothic typeface. (If I recall Tojo's site correctly.)

As noted in talk, I have put up an unsatisfactory bio now, that might explain a little. Or maybe not so much... it does go on for a while though.

PS - Not that it's necessarily my place to give permission, but don't feel shy about deleting or editing down comments of mine on the coeliac discussion page if you find they've become clutter or obsolete.

Ndaniels 23:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I hope I didn't appear too stressed in my communications with you on Talk:Coeliac disease. As for the suffering at the hands of Tojo - I seem to be a glut for punishment: I engage in a discussion with him every time!

Your contributions are much appreciated. Some articles are really poor on references, and your experiences are very useful. I would add a "mysteries and anomalies" section in articles only if they are generally recognised as such (e.g. JFK having a history of Addison's). JFW | T@lk 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that the trouble with most "mysteries", perhaps such as big foreheads for celiac, is that they often do tend to go away (are artefacts). See Hume on miracles, I suppose.Ndaniels 16:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not such a Hume reader :-). JFW | T@lk 22:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFD, I made note of a few AFD's in the clin-med discussion pageDroliver 07:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jfd,

With regard to the citations which you removed, citations from some of the highest placed sources in this field, I feel your actions were a bit precipitous in that the article does not have sufficient citations and that the citations themselves are not disputed. They are used elsewhere in the WP and you have left a gap in the article which had been amended. And too, as I wrote on my talk page and on the Hemochromatosis discussion page, the journals you want to be cited--not cited by the way in the first place--are expensive and the overwhelming majority of reades worldwide will either not have access to them or will not be able to understand them. My points being that the citations are well with the WP regs and this is an encyclopaedia, not a haematolgist's desk reference. The article will be improved if you replace them and avoid an editing dispute. Thank you.Malangthon 01:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on Talk:Hemochromatosis. JFW | T@lk 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I saw your name mentioned in the Nature Medicine article! Congrats! You definitely deserve recognition for all you've contributed on here. —Brim 17:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for bragging. My edit count and contribution quality is immediately overshadowed by several others. My only achievement is staying around for so long. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFW, You are undoubtedly one of wikipedia’s finest contributing experts. As such, I wonder if you would care to comment on Jimbo’s recent idea: User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. Do you believe that there is any value in verifying any user’s credentials? What would you think of the suggestion that it ought to be verified that Dr Wolf is indeed a Dutch doctor living and working in the United Kingdom, and that you are indeed him? SmokeyJoe 11:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take strong issue with your accolades :-), but I will comment on the policy. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real vote going on, so I will comment here:

• While CV is useful, an uncredentialled or a lay contributor should never be second rank when it comes to edits. The converse: for the majority of Wikipedia activity, someone's credentials are irrelevant. If an expert contributor cannot explain to a non-expert why his POV may be correct, that expert should probably not be writing an encyclopedia for the lay public.
• CV is the antithesis of anonymity. Some people with very good credentials (e.g. chair of medicine in an Ivy League university) would have good reasons to hide behind a pseudonym. I'm still hesitant in revealing my exact identity online, especially after what happened to Samir.
• What degree of credentials would be decisive? Would I be a sufficiently qualified editor for highly technical articles if I only have a basic degree with no postgraduate degrees etc?
• The Essjay controversy has heavily polarised this debate. I don't think credentialling should be introduced to prevent a recurrence of that particular debacle. I tend towards permissiveness with regards to inventing an online persona. Essjay was not [about to be] hired by Wikimedia for his theology work. It would be different if one used stated credentials in an edit conflict ("I'm a neurologist, so yield to my opinion on Parkinson's disease").
• I would support the formation of bodies of accredited experts for verifying articles and approving them as "expert review passed". I have aimed to actively develop this process on Coeliac disease (see Talk:Coeliac disease concerning my correspondence with experts).

