Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

are you a sockpuppet for a large pharmaceutical company? Serious question I'm afraid.

88.108.70.119alpinist (simon overton) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Serious answer, I'm afraid. Before you accuse me of something, do care to read about the definition of "sockpuppet". You are making the short-sighted error of assuming bad faith. Don't do that.

I am what I say I am on my userpage. Apart from the complimentary pen or booklet, I have never received perks from a pharmaceutical company.

If you continue to make personal attacks (because you cannot be bothered to adhere to policy or present reasonable arguments) I suspect you will end up getting blocked. Play by the rules, will you? JFW | T@lk 21:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So you ARE a sockpuppet- thanks, now we know where we all stand. Mrs. Proctor is going to have you struck off if she hears that you won't let her have her say about Mr. Wessely. I can imagine other things she might do involving scissors and precious items but lets be civil and hide behind the illusion of "neutrality". Simonalpinist —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is also a poor show if you can't ask questions where a person is coming from??? I spend my entire day teaching pragmatics yet wikipedia seems to pretend that such a vital aspect of debate doesn't exist. Simon 21:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)alpinist

Fine, have your way. So I'm an employee of GlaxoPfizerAstraLilly. Does that change anything? You may teach pragmatics, but I suspect a real pragmatic approach here would have been to simply comply to policy. It might have saved us a silly edit war.

Mrs Proctor is not a party to this discussion. Spare me the dramatics on being "struck off" and what not. Since when do you need to edit an online encyclopedia on behalf of someone else, and make physical threats on that person's behalf? I do believe you need to stop doing these things in order not to get blocked. JFW | T@lk 22:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

She really will not be happy- she will hunt you down and post you to iraq in very small parcels. (I am actually a very funny person but humour doesn't travel well in cyberspace). I still think you should be struck off for defeniding Wessely though- to say that is my right, freedom of speech etc. You could say "I am going to write to my MP and request that children aren't indoctrinated by being lent copies of "Why Freud Was Wrong" Blocked?? My ISP is randomly assigned so I can't see how that works? You really need to grow up I think. I pop into wikipedia the odd time to make the odd edit- only to be faced with a pompous tyrant. Now I think wipedia is just one big sandpit. Simon 16:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)alpinist

DNFTT. JFW | T@lk 16:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, this was a humorously awful form of vandalism! I mean, an article on the Ten Commandments? Give me a break.--Mantanmoreland 02:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

User:Hkiessecker has added some pretty interesting stuff (contribs), and I thought you might have something to say about it. I've already raised some of the issues I see just as an editor on his talk page, I thought you might have some medical objections to raise as well. He may also be editing anonymously, probably through ignorance rather than malice. The anon contribs are from Germany, and it looks like english is a second language. WLU 19:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also brought this up with User:Arcadian. WLU 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

JFW, Would you mind looking into recent additions by Marcelo1229 to ketogenic diet and Atkins Nutritional Approach wrt anti-cancer properties? The sources vary from Nutrition and Metabolism to TIME. Thanks, Colin°^Talk 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My goodness... the Warburg effect seems to be going through something of a vogue at the moment. As long as it doesn't get hyped to the same extent as DCA before the evidence is there... MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Marcelo1229 has previously been writing lots of unsourced material on "potentially" useful natural substances in the treatment of cancer. I suspect this will be much the same. Unless he uses reliable sources, his additions are unsalvageable. JFW | T@lk 09:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure this is the place to ask, but it appears as good as any. May I assume that when "diabetes mellitus" is the topic, it includes the subordinated categories such as "diabetes management"? If so, I may have some material immediately at hand -- as both a medical scientist and a diabetic, I did a literature review for my physician over some recent drug safety concerns, so have some cited material nearly in article form. I could start this in my sandbox. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

JFW, you wouldn't happen to be active over at nl:, would you? I've been having a small problem with impersonators, and they seem to have got me here. Sorry to ask, but I don't know anyone over there, and (this must sound silly) I'm sure any bureaucrats would be more amenable to a request written in Dutch... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I never contribute to nl, although I do seem to have an account there. JFW | T@lk 20:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh well; I've got an account at pt: and rarely ever do anything there either. I've gotten in touch with a bureaucrat who speaks English (and contributes over here once in a while) and hopefully she can sort things out. Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. Let me know if you need me to get involved. Your Doppelgänger on nl doesn't seem to have made any edits. Have you got a bête noire around as well? JFW | T@lk 05:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

All sorted now, thanks. They actually did make an edit or two, which were promptly deleted (vandalism as you'd imagine). I guess you could say that—myself and a few other admins "share" one :) I'd rather not give them the taste of "ooh, I'm some guy's nemesis". I don't hold myself in such high regard, and it's not worth it :D Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish I wasn't certain people's nemesis, but neither will I put up with policy violations, POV pushing and personal attacks... JFW | T@lk 16:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Remember, they made you their nemesis ;) I am in the process of slowly compiling one of these, as suggested by Phaedriel. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 edit wars ongoing in the CFS page, and your input would be greatly appreciated if you have the time and inclination to give your opinion. --Sciencewatcher 20:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I first need a good night's sleep and a good antiemetic (and perhaps some Kevlar underwear). Have you activated your email yet? JFW | T@lk 20:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry, I think it's mostly sorted out. Next time I'll try to be more careful about making multiple changes to controversial subjects. I prefer using talk than email here on wikipedia. --Sciencewatcher 21:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what is happening but someone is modifying your talk page content. I have been reverting it. If you wish for me to leave them alone, let me know! Spryde 17:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded on your talkpage. Thanks for the bother. JFW | T@lk 19:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. It was a mouso, or better said a clicko. I had missed the last digit while fighting the onset of a sleep attack and the nasty side-effects of Provigil. The difference in time between that edit and this one, minus 15 or 20 min, would be the duration of the involuntary sleep episode. I'll replace the missing digit now and later, when I expect to be more alert, do the full citation. And, yes, I'm not obese (as the previous edit intended to say) but I do have GERD, OSA, narcolepsy, and a still unreported Provigil side-effect similar to the exploding head syndrome, plus a few other pathologies. Jclerman 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good heavens. I'll sort out the reference. Be well. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems you continue to act in a childish way towards anyone who disagrees with you. You have also been reported to the authorities. Alpinist (talk · contribs)

I'm sorry you feel the need to escalate things in such a fashion. You were previously a productive contributor to pages such as conversion disorder. I suspect that while you are blocked and making continuous personal attacks and legal threats you will not be able to contribute much. That was never my intention, at least until you started making silly threats. You will have noticed that numerous admins are willing to undo your edits if the need arises. There's about 1,000 of them, before you get any ideas.

I suspect you may not want to take this up, but I am willing to rehabilitate you if you can lay off the vandalism and trolling for the next 24 hours. The time starts now, at 22:00 GMT on 2007-09-24. Obviously. if the abuse continues after your unblocking it will be that much easier to reinstate the block. It's up to you, really. JFW | T@lk 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I promise to be good from now on and not trash your user page. Very sorry (shakes hands). I did report you to Jimbo so I will tell him all is ok. Anyway mate, really sorry. I just felt you were acting like a big bully and wikipedia doesn't mean as much to me as it obviously does to you. So PEACE my friend. 88.108.58.189 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)alpinist

I hope you realise that I'm not responding to your "trashing" (which other people have done before), but to the fact that you have previously been a serious contributor and simply reacted to my approach on the Wessely page.

Just after you got blocked we were joined by Angela Kennedy (talk · contribs), someone you may well have met online. You may want to read my points made on her talkpage about working constructively on this very difficult article. JFW | T@lk 18:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said to one neurologist- our tribe thinks your tribe is the crazy tribe and vice versa. If we can recognise we both might be wrong perhaps we have made progress. I will try and continue to work on a few articles- which obviously I have been doing anyway (oops, blush, shuffle feet with guilty look on face). Can we have Byron Hyde back please? His wife is a Canadian government Minister so he will be p!ssed if she ends up with a page and he doesn't. I would also like to start a page on sacral nerve implants as I am about to have surgery for one. 88.108.58.189alpinist —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot undelete Byron Hyde without a Wikipedia:Deletion review, but I will entertain serious arguments posted there. I don't think that his wife's reaction should be the determining factor, though. I won't stop you from writing about sacral nerve implants, provided some basic notability criteria are met. JFW | T@lk 19:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So do I take it I am unblocked?? I can't do any articles tonight (officially or unoffiically- pretty shattered after yet another visit to Europe's largest autonomic testing laboratory- I have autonomic failure.). I also think an article on Maureen O'Neill is pretty essential. Byron Hyde will be back I'm sure- especially given his work on electron microscopy- for some reason someone kept deleting this book from the page. POV editing I suspect. Don't you just hate that?

88.108.58.189 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)alpinist

Sorry about the delay in answering, I was out of town, I will most certainly help if I can ℒibrarian2 07:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much you are obviously a nice person after all. I was mistaken. Here is an imaginary barnstar for you kindness.....

Simonalpinist —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I began sacral nerve stimulator and now it is up for deletion as advertising- wikipedia is crazy

Simonalpinist

I took a look at the article pre-CSD notice and was pretty flimsy. I rewrote it to fit in with the encyclopedia more per the Manual of Style. It looks like an interesting device. You may want to write more about the disease/problem (not sure what to call it) itself. I would put the article in your userspace and have someone look at it before putting it into Mainspace though. Spryde 17:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

cheers, Simonalpinist —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You might want to reconsider your decision to unblock that user after reading the edits that I got on my talk page ([1] [2]) immediately after declining his unblock request. Or at least, you might want to watch him very closely indeed. These edits are not indicative of a person who is likely to be a net benefit to the project. Sandstein 19:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed this editor's recent contributions. Much of it is bona fide (e.g. his new sacral nerve stimulator), or at least does not involve blockable behaviour. My feeling was that his attacks stemmed purely from being blocked, and I took a gamble (as with every unblock) on rehabilitating this user. I will continue to monitor his edits; please let me know if he gives you further trouble. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're right that Kolff should lead any list (though I am not sure he was a nephrologist since he predated the field I believe). I'm new to wikipedia so I wonder how to go about expanding the list? Should people on the list have a wikipedia entry? What other criteria do suggest? I'm up for some research but would apreciate some guidance. Cheers, BillpSea 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Their own article would be a good start. But, if they don't have their own article, a citation explaining why they're notable would suffice! Scarian^Talk 22:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that my push for Kolff was just chauvinism (him being a compatriot etc), but Bob Schrier is a name that should be considered. If there is no Wikipedia article on him, perhaps it's time it gets created. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A start on Robert W. Schrier I'll add references (for instance for awards ). You can choose to add him to the "Notable Nephrologists" under Nephrology - I've put some more on the list. How big a list is appropriate? Top 20? /top 100? New Question I posted to the Renal function talk - I was surprised not to see a discussion of CKD stages 1-5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillpSea (talk • contribs)

I totally agree that CKD 1-5 should be mentioned both in chronic renal failure and on renal function. You gimme good reference, I will worka this into da articles. JFW | T@lk 07:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. R Delivery Bot 02:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

On 27 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fuller Albright, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 21:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award this barnstar to Jfdwolff for his amazing patience in dealing with the wolf-pit at the Simon Wessely article. Tim Vickers 04:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

On that subject, I have indicated that I intend to remove posts which violate the talk page guidelines and use the talk page for debate or argumentation rather than discussion of specific improvements to the article. That has met with a predictable response. I think more admin eyes would be useful, and have posted at WP:AN/I requesting such. MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, and good luck MastCell. I will try to catch up with the debate after my 3 days off. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't know whether you saw the request by FV at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine#Melatonin and POV. I reviewed the added text and decided it was inappropriate so removed it. I've explained why on the talk page but GodGnipael isn't really interested in WP policy. I've reverted once and don't like to do so repeatedly. I'd appreciate if you could intervene appropriately. Thanks, Colin°^Talk 21:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll need to look at this tomorrow, but thanks for flagging it up. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

NCurse _work 06:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Jacob, I've decided not to allow any further comments about those Admin Board comments on my talk page while I wait for Jim Wales to respond to me. Your post DID refer to the issue at hand. Can you please post any comments you have on your own talk page? I do not intend to discuss the issue because whatever your opinion, I have to do what I think is right. And yes- this constitutes a particular situation that warrants the removal of others comments, the reasons having been made clear on my talk page! I've read the guidelines. Angela Kennedy —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I dispute that my comments came anywhere close to being candidate for removal. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. As I stated clearly, I have not attacked you personally nor been particularly incivil. I have made pointed comments about the doubtful role of CFS/ME activists on the Simon Wessely page, for which I have ample evidence (e.g. the page being blanked and locked by Jimbo Wales). I have not accused you of any policy violations, and have made some efforts to improve your Wikipedia experience by (1) discussing policy problems, (2) recommending helpful attitudes, (3) asking for other editors to apologise for mistaking you for a sockpuppet.

As I tried to explain, your email to "Jim" Wales is unlikely to achieve anything, because you have not made the slightest attempt to follow formal dispute resolution in the form of WP:RFC, WP:RFM or WP:RFAr. I quoted "JamesMLane's law" to you (WP:RAUL law 5 by others), which goes like this: "In any Wikipedia discussion, the probability that some participant will belligerently threaten to appeal the matter to Jimbo is inversely proportional to the probability that Jimbo would actually intervene in that dispute."

What you need, Angela, is understand how consensus is achieved on Wikipedia. In contrast to Guy, I still don't rule out a constructive role for you on Wikipedia and I have actively been trying to coach you in that direction. However, screaming "LIBEL" every time someone criticses your stance is not productive and of course a complete joke since people from the One Click camp have been stuffing exactly that onto the Wessely page. That, again, is not LIBEL or DEFAMATION but the judgement of a Wikipedian called Jimbo Wales in November 2005.

I urge you to think about the way in which you might want to contribute to Wikipedia. I can help, and I will work with you if necessary. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

The migraine article is loaded with trash. Should it be semi-protected? If so, how does this happen?Badgettrg 10:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Blood antibody tests for coeliac disease^[1]

Test	sensitivity	specificity
AGA IgA	50%	98%
AGA IgA	25%	98%
Anti-EMA	81%	99%
ATA	81%	99%

Note rows 2 and 3 have the same identifyer AGA IgA.Pdeitiker 13:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please look up and read "the complexities of diagnosis" by Byron Hyde before deciding that CFS and ME are one and the same- THEY ARE NOT

Cheers!!!

88.108.49.106alpinist —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you think CFS and ME have anything to do with the price of Tea in china, but I was hoping I could determine which of the IgA was intended to be an IgG Pdeitiker

Never mind, Phil. Alpinist sometimes leaves comments without starting a new header. I'll try to fix the coeliac article. JFW | T@lk 20:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You contributed to the leukemia article, so I thought you could help. This news article writes

"Arsenic in the water, tungsten in the air, polonium in wells, underground atomic testing to the east - all have been reported by the media. The entry for "Fallon, Nevada" on Wikipedia, a popular online encyclopedia, mentions the leukemia cluster. It's no wonder some outsiders unfortunately perceive our community as unhealthy."

The entry in the Fallon, Nevada article lacked any footnotes and seemed like original research. Would you please review Fallon, Nevada: Cancer Cluster and footnote it, if possible. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 14:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is endnoted now (by yourself, I see). JFW | T@lk 20:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Yeah, that was not the edit that I was after. I was actually after this diff which was an edit or two before yours. I'm not sure how that happened. Sorry, Dismas|^(talk) 20:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

you had a fair point about blogs and RS. I've replied to you at the Judaism wikiproject talk page. --Dweller 14:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. To paraphrase Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik, "not everything that is blogged needs to be on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 14:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I've added a source that's not a blog. --Dweller 20:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Het spijt mij dat ik enkele dagen heb gevandaliseerd op het artikel obesity. Ik zal het zeker niet meer doen, dr. Jfdwolff, dat beloof ik u bij deze plechtig. -The Bold Guy- 12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Circa 1996, an autopsy was performed on a women with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis in Newcastle-upon-Tyne by Dr. John Richardson and the brain tissue examined by Dr. James Mowbray at St. Mary’s Paddington. This woman had a history of typical Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, was well known by Dr. Richardson and accidentally died when her car fell of the side of the pier into the North Atlantic, the cold water preserving the brain tissue. Dr. Mowbray was able to demonstrate an autoimmune injury at that capillary level of the brain and basement membrane, the area that separates the capillaries from the neurons and brain tissue. In effect the same juxtaposition as in poliomyelitis but in this case in the brain and not in the spinal cord"-quoted from Byron Hyde

This patient phoned me from the United States to ask for an appointment. The young man had visited two major U.S. clinics and had been seen by over 20 physicians in the United States and Great Britain. They had diagnosed him as either having CFS or psychiatric problems. He was a brilliant professional with an extremely high salary who simply wished to get back to the work and life he loved. His story is typical of many patients I have seen. He had been ill with a significant upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) including a severe sore throat. For some unknown reason, his physician decided to give him a combined hepatitis B and A immunization at this time. Within a week after the injection, he was severely ill with intellectual and fatigue dysfunction. He soldiered on for several months mainly through the courtesy of his associates and then finally had to stop. One of his insurance companies refused to pay him. Despite seeing many physicians and going to two of the most important medical clinics in the United States, he was no further along. He brought all of the tests performed on him over the previous two years. It proved to have been a very incomplete investigation, but there were clues. There was a minor TSH discrepancy on one of his tests. On physical exam, there was not much in his thyroid but it was a bit irregular. I ordered antithyroid antibodies that came back incredibly elevated, and the initial ultrasound came back as a nodular thyroid. A thyroid uptake scan came back with a diagnosis of Graves' disease, but this did not fit what appeared to be a Hashimoto's thyroiditis. I referred him to an endocrinologist in his hometown and asked for a biopsy. It came back as malignant plus Hashimoto's thyroiditis. The thyroid was removed, and he was placed on treatment for metastasis as a precaution. However, his neuro-SPECT demonstrated a significant vasculitis pattern. What probably happened is that the hepatitis B portion of the immunization paralyzed his normal immune response to the ongoing infection. The existing presumed viral infection then became chronic. I have seen this scenario in many cases of post-hepatitis B immunization injury. The companies producing hepatitis B immunization serum now clearly state in their brochures not to immunize when the patient is ill. When these immunizations first came out, however, they were touted as being the safest immunization ever invented and the suggestion was that they could be given without any negative consequence. Immunizations are powerful tools and should not be used in a patient with an acute ongoing infectious illness. This patient has other injuries that I will not go into, but he has classical ME with the abnormal vasculitis pattern scan. His ME illness is still active, but hopefully will settle down. -quoted from Byron Hyde

88.108.96.147flatinist —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might want to sign with your own handle, Alpinist, and continue the discussion on Guido's talkpage. You have brought me two quotes from Byron Hyde. We know exactly who Byron Hyde is. I'm sure a reference to Dr Mowbray's own findings would be much more useful. As for the second, it requires several leaps of logic (e.g. immunization injury is not a commonly accepted concept). JFW | T@lk 19:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No. It's just laziness. I'll fix it now. Cheers, Tomer^talk 04:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that any better?  :-D Tomer^talk 04:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you like me now? :-p Tom@r^talk 15:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just kidding.  :-D Tomer^talk 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[3] And shouldn't it be Myalgic encephalomyelitis? I tried to move it, but I don't have the access. WLU 20:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rinse, wash, repeat. There is no consensus on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome for a dual article. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	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 09:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Wolff: Hope all goes well with you and yours. The series of articles on the History of the Jews in Europe is complete. All the European countries have articles, even if they are stubs for now. However there are still two more: History of the Jews in Wales and History of the Jews in Northern Ireland (see related articles History of the Jews in England and History of the Jews in Scotland) that are listed as countries in template {{|Europe topic|History of the Jews in}} that require someone to add information and start the article. If you are able to, your efforts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't begin to know where to look for suitable material; the Encyclopedia Judaica perhaps... JFW | T@lk 15:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

NCurse _work 17:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Wolff: Unfortunately, there is a user Ludvikus (talk · contribs) who is tampering with the formatting of a nomination page [4]. See the wildness of what he is doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints). He is inserting and changing the original formatting and even the wording, totally unheard of. Please take a look at it. Thanks a lot. IZAK 15:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was fully discussed, and responded to both Sciencewatcher's invitation to differentiate and your comment that "but I am not sure if that is adequately addressed by the wording change. JFW | T@lk 18:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)" Jagra 08:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, the whole discussion is a hairsplitting exercise. The entire body can be regarded as part of the immune system. Epithelium performs a barrier function against pathogens, and endothelium allows neutrophils to roll and diapedese to the connective tissue.