Just some thoughts... JFW | T@lk 22:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you review User:Alphaquad's edits. I've reverted a substantial soapbox edit to seizure which has just got restored back. I don't like to re-revert without going to a third party to check. There has been some research on Marijuana and epilepsy but IMO not enough to warrant mention here. Is there anything worth saying on the subject, or should it all go? Anticonvulsant has also been affected. Alphaquad's contributions and user page indicate a mission at odds with WP:NPOV and may require an expert eye to review the other pharmacological edits. Thanks, Colin°^Talk 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the reversion of seizure, and will have a quick look at the other edits. JFW | T@lk 22:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your intervention, which was more thorough than I could have managed. BTW: you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Naming conventions which revisits something that you started many moons ago... Colin°^Talk 23:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Sorry for any trouble. Colin°^Talk 18:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review our discussion, and for your sake, if not for the world you seem to care nothing about, review links you have not yet seen. Let me know how this could be better. Oh but you cannot for tremendous peer pressure you must be under, even if, by some miniscule chance, you saw the light in this. Graditude expressed under credits. The alter of Mammon leads nowhere you want to go, or maybe you need to find out for yourself - DOH. You seem to be at odds with reality and the WP:NPOV by withholding correct and referenced trial information. Yes tigers are awesome and majestic. "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" Alphaquad | T@lk 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing discussion on your talkpage. My opinions are my own and unrelated to peer pressure or financial gain. To suggest otherwise is a bit uncivil, if I may say. JFW | T@lk 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather disappointed this hasn't had more review comments from FAC regulars. It would be nice for someone to affirm "A, B and C are just fine but …". I don't feel I'm experienced enough on FA. I should really lurk there a bit more to pick up tips. My feeling is that it is a technically fine article and that you have very high standards of research and fact checking – even going to external review – combined with your own expert knowledge. However, the article needs some polishing by someone who can write brilliant prose (which isn't me). Have you tried asking for help from the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors? Specifically, I wonder if TimVickers (talk · contribs) would be a good choice? Colin°^Talk 18:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fiddled with the genetics section a bit, since that seemed to be an area of particular concern. I hope I didn't change the meaning too much or introduce any inaccuracies. TimVickers 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very encouraged by the changes both of you are making. Please don't stop. As a lay reader, I feel that I'm being guided through a difficult topic rather than just given an (accurate) map and expected to make my own way. BTW: There is a typo in the Genetics section, 2nd paragraph: "Coeliac disease is |linked]] to two alleles of the ." -- Colin°^Talk 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently updated the history to note Gee's description of "improvement on a diet without starch but containing dairy, raw meat and mussels." with an edit summary of "not just mussels - reading the last page of his article shows that milk & cream, meat & mussels are recommended; he excludes any starchy foods". I don't read it that way. The bottom of the third page is quite passionate against giving coeliac children cow's milk, which is understandable if milk intolerance can occur as a consequence. He does discourage "starchy food" but then goes on to recommend rusks and thin, well toasted bread. He forbids fruit and vegetables, which is most enlightening as 50 years later these would be the only carbs allowed. Clearly, he's guessing and not much better than the physicians of ancient times. Finally, the mussels story seems to be a one-off case-note than a dietary recommendation. I imagine the patient stomached one season of this bizarre diet and exclaimed he never wanted to see another mussel again! Colin°^Talk 20:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are also interested in Natan Slifkin. Please review these articles, because I have run up against an intransigent editor:

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution

Perhaps you could also review the changes the same editor has made to Natan Slifkin. --Metzenberg 05:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up on the whole thing, frankly. Slifkin was making a sincere attempt to reexamine the classic sources and to harmonise them with the standard model. He got himself practically excommunicated by people who hadn't (and couldn't) read his books. It's still too early to assess the damage, but the chillul Hashem is already enormous.

The whole thing is a preoccupation of small groups of people in all of the camps. Most Haredi Jews are not bothered by the conflicting accounts of Genesis and science. JFW | T@lk 07:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really need your help here. ZayZayEM is engaging in troll-like behavior, such as making edits on the very materials I am editing, removing materials immediately after I add them, and so forth. It is a harassment pattern that extends across multiple articles. The main articles involved are:

* Jewish reactions to intelligent design

* Jewish opposition to evolution

* Natan Slifkin

It is bizarre behavior, because I can see no reason why he is even interested in this material. As you and I both know, it is material you have to really understand well to edit. Over the last week, I have substantially rearranged all the materials on Judaism and evolution in an effort to clean up the main Judaism and Evolution page first of all, so that it can be turned into a page that is not dominated by issues (such as the Slifkin affair) that would have undue weight. ZayZayEM has simply made it impossible for me to work. He has followed me from one article to another, demanding arbitrary changes. many of his edits, and his changes, show that he knows very little about the subject, which as you and I both know, is quite abstruse at times. --Metzenberg 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find your characterisations helpful. I know ZayZayEM (talk · contribs) from the medical WikiProject, where he has been a valuable contributor. I therefore find it hard to imagine him as a troll. I'd much rather you gave me direct evidence (e.g. with diffs) of the disputed material, and I'd only be too happy to mediate.

Slifkin has turned into a cause celebre for bloggers. It has infuriated many Modern Orthodox. It has made many UK & USA "yeshivish" people profoundly queasy (and that includes me), because they found his works comforting & very useful in kiruv work. Gerald Schroeder suffered the same treatment. But the Israeli haredi community has already moved on. JFW | T@lk 19:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well some people leave flowers so leaving you a picture I just took of a used inferior vena cava filter doesn't seem too inappropriate...

--BozMo talk 13:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, thank you. How did you get it? JFW | T@lk 14:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um.. actually the surgeon "interventionist radiologist" gave me the filter as a souvenir when he took it out of my ivc on Wednesday. Not worth arresting with PEs just to get a picture of a filter though... incidentally although he had put 50 in I was only the second he had taken out. They are scarily big and spikey. --BozMo talk 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally though it does make you realise how good the NHS is when you really need it. Within the first few hours of arrival at A&E I had in quick sucession (1) arterial blood gas (2) ECG (3) a chest Xray (4) contrast CT scan showing clots on both main pulmonary arteries just in time for arrest (5) thrombolysis plus all sorts during resuscitation (6) veinous ultrasound (7) insertion of ivc (despite the thrombolysis). It was stunningly impressive, I hope you are proud... --BozMo talk 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm proud. The waiting lists are for non-urgent but unpleasant conditions like cholecystectomies, hip replacements and hernias. JFW | T@lk 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on the talk:obesity page. alteripse 03:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls are to be fed gruel. JFW | T@lk 12:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFW. I replied to your comments on my user talk page, but since I wasn't sure whether to post it here or on my page, I posted it there and just left a message here. Regards - Tekaphor (talk · contribs)