There are much bigger issues to be covered - how come there are so many contradictory reports on the role of immune hyper- and hypoactivation? JFW | T@lk 08:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of discussion then if even with consensus, there is another court of judgement beyond!!! I had begun discussion on the Immune dysfunction but no one seems interested, probably for the same reason, everyone knows that to improve will mean more words? I have reveiwed the current wording and find it is not fully representative of the reveiws , there are some more consistent findings that we should state, and as i have already indicated explanations in the literature for the hyper beget hypo. that I also think should be added. But I do not want to waste your time or mine further unless there is general understanding that improvement may mean expansion!Jagra 03:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have great difficulty seeing the difference between your version and Sciencewatcher's. It seems you are allowing for immune dysregulation in tissues other than white cells. I think that's a reasonable assessment, based on the fact that the immune system is somewhat broader than just leukocytes.

Could you remind me of the key citations on "hyper beget hypo"? JFW | T@lk 05:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets move on then, the hyper begets hypo is hereJagra 10:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That theory seems to be your own, rather than being supported by the references offered (including one from Med Hypoth 1994, a journal that I distrust immensely). JFW | T@lk 11:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The theory is, but thats not what is proposed for the Article, that is supported by the references. I prefer not to judge a book by its cover, or a paper by its abstract or publisher, until I have read it. Editing on wikipaedia, I understand, is more difficult because of so much material one cannot be expected to know or to read more than what’s readily available. In which case unless there is a good reason, I tend to take things at face value, where peer reviewed, in this case I also have copies, and it explains in some detail with 114 ref's. But there is another way to look at it. On the matter of substrate depletions in CFS, this was first discovered and reported in two studies by well known ME/PVFS/CFS researchers the Behan’s of Scotland. (Prof Peter Behan of the Institute of Neurological Sciences and University of Glascow). The first published in a book edited by Prof David Horrobin a renowned authority on essential fatty acid metabolism (if not the renowned authority!). The second published study involved a treatment trial and was co authored by Prof Horrobin, The hypothesis I cited was published in Med Hypotheses ( which you note), at a time when the editor was none other than Prof David Horrobin. On a subject he had published in, I am sure it would not escape his keen attention in peer review. I tend to consider EFA papers in that journal with some respect. So it all depends on how you look at it, either way the subject certainly has some good bona fides, and plenty of papers to cite. As you have raised it on the CFS Talk page I will address your concerns and provide more detail references there, after a little research. Jagra 03:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly in contradiction with a previous edit made by yourself. WLU 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked on Pubmed. The association is not widely recognised. JFW | T@lk 18:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. Hope you don't mind, you've pretty much become my go-to admin for medical issues. I'll try to keep stuff to a minimum - 28 archives is already pretty substantial. WLU 18:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If the matter is straightforward I really don't mind dealing with it. It becomes harder if I need to mediate in a thorny edit war. If you need another admin, there's always MastCell and David Ruben. JFW | T@lk 18:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thorny edit wars I try to deal with myself, I'd only turn to you, MC or DR (who I hadn't seen before, thanks) were it something related to content I am unfamiliar with. I use User:Arcadian as well, but he/she is pretty busy and rarely steps in unless it's a gross violation. WLU 18:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dr Wolff, In reply to your writing, I trust that this IS the forum through which to discuss things? I will offer a phrase from today's NYTimes: By ALEX BERENSON "Pfizer stopped work on torcetrapib, last December after a 15,000-patient clinical trial showed that it raised the risk of death by 59 percent and heart problems by 25 percent,results were a stunning setback for Pfizer and for doctors..." I have found that the use of (>) (in Lipitor's adverse effects) as in >1% of users, to be typical of Pfizers practice of mis-representing and/or mis-informing patients. Reflect upon this with care, and you will find that the entry has-no-meaning! After a 3 year trial of Lipitor-poisoning, I was most dismayed to find their "boilerplate" adverse reaction information, to be the standard that you have forcefully maintained. It is incomplete, highly biased, and does indeed misrepresent the potential issues to the user and victem. The unfortunate, yet vast majority of physicians in the US seem to be affected by the spell Pfizer's promotional materials has cast. Wiki should offer better than this, through more complete information. Addressing the controversy(s) and offering the reader an intelligent overview. The remaining elements presented in the page (Lipitor) are far more easily verified and appropriate. It is in the critical area discussed above, with which further work is needed. Thank you, Observant1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observant1 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Hi - thanks for your good faith edits to the cholesterol article. However, I disagree with your edit and comment. I doubt you can prove your claim that "skeptics... comprise <1% of all scientists looking into this". WP:WEIGHT doesn't say that there is a "1%" cutoff or anything on the number of people who agree. There was a time when 99% of the people in the world thought the Earth was flat, or that HIV was a homosexual-only disease. Moreover, it was just a link to the controversy article, and did not contain not any data or claims regarding the controversy at all; hence the link is appropriate for the article on cholesterol. Even WP:WEIGHT says if the "viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" and there are many named on the Lipid hypothesis page -- as proof, see the extensive list of citations by prominent doctors and researchers there. -- GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 21:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually dispute that the skeptics fall below the WP:WEIGHT horizon, but I am trying to explain that your edit vastly overdid it in terms of labeling the hypothesis as "controversial". As the lipid hypothesis page itself states, there are very few doctors who take the link between cholesterol and atherosclerosis for anything less than fact. I know about your POV, and you must know that I'm in the other camp.

I will accept that the cholesterol page needs to mention the small minority view that cholesterol is harmless, but in the context of the otherwise general acceptance of the lipid hypothesis. Feel free to insert it somewhere, but not in the form that you did and loudly in the introduction. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Perhaps instead of "controversial", it should say "has been brought into question" and also to lessen the weight of the controversy, place the link lower and in a less prominent place. Your thoughts? (Note please that one of my doctors, a prominent Harvard-trained surgeon and professor at George Washington University, as well as my GP, both question the lipid hypothesis and strongly hesitate to prescribe statins. In other words, I didn't form my POV just by reading some articles. -- GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 21:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Talk:Cholesterol: "Speaking here as a medical doctor with almost 30 years experience (and a sufferer of hypercholesterolaemia) I must take exception to the idea of the opinion of the "vast majority" of the medical profession as to the place of cholesterol in heart disease. It has been internationally recognised that the cholesterol hypothesis for heart disease is based on the wrong model. 75% of cholesterol arises not from diet, but from the liver. Why? What is the protective mechanism sought by the liver? Obviously there is a good reason for excess production. Why is it that we have known since the mid-50s that CRP is a better predictor of CHD than cholesterol? What is the role of homocysteine in predicting heart disease, and what biochemical process does it represent? These are indisputable findings. Remember that the "vast majority" of the medical profession disputed Semmelweiss' approach to hygiene and puerperal fever. I appreciate your adherence to orthodoxy, but there is a large and growing body of doctors who doubt that approach. Yes, Framingham is excellent and must be used to assess risk, yes cigarette smoking is really dumb, yes there are issues with poor nutrition and lack of exercise. Cholesterol is, however, not the most important issue for CHD. Otherwise, the biochemical references here are excellent. [docboat 00:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)] -- GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 21:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to copy other people's posts from talkpages. I have now mentioned THINCS and their opinions in the hypercholesterolemia section, as well as Steinberg's response.

I will not comment on your personal situation, as I don't know whether your condition warrants treatment with a statin. Perhaps you're in the grey zone, and your surgeon and your GP are unconvinced that you need treatment. But does that mean they question the fact that atheroma is chock-full with cholesterol-laden macrophages, and that interfering with this process may be a good thing? Again, I'm in discussion with you and not with your doctors. JFW | T@lk 22:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I was just addressing your statement "I know about your POV, and you must know that I'm in the other camp". Regards, GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 22:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What is RCT? - thanks. GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 22:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)

Hi again - I humbly ask you, before wholesale deletion of well-cited edits (the Diabetes mellitus article), please, discuss with the contributor. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before doing this. It says "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Thanks! -- GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 22:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to fix your signature. It has no link to your userpage, talkpage or contributions.

The deletion policy is about deleting articles, not bits of articles. Furthermore, I was never in doubt that your contributions were unsuitable. For vanadium you offered only two references to animal studies. When human data is available we can reconsider. Chromium is of proven uselessness, and the high-fibre diet should be integrated with other material on diet in diabetes to be seen in context. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Vanadium - human data has been collected. See article. Unsuitable? Exhuastively referenced. Thanks for noticing the signature - I don't know what's up there, I use four tildes. GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 22:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)

You have selected "raw signature" in your preferences. You need to manually provide a link to your userpage if you want this to work.

I see, thanks. I'll try it out here; (User)(Talk) GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 22:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the chromium and vanadium data is that very few doctors still lend any credence to the chromium link, and a 2007 Dutch study again showed its uselessness. I have added this reference, but I feel we shouldn't mention chromium to begin with. Vanadium is perhaps supported by some studies but not quite part of the therapeutic arsenal in any form or description - you are again devoting a lot of attention to matters of the periphery, which is why I added the {{POV-section}} tag. I will drop a post on Talk:Diabetes mellitus about my misgivings. JFW | T@lk 22:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added 2 more citations to the vanadium section. (User)(Talk) GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 22:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find the particulars of the community ban you're referring to here? Thanks. Avb 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is on WP:ANI. I must warn you that several admins have reviewed the evidence, and that all were somewhat shocked by the vituperative tone of their posts, the legal threats, and the use of userpages as a platform. I have tried to be reasonable throughout, but clearly several new fresh pairs of eyes found what they did. This is a repeat of November 2005, and I am sure that someone, sometime, will try to blame an honest medical researcher for anything from bad weather on Sunday to nuclear proliferation.

Given your recent interactions on Talk:Simon Wessely I am sure that either Suzy or Angela will try to contact you. Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) has already tried to intervene. The bottom line is that definite legal threats were made, and that two contributors were perpetuating a discussion with the express aim of making a Wikipedia article more critical on its subject.

I am now moving on to other things. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 07:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. The problem was that I did not see a community ban discussion, let alone a consensus, on ANI (one of the boards I'm monitoring and where I sometimes assist). The banning policy clearly didn't apply. If anything, when seen as a community ban, this was far worse than all reasons why the CSN board was rejected by the community combined.

However, the question is now moot as it has since transpired that this was not a community ban but a Jimbo ban. Although I don't agree with it, I can accept it as this has always been his prerogative. Even though this involves someone whose moral fiber I will vouch for any day. I still hope they'll be able to work this out. All editors, including banned ones, are welcome to contact me; I'd be more than happy if I could be of assistance. Avb 15:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A Jimbo ban? I need to investigate. Legal threats by both banned editors are grounds for blocking and become a community ban as a result, in Suzy's case this was not the first time she'd played the solicitor card. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it was Neil who did the block. All we have is Guy citing an otherwise undisclosed email from Jimbo suggesting Angela Kennedy and MEagenda remain banned indefinitely. But they were anyway, for legal threats.

I don't think you should be offering your services to banned editors on my talkpage. JFW | T@lk 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I know Neil did the block; Jimbo, however, announced the ban, according to Guy.

Services? This was my response to your remark that "either Suzy or Angela will try to contact you" followed by the suggestion that this would somehow be improper.

Without Jimbo's intervention, you're quite right that the block could have resulted in a de facto community ban if no admin had been willing to unblock. An explicit community ban (as per the now defunct CSN or in-depth discussion on ANI) would also have been possible, but has not been discussed anywhere as far as I know. On the contrary: MEagenda had already withdrawn the solicitor card so I think nothing would have stood in the way of unblocking as per Neil's offer (which duplicated the spirit of the WP:THREAT policy). But it didn't happen that way; see this diff. Avb 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The ANI discussion was quite unambiguous. Neil said the block could be withdrawn if the threats were. Others said that people who make threats remain blocked, and this seems to be the conclusion. Furthermore, there is Jimbo's message. I wouldn't shed any tears if MEagenda remained blocked. Is there anything you want me to do here? I'd prefer not to discuss this sorry affair any more than strictly necessary. JFW | T@lk 00:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There was never consensus for a conditional block. JFW | T@lk 00:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, thanks; I think we're through here. The funny thing is, if it's a Jimbo ban, that's where it ends; if this is a community ban, someone should probably point out that those arguing against Neil's offer may have been unaware of the letter and spirit of WP:THREAT: Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding. It won't be me though; I'm still treating this as a Jimbo ban.

Thanks again for your time. Avb 00:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It will become a Jimbo ban the moment someone dares to contemplate unblocking Angela or Suzy. The problems were running much deeper than simply mentioning their solicitors. JFW | T@lk 00:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I say Schrödinger's cat is dead already, you predict it will be dead when someone opens the box... Avb 01:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Meow. For all intents and purposes, the cat was dead when it was fed on poisonous computer mice. JFW | T@lk 10:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not advertising to have a page dedicated to a brand. There is an article on coca cola, pepsi cola etc etc etc.

It most certainly wasn't an advert. Do you have a vested interest preventing any 'publicity' (that is non-advertisement information) for brands other than Viagra?

You may not have liked the article - but Kamagra is something that people buy on the internet all the time. It is something with enormous cultural significance - and something that can be really dangerous unless people can make informed choices about.

You were absolutely wrong to delete the article - although you would of course be entitled to transform it through editing.

As it is, you have simply denied people information. Viagra is available through doctors - Kamagra isn't in the West. For that reason alone there is an enormous difference between the two brands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Picton (talk • contribs) 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete the article. The edit history is still there if you need the previous versions for reference.

I turned it into a redirect because sildenafil isn't just about Viagra. It is about any product containing sildenafil as an active compound. That's why Revatio also redirects there.

Your claims about notability are for you to support with reliable sources. You may want to add information about Kamagra to the sildenafil page, provided you can prove how notable it is. Mainstream sources (e.g. business reviews in major newspapers) are preferable.

Obviously I was not "absolutely wrong" to do what I did. You are invited to show me which policy or guideline I violated. What I did was WP:BOLD. Saying that "you have simply denied people information" is a rather harsh statement. Not all information in the world needs to be in an encyclopedia; editors make editorial decisions, as I did with the Kamagra article. I hope you understand. Let me know if you need any further assistance. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Kamagra is a brand with a great deal of cultural significance, mainly because it is readily available on the black market - and there is total vacuum of reliable information about the brand. Like the brands Hoover and Dyson, Ford and Mercedes and Pepsi and Coca Cola - I think it should have its own page.

You are right that not all the world's information could be in an encyclopaedia, nor does it need to be - but surely it is an aspiration of wikipedia to record the sum total of the world's knowledge. Especially important knowledge - or what else is the point?

I've reinstated the page because I think it's important. But I'm not going to do it again as it would be silly to get into a competition about it. Also on reflection, with such a charged topic, it's only likely to get deleted again.

That said you are clearly dedicated to wikipedia, intelligent and informed and for that reason I apologise for my tone, as you are clearly committed to the spirit of the project.

I also accept that it is bizarre for kamagra to have its own page, when other brands don't. I don't know enough about all the brands to set up their own pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Picton (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you should address my points before starting off the Kamagra page again. The relevant information might just as well be on sildenafil, without actually "simply den[ying] people information".

Brands don't always need their own page. I think it would be much more useful to have all sildenafil-containing brands on the same page. This is certainly the approach of WikiProject Pharmacology, the WikiProject in charge of articles on medication. I will ask the other contributors at the WikiProject about their opinion (diff).

Thanks for your kind comments, and I hope you understand the rationale behind my moves. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I imagine you have access to PubMed and your input into this article would be appreciated. I only just started to rewrite the intro to try to NPOV it from its conspiratorial tone. --MPerel 07:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

David Ruben seems to have covered this pretty well. This is a very difficult subject and I don't think I'll be voting on that AFD. JFW | T@lk 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If the article survives the AfD, should it at least be expanded to cover the (respectable at the time) use of radiotherapy for scalp ringworm used pretty much worldwide ? If so, what should it be renamed as to give it a neutral medical therapeutic title, "Radiotherapy for ringworm", "Radiotherapy treatment for scalp ringworm" or inverted as in "Scalp ringworm radiotherapy" ? David Ruben ^Talk 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't seen the current SSRI page, please do.NewBostonTeaParty 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going there. Apparently a Wikipedia article on psychopharmaca is only good if it consists for >70% on side effects, side effects the drug companies didn't tell you about, and side effects the drug company doesn't know about but are exceedingly common. Without experts (and I mean real experts, the people who do this for their daytime job) these articles are doomed to remain as rubbish as they are. Since my run-ins with a certain chap in October 2005 I have decided to leave the SSRI article well alone. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jacob- As you know I am no longer editing wikipedia. There are reasons behind this. Serious concerns regarding Jimbo himself actually and some of his comments that I have seen. HOWEVER I do not wish to get into my usual bad self of going on about such things.

I came back on because I wanted to ask you a question and this is the easiest way. I wondered if you do actually know Simon Wessely??? I know this is a personal question but I was just intrigued as to why you should spend so much time online defending the bloke. You can e-mail me in confidence if you wish. Ironically Simon does now know about me- he seems to read the talk pages a lot.

Anyway I don't intend to waste my time on wikipedia. I am just too busy to waste time on it to be honest.

Take care of yourself mate,

Simonalpinist —Preceding comment was added at 14:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never met Prof Wessely.

I am defending Wessely firstly because I think the "criticism" from certain quarters is based on a misrepresentation of his views (and hence not NPOV), and secondly because I cannot believe a serious scientist should be attacked in such a way for holding a somewhat controversial viewpoint - especially when he is willing to set up clinical trials to prove that point and even more so when these trials show that he may be on to something.

I don't know why you think Prof Wessely reads the talkpages. He is certainly entitled to do so, as I would recommend to anyone who is (un)lucky enough to have a Wikipedia biography of him/herself. JFW | T@lk 16:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer- I know that he does read the talk pages as he made reference to them in conversation with someone I know. That's how I know he also knows of me. I AM SO FAMOUS!!!

Anyway I don't intend to get involved in arguments or further discussion- I am having enough problems trying to get the local neurologist to realise that missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis are not the same thing. Counting down to surgery anyway- sacral nerve implant etc.

Sorry again for trashing your talk page- it was fun in a very childish way.

Best wishes- Simon

88.108.36.102alpinist —Preceding comment was added at 17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you've got ears everywhere, Simon.

I'm surprised you're still doing business with your local neurologist. To get anywhere with regards to misdiagnosis you will have to prove that most neurologists would not have made the same diagnosis. But of course I should not comment on your own case, given that I am not in any way involved in your medical care. Best of luck with the surgery, anyway.

I've had my talk page trashed before, so I'm not really bovvered. It seems to be part of getting involved with interesting subjects (last time it was Parkinson's disease). JFW | T@lk 12:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The section sounded oddly unclear to me and I thought it could do with some rewording to remove the awkwardness.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I could conceivably understand why an article about obesity would have a history section, but god, the section that is there right now is just ridiculous. I especially like this little line "as food security was realized, it came to serve more as a visible signifier of "lust for life", appetite, and immersion in the realm of the erotic"". I was scared that just rewording the paragraph a little might make me look stupid.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Wolff: Please take a look at this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns. I have asked for clarification [5]. Thanks for looking into this, IZAK 10:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Egfrank thinks that Reform and Progressive are different branches of Judaism. Many would oppose such a distinction, but them I don't move in those circles. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	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

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

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 14:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, some time ago you've deleted by contribution to the Blood type (see the diff) with the comment "... removed speculative material in non-English language that does not satisfy WP:RS". Could you please tell me what exactly was the problem with the contribution and/or citation and whether it can be improved to be acceptable? Or all citations of non-English works - though by renowned experts valued in their country - not considered credible enoug? You wrote that the content is speculative - maybe (a lot of the current science are just 'speculations') but it's a grounded speculation and it was actually presented as a speculation ("According to [Benes93] it can be partly attributed to..") so I don't see any problem with that.