You made a few more good suggestions. So far I have replaced the several news site references in that section with those from PubMed. I also divided the section up into relevant subsections and slightly reworded some of the text. - Tekaphor 06:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't around to maintain it, didn't want it deleted. Nice work on celiac disease BTW. Hope all's well -- 74.12.91.154 20:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope I'm responding in the right place (kind of new and confused :) *blush*), I added a section in the heme article on its degradation, unfortunately I don't know how to make chemical reactions more 'high-tech'. Are pictures from anywhere off the net ok to use? Maybe I can find something that way... Anyway, I started editing articles arorund here, mostly on biochemistry, because it's a good way for me to study and revise for my exams. But I don't have incredibly a lot of time to put into them, like draw the images myself. I guess when I look arround a bit more I'll learn how to make better contributions. Until then, bare with me ok! :D EerieNight 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Wikipedia cannot be copyrighted. Ideally, they should be made compliant with the GNU Free Documentation License, which governs all Wikipedia content. I generally draw my own diagrams in OpenOffice.org and turn them into PNG or SVG files before using Special:Upload to get them on Wikipedia.

Of course I'll bear with you. I started off on Wikipedia just after some major exams; I had a brain full of knowledge that Wikipedia clearly could use! Good luck with your exams. JFW | T@lk 20:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, but those looking for an answer to uncontrolled seizures will find none. I will consider your offer for a "history" on prochlorperazine for the safety of hospital patients. This is stuff is truly crap and should be banned, but is used like rat poison with delight to rid patients in the ER and wont be banned until demons are banned on earth. Unsigned by Alphaquad (talk · contribs)

I have seen 100s of doses of prochlorperazine used in various settings. I have yet to encounter any of the side-effects you have listed, although they have undoubtedly occurred at some point to someone. As I stated, it wouldn't be used so extensively if doctors were truly concerned about this. I still find a minuscule risk of an extrapyramidal side-effect tolerable in the face of nausea-inducing BPPV. You must hold a really dim view of the medical profession if you describe the work in the ER as pest control. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such a dim view is from genuine experience. I have responded to "bad vibes" you relate. If you are indeed concerned for others, we have that much in common and we will certainly agree from that logical stance. Please see Wait A Minute. Alphaquad 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jdf I am new to Wikipedia and I added a few external links to the diabetes article. I noticed you removed them and was wondering what was your criteria. I added them to the talk page before I added them to the live site but I didn't receive any comments or any notices. Was I supposed to wait longer? The links I added are from the U of I Extension service and provide great information for those with diabetes.

Please let me know if there is a different way of doing this, thank you

Alessandro Bellina 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:EL, our external links policy. "Great information" is not necessarily a good criterion for inclusion. Wikipedia is meant to be "great information". There are enormous amounts of information out there, and I would recommend using highly authoritative, nationally known sources of information.

You will generally not receive comments if your contributions are changed or removed. The page history will show the edit summary given when changes were made. JFW | T@lk 06:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fast answer Jdf I understand that "great information" is not a good enough reason. But the sites that I am linking here are from the University of Illinois Extension. I think that is a very authoritative group. Especially when what we talk about is mostly diet and nutrition and that is a huge part of the Extension system. May I ask you what exactly about the sites is that you don't like? Quite frankly, I think they are easier to navigate and better presented than ADA. Thank for your replies, but this is the very first time I hear that the U of I is not a good enough resource.

Alessandro Bellina 12:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please move Israel Friedman to Yisroel Friedman (1) because that is the name is he is best known as; (2) that is the name used throughout the article; (3) to avoid numerous double redirects. thanks. --Redaktor 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back. On future occasions, please check whether the page has not been moved before. I now have to explain to User:Ezra Wax why I undid a move he performed hours ago. JFW | T@lk 12:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Thank you for making the move 2) There seems to be some confusion here. Ezra Wax was trying to move the page to Yisroel Friedman but couldn't ! That is why I asked you. --Redaktor 17

15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, JFW—the article's just been promoted! Fvasconcellos 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I hope some of my comments during FAC were useful. Fvasconcellos 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations. A little praise makes a welcome change from fighting trolls, I'm sure. Colin°^Talk 21:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls are on the dermatitis herpetiformis scale of dreadfulness. JFW | T@lk 21:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done -- 74.12.75.148 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you spot the changes to coeliac disease on 27 March? Not sure you'd entirely approve. Colin°^Talk 19:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I do not approve. But we do need to say something about inadvertent gluten contamination. I have removed the content in question; if it needs to be on Wikipedia it belongs on the gluten-free diet page. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding this new source for Harold Percival Himsworth. BlueValour 22:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]