Thank you.

BTW: The exact citation should have been BENEŠ, Jan. Člověk. Praha : Mladá fronta, 1994. ISBN 80-204-0460-0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malyvelky (talk • contribs) 08:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a rather speculative (as un-falsifiable) theory that may not be suitable according to WP:WEIGHT (unless it has received secondary coverage). JFW | T@lk 12:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Wolff: Please see the present discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns. Your input would be greatly appreciated. (They are the result of the discussions that unfolded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels.) Thanks so much, IZAK 08:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

howdy...i added something to the discussion on the cancer page. thanks for the intro message!Chaveso 18:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:

• The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.

• The current Collaboration of the Month for November is Receptor antagonist. Please take a look at that article and contribute to it if you get a chance. Ideally, the article should adhere to the featured article criteria.

• Therapies for multiple sclerosis is currently a featured article candidate. If you are familiar with the featured article criteria, please visit WP:FAC and review the article.

• Anabolic steroid is the wikiproject's newest Featured Article, having been promoted on October 8, 2007.

• Theobromine was delisted as a Good Article. The Peer review and GA reassessment discussions provide suggestions on improvement. Muscle relaxant was recently reviewed for Good Article status, but not promoted. Please see the full review full review here for details.

Dr. Cash 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
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 05:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think that ultra-Orthodox is a poor term, that's your POV. It is used in all academic and media sources, and there are thousands of examples. There is nothing "miserable" in it. It is a way of distinguishing modern Orthodox from black hat Orthodox. It was never a perjorative term until Wikipedia and Wikipedians came into the world.--Gilabrand 07:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ultra-orthodox means 'beyond the correct law'; it is most definitely pejorative (and recognized as such long before Wikipedia) and is rejected as a valid description by those whom it describes. --Redaktor 07:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)\

Again, that's your take on things. All the English newspapers in Israel use the term "ultra-Orthodox" and a large proportion of the readership is Orthodox. The chief editor of Haaretz English edition is a bearded, Orthodox Jew. The opinion of Wikipedians is exactly that - an opinion. --Gilabrand 08:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Oh, and if you called me Haredi, I would take that as an insult, too. Haredi means afraid. Gilabrand

On Wikipedia we have largely abandoned the use of the word "Ultra-Orthodox". Haredi is not pejorative, as it is the way Haredim describe themselves. Obviously it does not mean afraid in the cowardly sense of the word, and I find your logic a bit weird. S.R. Hirsch already noted (collected writings VI) that "Ultra-Orthodox" is a meaningless epithet, because it just implies "more Orthodox than me". The Western media use the term "Ultra-Orthodox" for people who definitely are not Haredim but simply strict Dati Le'umi (which is a more accurate term, again, than "Modern Orthodox" which is an Americanism).

I also dispute your assertion that Modern Orthodox Jews do not do shidduchim at all. From personal experience at least I can state confidently that many non-Haredi Jews rely on matches suggested by others. JFW | T@lk 14:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain your edit here? The information seems perfectly relevant to our article on Lipitor, and The New York Times is certainly a WP:RS. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

See my response on Talk:Atorvastatin. JFW | T@lk 23:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just received your note on my talk page. Thanks for your input, and your explanation of your actions. I will use that guidance in my future editing attempts.Raymondwinn 03:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks re: music treatment. I think you're making a joke about ultrasound, right? Your question is a bit above my head. I'll just say that blasting something with sound at the right frequency will disrupt it... and if you're not too careful, it won't be healthy for the patient either. :) --Kyoko 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jfw; I could clean up one autism article a day and never make a dent in the mess out there. Today I discovered that an editor named Donna is adding a lot of info referenced to the non-reliable donnawilliams.net and creating articles of dubious notability. What should be done with autistic art and autistic artist? At minimum, they should be one article, but I don't know policy in this area. Do they need to go to AfD, does one get redirected, do I have to put up a merge discussion, or do I just delete all the unsourced, non-RS essay stuff and see what's left? I don't know where to start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems autistic art is a neologism and WP:NOR, and you can simply WP:BOLD and change it into a redirect to autistic artist. That is, unless there is strong documentary evidence that art critics regard "autistic art" as a distinctive stream with features that make it unique.

Heavens, we're going to get autistic music, autistic science, autistic footballing next...

I totally agree that Wikipedia is awash with autism articles, including a large number of WP:COATRACK articles about scientists that turn out to be mainly about the theories they subscribe to. Many of them need some dry-cleaning and deinfestation. JFW | T@lk 07:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I can barely keep up with all of it, and I'm getting no help anywhere. There is so much of it we could have a dedicated WikiProject Autism and still not get it all! I clean up several articles a day, and they are replete with vanicruftizement (whatever that word is). Everyone who's got a blog has figured out they can advance their cause on Wiki via External links. OK, I will take the art article and blend it into artist and then redirect when I have time. Thanks for the guidance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Trimming external links is not the hard bit IMHO. Reading the POV between the lines and replacing it with something neutral and well-sourced is much more difficult. Could you give me a few article titles, and I will do what I can. JFW | T@lk 16:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, for example, yesterday I started through the links at {{autism rights movement}}, just cleaning out non-reliable sources and cruft from External links, but I didn't even get around to reading most of the text. I just go where the links lead me by starting through the various autism templates when I have a block of free time, hoping that some of my edits will be instructive to other editors as to Wiki policies, and that they will take the hint and improve their editing from there. There's not enough time to do it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, I often find I cross paths with Eubulides (talk · contribs) on these articles, but his focus seems to be more on really cleaning up and sourcing the core articles, which is a full-time job, and I don't think he has time to branch out from there. Also, he has more topic knowledge than I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, glad I checked with you on this. According to Google, there are non-trivial mentions of "autistic art". I don't have access to the full text, but apparently Oxford art journal mentions it, according to Google. Maybe autistic art stays, and autistic artist is the redirect? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to look at a few of these as well - I've come across the massive walled garden of autism POV forks and been appalled - but cleansing these particular Augean stables is definitely a job best tackled by a group of editors rather than individually. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I do what I can, but 1) I don't have journal access and 2) I don't know autism as well as I know TS. So mostly I do MOS and spam cleanup, which at least leaves the articles a bit cleaner for content experts to continue the job. Eubulides has made a big dent, but he's clearly got his hands full, and we're still defending POV allegations that should have been put to rest months ago on Asperger syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If "autistic art" is definitely a recognised type of art, are all autistic people who practice art automatically "autistic artists" or practicioners of "autistic art"? I suspect that only someone from inside these communities (art & autism) can really make a fair assessment. But who are these people? Would there be any benefit in sending an email to the author(s) of doi:10.1093/oxartj/kcl038. I know it's a nuisance, but these things have previously paid off for me in the past (e.g. getting a reprint and some advice).

I totally agree with MastCell's assessment of walled gardenness of the autism content. Various contributors have been building this over the years with very little oversight from other editors. Many articles are actually completely unverifiable and would benefit from a trip to the shredder.

Many of the personalities of the autism debate are actually jolly controversial. The Geier lot (Dr and Mr) have recently had a largely skeptical writeup in the BMJ by good old Brian Deer (of Wakefield fame). The neurodiversity blogs are very helpful here. The problem is that every time I read this stuff I get the sinking feeling that NPOV is almost impossible to achieve - because the debate is so vociferous. And it's not debate in the medical journals. It is on websites, in the courts, in blogs, in newspapers, and in separately hosted conferences that are more or less exclusionary to the other camp. But then we are seeing the same horrible phenomenon in other areas, such as CFS/ME and Gulf War Syndrome (where one self-labeled expert can call another expert's lecture a "travesty of the truth"[6]), Lyme disease (see BMJ this week doi:10.1136/bmj.39363.530961.AD), AIDS reappraisal, vaccination and several other areas. Claims of cabalism, suppression, bribes, conflict of interest and denialism and what have you are flying to and fro. I suppose it is a new phenomenon that we will have to live with. JFW | T@lk 21:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

ah, ha ... and that's where it's discouraging. With so many fish to fry, do I really want to take my time requesting a journal article and getting up to speed on autistic art? Probably not, when there is thimerosal, vaccine controversy, and core articles that are still fundamentally flawed. Maybe I'd better focus better, and get a plan for which articles warrant cleanup first. Perhaps I should start a list detailing this walled garden, semi-ranking them according to core importance and work needed, to see where the real work lies. In other words, an autism mini-assessment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You have my warmest support. Don't hesitate to share it with WP:CLINMED in general. I think of a few of us who would perhaps be able to help out here. JFW | T@lk 21:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a mockup: User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/autism. If this is a useful approach, I'll continue filling it in, as a pseudo-WP-type Autism assessment. I don't find the WP categories of Start, stub, ect. that helpful, so I sorta redefined them in terms of how much attention the articles need to make them "not dangerously wrong or misleading" (or of little encyclopedic value). If this is a useful approach, we can use it to see if we most need to work in the Top priority column or in the More work needed row, or some intersection of those two. If this is the right idea, I'll run it by Eubulides. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I finished the assessment in my sandbox. If you think the approach is right, I would prioritize work to 1) clean out boxes R and V (all high importance articles should be at least B-class), and 2) clean out Box Q (all top importance articles should be at least B-class), and 3) clean out box W (clean up the worst of mid importance articles). Box X has a lot of questionable notability and possible merge/redirects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The assessment scheme looks great - that's very handy. One of the issues has been actually tracking down the sheer number of low-importance/non-notable POV forks, and it looks like you've done a great job. I'll try to get to work on some of these. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I got feedback from Eubulides on my talk page; he agrees on the priorities, and explains which articles he is focusing on. I'll type up something later today for ClinMed, but you might want to have a look at the exchange with Eubulides here and here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jfdwolff,

I'm a 3rd yr med student in VA & actually have been using wikipedia quite a bit to quickly look-up information on-the-go. When one of my friends introduced the concept of being able to edit & make articles better, I jumped all over the opportunity. So, yes, to answer your question, I am a *little* interested in medical articles, and I am also interested in becoming involved with WikiProject Medicine. :-P

Mike2vil 23:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a link to the statement regarding the use of phase 3 human test studies being the minimum quality standard for citation in medical/pharmaceutical articles on wikipedia. In my opinion, citation of an article released by the National Institute of Health of the United States Federal Government should constitute notable and reliable enough information to meet inclusion standards. Linkinlogs 00:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a general consensus rule. Phase I and II studies are generally not relevant to readers as the vast majority of compounds never gets beyond this stage, and the information would overwhelm articles. Try WP:PHARM - I'm happy starting a discussion there if you're particularly bothered about my editorial views. JFW | T@lk 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that you've reinserted your addition without discussion I suppose I should start the discussion on WP:PHARM. Please comment there. JFW | T@lk 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I checked this page this morning and to my suprise found what appeared to be my entry removed. It was then that I undid your edition. Just now did I find this discussion moved in sequence from where I last believed it to be. I am hurried at the moment to be leaving and will most likely have more to discuss soon. Linkinlogs 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't that efforts were already ongoing to shorten the article, and everytime I attempted to add the shorten template, I got through to the Wikimedia Foundation's error page, so sorry I didn't think my edits had any effect. As for the size of the article, we could branch off a lot of the symptoms sections in its own article. Also treatment could be re-organised into its own article, this would radically shorten the article --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the Error Page occurs all the time, and I am sure that it is indeed caused by the article length. I would suggest we discuss your proposal on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. JFW | T@lk 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jacob! I'm sorry for the late answer, I've been really busy in the last few days. Feel free anytime to turn around MCOTW as you're a maintainer as well. :) If you would like to, but you're not sure about all the moves, I can create a list similar to that on the Science Collab of the month page. But I make those changes now. Cheers, NCurse _work 18:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you'd delayed the turnaround because of the abysmal response to allergy being MCOTW. I'm tempted to wait a few more days. JFW | T@lk 15:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

.I never know what is the right time to promote the next article. :) Maybe we should keep the ongoing collab for 2-3 weeks... NCurse _work 17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Do let me know if you need a hand. :-) Jakew 23:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know the subject matter too well, but the linkage between the two subjects seems dubious at best. I think this is one of those situations in which it's best not to assess the merits of the argument, but simply to look at what reliable sources have to say. I've left a note outlining my interpretation of applicable policy; with any luck (s)he will at least bring some appropriate sources to the discussion. My previous note re circumcision seems to have worked, fortunately. Jakew 22:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey JFW. I've left a tiny draft paragraph (on the heart failure discussion) over at Talk:Metformin. I'll probably only be around once a day or so (trying to take a break), but I'd appreciate it if you could have a look. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw you created Port-a-Cath and I proposed a page rename on Talk:Port-a-Cath to Port (medical) because Port-a-Cath is apparently a trademark. I'd like your input if you care to give it. Cburnett 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps simply not feeding trolls might be a better approach. I suspect arguing only tends to lead people to believe that arguments make a difference and if they can only come up with a better argument perhaps they can persuade. But arguments don't make a difference. We don't care about the truth or reason of the arguments people, make, we only care about the quality of the sources they supply. It might be best not to give a misimpression otherwise. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're accusing these contributors of being trolls, or me of feeding them. I totally agree that sources are the crucial point, but I also feel that the request for sources should be supported by evidence that the POV being advanced doesn't flow from the material already in the article. JFW | T@lk 07:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	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 07:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jfd, could I ask a favour? I wonder if you'd mind reviewing Talk:Prevalence of circumcision#Synthesis. An editor there seems quite determined to imply that a source is biased, although he has yet to cite a source that directly makes such an argument. This seems to be a fairly clear case of OR to my mind, but I am having some difficulty with him. Unfortunately this is not the first time that this has happened with this particular editor, and I'd be grateful for your opinion. Jakew 20:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On November 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kimishige Ishizaka, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Kindly nominated by Carabinieri. Do feel free to self nominate in future. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. We are delighted that you liked our article. About the merge we (me and Wozniakinn) think it is ok to merge to the statin main paige, but if it can wait for some time(2-3 weeks) it would be very nice because this is a part of a school project for us. Thus it would be great if our page could stand unedited for some time or at least until the professors have valued it and given us a grade for it. At last i would like to be a member of WP:PHARM wikiproject. Best regards --Thormog 11:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I had the feeling it was a university project, given that you're with the University of Iceland (you gave that away by making edits while not logged it!) You can register with WP:PHARM by adding your name to the project page and keeping it on your watchlist. Interesting things sometimes happen there :-).

I don't have the final word as to whether the pages should be merged or not. That needs consensus (perhaps one of the most important things on Wikipedia), which will follow in due course.

Did your professors actively encourage using Wikipedia for this? Given the quality of your work, I think it is a brilliant idea and deserves much wider application! JFW | T@lk 11:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correction - to be truthful I was getting waves of confusion & drowsiness each time I tried rereading the previous version (wikipedia induced brain failure... ?). My initial thought was just to delete pathophysiology section outright, but then decided to convert/hack from medical tome/student abbreviated notes format into some semblence of English - but it probaby needs a fresh rewrite :-) David Ruben ^Talk 13:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I alerted Lbenen on the recent Neubauer article. Let's see how it goes.

Re confusion & drowsiness: at typical case of encephalowiki. Also features withdrawal and asterixis. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"asterixis" - ah, that's what that feeling of being weighed down by a large stone must be then ! David Ruben ^Talk 15:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was Obelixis. JFW | T@lk 20:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• see my reply here
• Thanks! :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You semiprotected Lung cancer while it was on the Main Page? I am in awe of such boldness. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I was not aware that it was on the main page. I use shortcuts that bypass the main page. I was simply under the presumption that the article was under non-autoconfirmed attack.

I know that main page articles should be unprotected to allow everyone to experiment, but that is rather poor treatment for a featured article. Featured content is not a £$&*£% sandbox. JFW | T@lk 19:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope so :) There's still plenty of work, though—more, better references, pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenetics, an expansion of the History section... First, I intend to translate and adapt it for the Portuguese Wikipedia, which stunningly doesn't have an article on metformin yet. Maybe we could make FA a group effort? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Sorry then for the revert. Anyway then I think the paragraph should be simplified and clarified. I'll read another time and think about it. --Garrondo (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I agree with the need for simplification & a good source. JFW | T@lk 15:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit and advice - new to this.--Homewell (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I didn't realise you were a moderator. One of my posts may have been a little terse, however are you able to rectify the Blood page as it is a mess with images opening up space all over the place? I don't know how to do this. Cheers.--Read-write-services (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a browser-related issue. The problem is that other browsers will display the extra carriage returns as whitespace. There are various workarounds. I see you have already tried to move the images further apart. One trick I can think of is {{ImageStackRight}}, which will generate a stack of images in a table that will not interfere with the text in any way. JFW | T@lk 22:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

whats wrong with it? Benji63 (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was talking yesterday with him (with laetoli). He hadn't seen the specific article on therapies. Lets wait for him to read it and later we can try to attack all this issues if he still thinks there is too much importance to medication... --Garrondo (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. He may have a point, but we cannot address this without adequate source background. I have insufficient experience with the management of MS to weigh the relative merits of particular treatments. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. It always helps me stay motivated when people notice my edits.

Anyway, we are currently trying to figure out something over at psychiatry and your opinion - for or against, would be appreciated. An editor has expressed interest in reintroducing a controversy section into the article. I would really appreciate it if you could let me know your thoughts as to whether it should or shouldn't be included as the article is written now. Let me know at Talk:Psychiatry#Should we reintroduce "Controversy" section?. Thanks again, Chupper (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have responded. You may want to drop a message on WT:MED about this discussion. JFW | T@lk 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm welcome. I look forward to contributing to Wikipedia and making it as informative and well-written as possible. --Itsabouttime (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course the site contains many direct quotes - it's her entire book which she has very generously put online in it's entirety. It's actually extremely good and helped me a great deal when I was diagnosed. It not only explores her personal reactions to her diagnosis - the phases of anger, depression, loss and eventual acceptance - but also explores society's ability to deal with the condition. I feel that you have no right to delete the link and I intend to undo the edit unless you can persuade me otherwise.

Laetoli (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed personal experiences on the talkpage before. You can reopen the discussion, and see what other contributors have to offer. Was her book well-received - i.e. was it notable?

Wikipedia is not a medical journal. It is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia policy does not demand declaring one's COI, and I much prefer my work to be taken at face value. Have you got any interests to declare? JFW | T@lk 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. JFW | T@lk 22:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll be glad to know that I won't be working on Wikipedia any more. I think I've behaved badly and it hasn't be good for anyone. Laetoli (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's worked out this way, and I certainly would not say that you've "behaved badly". You have put a lot of work into multiple sclerosis, and even though our views have differed on a few matters, I would not say that it "hasn't been good for anyone". You have made valid points on the talkpage, and perhaps a little bit more consensus-forming would have brought us closer to a version we can all live with. JFW | T@lk 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words Jfdwolff left at the Nephrology WikiProject. I would be happy to help in anyway I can. If anyone needs any help, advice, etc. please let me know. If I cannot help I will try to find someone who can. I will attempt to start updating articles time permitting. Please note that my philosophy toward medical care in the U.S. does not appear typical for a U.S. physician as I feel our system has become dominated by the business of making money at the expense of patients and that we (U.S.Health care) are in need of changes so health care can be affordable for everyone.Scott E Pace MD (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I hope you have not been put off working for Wikipedia. Working in the UK I have little familiarity with the US healthcare "system", but some experiences here on the project have made me wonder. There is an obvious backlash in online communities, and for years many Wikipedia articles were vocally critical of mainstream medicine. JFW | T@lk 14:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

you might want to contribute to Jewish medical ethics or the category. thanks. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Technically, we should avoid the use of "ethics", because it tends to be associated with moral relativism. I'd personally much prefer the term "Medical halacha". I also wonder why the article links Julius Preuss with the Wissenschaft school; AFAIK that is not correct. JFW | T@lk 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just created Jefferson fracture and I've hit the limit of what pubmed tells me. I'm not a doctor, but you are, could you have a look? It's also orphaned - linked by {{Fractures}} but only one other text-embedded wikilink. WLU (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I have no textbook in orthopaedics or spinal surgery. But the article is in great shape. The links will come. My compliments! I've added some historical context. JFW | T@lk 20:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There goes my belief that doctors know everything, thanks. Glad the page looks good, I might look at the other redlinks in the fractures template now. WLU (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to set you straight. When I decided on internal medicine I consciously forgot all orthopaedics that could be forgotten. Funny thing is, orthopods tend to do the same with internal medicine :-). JFW | T@lk 20:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Saw your recent restructuring over at ITP. How would you like to create a stub for eltrombopag? I just uploaded a structure yesterday and noticed it was in sore need of a home :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just in the process of creating it, and was about to upload my own botched version when I came accross your version. Thanks! JFW | T@lk 21:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to contribute to this production. Even though I started my career as a scientist almost a half-century ago, it was only in 2004 that I gained my latest qualification in electrical engineering. That is, I am old, but not necessarily outdated. Unfortunately, as a result of damage done to me at the start of 2007, I am slow to do anything. Very slow. I just try to do what has to be done. I use Wikpedia as a primary source for more in-depth research (I really do not believe most of what I see on the Net: I was at ground zero when Safire made his ill-founded statements about the mythical USS Aegis shooting down a commercial airliner.) At the moment, I would prefer to simply comment or edit pieces that come to my attention as I do my own research.--Alarchdu (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated. If you have published evidence about the USS Aegis (see WP:NOR), you may want to discuss on the relevant articles' talkpage how to best address this evidence to ensure the account remains balanced. JFW | T@lk 10:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback! I've only managed to help a little with the article so far - the work I get paid to do is just getting in the way :). But I'll try my best to tackle more of the article a little later! Best wishes, ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 19:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	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 09:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion would be appreciated.Talk:Frontal release sign

TIA. Sanjpatel1 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope TIA is "thanks in advance", doc! JFW | T@lk 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a "mini-thanks". MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it a thanks that resolves within 24 hours? JFW | T@lk 20:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

With the changing definitions it is probably a thanks that does not have any lasting effect on the recipient....in any case, I would also appreciate your opinion here Talk:Pseudoathetosis

Recurrent TIA (heading for an endarterectomy?) Sanjpatel1 17:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The video is nice. Thanks for your work on all those neurology articles. For some reason Wikipedia is awash with articles on the most unusual neurological conditions, but the quality of most is disappointing. Sources and linking are the main issues for a number of them. JFW | T@lk 19:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...added link as no objection lodged. My main problem with some of the pages is the fact that some of them scare the @#?! out of the average neuro patient. My foot drop edit was done after a patient of mine with foot drop spoke to me following a month of intense anxiety, convinced that ALS was the number one cause of foot drop (it was first on the list on wiki). He also had radiating backpain and loss of sensation in the L5 distribution! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjpatel1 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why we've got a professional obligation to make Wikipedia as good as possible. As Midgley (talk · contribs) one put succinctly in the public domain:

“

A doctor who accesses the world wide web … to seek the answer to a question but does not find it there and has the facility to place material on the web … must place that answer on the web where the next one to ask the same question can find it (BMJ rapid responses 2000)

”

I believe it's possible. JFW | T@lk 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. At first it was quite hard to get some people to help and I did feel quite alone but litlle by little some people have begun to survey the MS articles (you included) and thanks to this they have improved a lot.Regards. --Garrondo (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a sentence in there that starts, "A fourth form of hypogonadism has been detailed by world leading andrologist Dr Eugene Shippen called metabolic hypogonadism." First of all, there is no reference to Dr, Shippen's work and secondly, isn't the term "world leading" a little inappropriate? Neil Raden (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That was the work of 82.42.171.4 (talk · contribs). WLU (talk · contribs) has just removed all the junk. JFW | T@lk 10:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Neil Raden (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can I get your view of the Hanukkah footer at talk:wpj? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jfdwolff - Thank you for your suggestion to the transketolase page. I appreciate your help, and I have since included the information! Rew1087 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On 7 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alkaptonuria, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

I noticed some recent work on this. Was it sort of an unofficial collaboration? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I don't think there was much of a collaboration. I just bumped into the NEJM 2002 study after reviewing this edit, and thought that instead of going to sleep I should expand the article! Needless to say, that night's night shift was a bit challenging. JFW | T@lk 20:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey - good to hear from you! Couple of bits of assessed work this week, and I just had the proximal phalanx of my left middle finger nailed back together - so circumstances and typing speed not great! But I'll take a look over the weekend. Nmg20 (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I gutted and re-wrote this page, it's up for deletion but I thought your comment might be informative. Is there a notability guideline for medical subjects? I'm also not really sure about the references beyond the single-subject pubmed one. WLU (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed you had a comment on the disc biacuplasty AFD page, I'll take that as a tactic endorsement of the page as is, thanks. WLU (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Wolff, A Freilichen Chanukah: There has been a sharp increase in the debate at Template talk:Chabad#Controversy Again! as part of ongoing differences of views between opposing editors, some of whom are pro-Chabad POV warriors and others. If you could drop by and give this matter your consideration and input it may help a lot because the way things are unfolding it looks like it may be headed for more serious arbitration which can hopefully be avoided. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I carefully avoid Chabad-related controversies. They are bad for my blood pressure. JFW | T@lk 22:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images	Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here"	News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please could you help me add my details such as physician etc to the Babel column on my user page..can only figure out how to add languages

CVA

Sanjpatel1 (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've cheated a bit. I've substituted the {{Babel}} template, and filled it with userboxes in addition to the language templates. Officially, Babel templates are purely about language capabilities. JFW | T@lk 20:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It did sound like that. Anyway, it's an edit war so I've re-protected the article even though I may have locked it on the wrong version. Wait, it's always the wrong version! Duh! :-) Best regards, Húsönd 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but even if proven right they would not constitute a rare situation. If it's just one user trying to take advantage of protection to enforce his edits on an article, then that will become clear on the talk page in the next few days. In this case, users were discussing (so they can't be accused of not bringing their disagreements to the talk page) but they were also edit warring right after the protection had expired. I found re-protection the best way to settle things for a while until they can come to an agreement or until it becomes evident that the disruption has a single source. regards, Húsönd 02:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not inflate the ongoing editwar by deleting the section on alternative medicine for a different reason that equally lacks consensus. The verify directive does not say that verification must be easy, just that it must be possible. There is nothing wrong with sources in a different language, except that these are preferably replaced if an equivalent English source exists. In short: you can replace, not delete. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been consistently editing against consensus, and replied sarcastically to comments left by myself on your talk page. Why should I revise my opinion? How's your Chinese, anyway? Could you send me a translation of the full article? JFW | T@lk 23:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You need not revise your opinion, although that would be better. All you need to do is to refrain from acting on it. In general, try a different attitude. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is little wrong with my attitude. What I think is wrong is the fact that you continuously obstruct reasonable consensus-forming on the talkpage. You are pushing a POV that most CFS/ME researchers will not support, and repeated attempts to drive this point home to you have been met with verbal aggression or ridicule.

I will continue to act on my opinion, because several other editors support it and you are the only one actively opposing it. No other medical topic on a significant subject like CFS/ME has references in Chinese. This is as clear as day, and your insistence on keeping this material is inexplicable. JFW | T@lk 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am quite curious what pov you think I have, since to my knowledge I have never expressed my personal opinion on this topic. Meanwhile, however, please abide by Wikipedia rules. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your continuous reliance on particular sources makes it rapidly obvious which POV you have. Your continuous obstruction of edits that counter this POV is evident. I need not be reminded of Wikipedia rules; are you suggesting that I am of violation of any rules, and if so which ones? JFW | T@lk 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If it is obvious, then surely you should be able to formulate it. The better attitude is, of course, simply to ask me what my opinion is. Of course that implicates the risk that you might actually get the right picture. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in your opinion, and I am sure that it will not be "the right picture". I asked you about policy violations - could you be specific? JFW | T@lk 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing the specifics. I asked you about my apparent pov - could you oblige me or otherwise stop your endless accusations? Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to supply you with that information, but I'm sure the name Byron Hyde will ring a bell. JFW | T@lk 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are many bells. What's up with this one? Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the loudest one. JFW | T@lk 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, but apparently it bothers you. What do you think it says? Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm finished playing games. You've managed to get the article protected again, so I'm sure we can spend the next two weeks working out a consensus that we can all live with. It may mean having to drop two studies in a language nobody here can read. JFW | T@lk 00:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I expect you to drop your accusations and talk content. If not, I will raise the issue elsewhere. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you expect to achieve by that? I believe there is no Wikipedia policy against implying that a user edits from a biased perspective; it is not a personal attack - the only thing that could be wrong is assumption of bad faith, which I am doing here for a constructive reason.

Instead of threatening to raise the issue elsewhere, I'd much rather you provide positive proof that my accusations are unfounded, and that you intend to make chronic fatigue syndrome a resource that fairly represents all perspectives. Today you have reverted every single bold edit to the article. Instead of finding common ground with Sciencewatcher and Orangemarlin, you revert and revert and revert and then suggest there is an edit war and get the page protected. This has little to do with constructive editing. The article is still seriously short on actual information (or rather, it is drowning in cruft); instead of making up this deficit we are now bickering over studies in Chinese.

I have little more to say on the subject, apart from wondering what you are actually trying to achieve. JFW | T@lk 00:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You are accusing the wrong party. I have gone out of my way to try and explain things on the talk page in a manner that you and they can understand. In contrast, OrangeMarlin refuses to discuss content, you left mid-discussion and Sciencewatcher merely repeats himself irrespective of counter-information and -arguments. He even misquoted the results to support his erroneous conclusion. Further, this is not my pov but an old, unsourced section by another editor which I improved textually and sourced, with the final version that everyone else agreed on a compromise by WLU, which I then saved from unfounded deletion. So what do you mean, 'little to do with constructive editing'? If anyone is not constructive here, it is you, by feeding an ongoing editwar and making up your own rules; you should know better.

If you are suggesting that I am a fan or admirer of Byron Hyde or anyone else (who, by the way, to my knowledge has not expressed an opinion on acupuncture), think again. I am a scientist in my own right, not a fan of one. Not that there would be anything wrong if someone were, either. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher is probably repeating himself because his arguments are not being addressed. You should discuss this with him. Orangemarlin is still allowed to do BOLD edits, and it is up to you to start a discussion if you insist on reverting his contributions. See WP:BRD for details.

I don't think fandom is an issue here, nor are your credentials as a scientist, and neither did I suggest that Hyde has a particular opinion about acupuncture. What I was trying to get across was the fact that you are trying to pass off his minority perspective in many areas as being the consensus of most CFS researchers (quod non). I dispute the acupuncture section for a different reason, as stated ad nauseam on the talkpage. JFW | T@lk 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am doing nothing of the sort. Since you apparently intend to continue to display your animosity, I see no point in conversing with you again. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yippee! Does that mean you're putting me on your "ignore list" as well?[7] I'd be suitably honoured! JFW | T@lk 21:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, could you please look at the recent revision history of tadalafil? I looked at it, and the article seems to be turning into instructions about the use of the drug, which I believe is against Wikipedia's intent. Perhaps you could better explain this to the editor, User:Vectorseo, than myself. Thank you. --Kyoko 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, User:Fvasconcellos got there first, reverting it as a copyright violation. Thanks for your time. --Kyoko 22:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jfd, I ask because I trust your opinion on the matter, feel free to e-mail me if you'd rather. My main goal here is just to see your reasoning process, not challenge it, 'cause I still am surprised at the actions of editors with more experience than I. It's the gap between policy, guidelines and reality, into which experience must step, that I'm interested in.

Though I'm, I guess, 'pleased' to see my edit to CFS#Treatment#Alternative stands, albeit unwillingly from many parties, I'm curious about the objections you may have to the actual statement. I deliberately composed it to avoid 'proof' and place emphasis that the treatments only tentatively offer evidence of some symptom reduction. The conclusions reached in the articles themselves are waaaaaaaayyyyy too strong, and I tried to represent that in my statement. Pending further results, even though the articles aren't good ones and the methodology is far from perfect, would you still strike it from the page? The conclusions obviously point towards problems with the scientists' neutrality on the matter, is that sufficient to abandon the studies wholesale? The acrimony on the page sure isn't helping consensus be reached, that's for sure. Do people realize that their hostility entrenches rather than softens their opposition? WLU (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with most treatments proposed for CFS is that there is very little in terms of secondary evidence to support their use. In heart failure or pneumonia, there are professional guidelines that clearly indicate which treatments are indicated, and which ones are rubbish.

In CFS this evidence exists, but it is being challenged by those with alternative perspectives. We are therefore left to figure things out for ourselves. We cannot possibly cover all treatments that anyone has ever looked at - the article would burst at the seams. I think publication in an English-language journal is one of the prerequisites. I think sound methodology should ideally also be a selection criterion. Most of these studies, like you say, vastly overinflate the ramifications of their findings.

I suppose my hostility to Guido is the product of his continuous refusal to engage with several rather experienced editors who are trying to improve the page: myself, Orangemarlin, Sciencewatcher... JFW | T@lk 22:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The frustrating thing is seeing those other 'experienced editors' being as openly hostile as they are - open hostility on both sides just fortifies opposition and means endless rounds of edit warring and page protection. At least you and GDB are politely hostile rather than overt. Thanks for the clarification. WLU (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, I removed some irrelevant commentary for you. Feel free to replace, I'm trying to spare you the trouble. Seemed a bit pointy, like someone making it obvious they're ignoring you. WLU (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that. Oddly, the message you removed was placed after Guido had already placed a note on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome to state that I was on his "ignore list". Indeed very "pointy" and indeed a reflection of the depths to which we have sunk on the CFS debate. Perhaps it's time the entire cohort of present editors is replaced by a fresh-faced bunch that is not weighed down by previous experiences. JFW | T@lk 19:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno man, if I'm ignoring someone, I just remove them from my watchlist. Seems more logical. Anyway, I don't think either side is doing anyone any favours dumping thousands of characters on a page and resorting to insults rather than compromise. I've stopped reading the page in disgust. WLU (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, do you know anything about orthomolecular psychiatry? Someone's been editing with what looks like (to me) iffy references. WLU (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As observed in the ANI posting by several users, the kind of ignoring that Guido was doing was provocative. Taking someone off your watchlist because their every move infuriates you is just sensible.

I know nothing about orthomolecular psychiatry. It is very hard to write NPOV articles on alternative medicine, especially when its practitioners steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that their field is "alternative medicine". Making statements about it in the public domain may get one exposed to the (w)rath of Pauling's bulldog. The problem with any orthomolecular field is that it relies on a peculiar form of cargo cult science: if something happens to cells in a Petri dish, it must also happen in vivo. Adding vitamin C in phenomenal doses to bacteria on an agar plate will certainly kill them, but one needs a carefully designed randomised controlled trial to justify given mega-vitamin C as a treatment for chest infections instead of gold ol' amoxicillin. JFW | T@lk 07:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jfdwolff, I noticed it was you who added the spelling "neutropaenia" in the article some time ago. This is incorrect because ae (æ) is the Latin transcription of the Greek diphthong αι (e.g. αἷμα -> haema ΒΕ, hema AE). When the original Greek vowel is ε as in πενία (penia=deficiency), the transcription is e for all spellings. Cheers --   Avg    17:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably wrong, and I personally use "neutropenia", but I have certainly seen the "-paenia" spelling in use (even if wrong). I will see if there is any verification for it. JFW | T@lk 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so soon. Sorry I didn't quite understand what kind of verification you're looking for. Yes there might be wrong spellings around, however we shouldn't propagate them in an encyclopaedia.--   Avg    18:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh, if an erroneous spelling is in widespread use we may need to report it, with a brief note explaining (with a source) why it's wrong. JFW | T@lk 18:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you can find the word πενία in the dictionary (there is no παινία) and also see that the Greek to Latin transcription of ε is e and only e.--   Avg    18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I get 51,500 hits for "neutropaenia", including a paper in Nature. It obviously pales in comparison to the 849,000 hits for "neutropenia". JFW | T@lk 00:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd consider anything over a month to be in excess, regardless of what it was like 8 and a half months ago. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing codified as to what is excessive. Regardless of the 1 month thing, eight and a half months is excessive. Period. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your joking, right? Back to you: justify an article being protected basically indefinitely. These articles do not fall under indefinatly protected articles at WP:PROTECT. As an admins, I'm quite disappointed that I have to work on an eight and a half month backlog at Special:Protectedpages because no one else is taking the initiative. If you want to ask, the protection policy page is a good place to go. I guarantee you that most will say that 8.5 months is excessive. And Bush is excessively vandalized whether it's protected or not, so no I'd say that these pages don't fit that because they aren't getting excessively vandalized while protected.

And about the years working: If you didn't want your work edited by others then you shouldn't have contributed to Wikipedia. Vandalism is a fact of life here. Really, what's the RFC going to be: "Admin unprotected my pages and then wouldn't clarify why 8.5 months is excessive for protection"? Protection cycles, it's just been in an unnaturally long state the past year. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

i am gastroenterology research fellow in Stanford university labs,i am looking for Sameer who is gastroenterologist in Canada on wiki. Sameer and my self were collecting data in October about Wikipedia gastroenterology contribution and the AGA curriculums but I have unfortunately lost his e-mail,when my computer crashed. as you are active in the medicine-wiki i thought maybe you were keeping the e-mail contact with him. sir,can i please ask to please message him to e-mail Dr. Pramod Verma about this high important issue. i have completed collecting data,and now I want appreciate Sameer advice on analysis and to write manuscripts. thanking you in advance,sincerely yours,Pramod Verma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.234.242.39 (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pramod. Sorry you lost his address. When I get home I will let him know. Alternatively, you could use Special:Emailuser/Samir if you're in a rush. JFW | T@lk 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a new editor and didn't understand the direct vs. indirect reference with regard to osteoporosis exercises. Spam not intended, I actually thought that the information about caution with regard to osteoporosis exercises was pertinent to that section. If you are familiar with a direct source then of course quoting that is preferable - I (mistakenly) thought I was quoting the physician author of the referenced article. --An authorotative source (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added the correct reference. The name of the first author is quoted in the spine-health article (and the citation is therefore easily retrievable from PubMed), and you can always discuss on the talkpage first if you don't know how to get the source.

In your username, you've misspelled "authoritative". Changing usernames is still possible if you want.

I would recommend you completely avoid citing spine-health.com as a source, as you did on office chair. As outlined on User talk:66.9.223.118, your use of it as a source was being regarded by several contributors as promotional activity for the site. I will assume good faith and wish you happy editing. JFW | T@lk 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The silent majority on ME and CFS??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.121.150 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care, Alpinist. JFW | T@lk 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 51	17 December 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed	Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge	WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam"
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Plants	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have left a reply to your deletions in "Gout" and "rheumatoid arthritis" on my talk page (at least I think I did) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoptera (talk • contribs) 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you're consistently reverting the edits to the page on electrolytes. Could you explain why? It's not vandalism, it's correct, viable information.

• http://www.uncrate.com/men/culture/drinks/brawndo/
• http://www.thinkgeek.com/caffeine/drinks/9cce/

Reverting valid edits to an article, and referring to them as vandalism (and subsequently locking the page?) doesn't make any sense.[8] Captain obtuse (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me that someone has decided to market a spin-off drink from Idiocracy. If all those people who added mention of Brawndo had bothered to provide a reliable source for this new product, none of this would have happened.

Given that Brawndo is a novel product, I have the feeling it may not be notable enough to be mentioned among rather established names on electrolyte.

I have unlocked electrolyte on the basis of your explanation. JFW | T@lk 09:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I think your update to the article today is fair (i.e. "sports drinks" instead of listing out names). By the way, this blog[9] is doing an interesting and fun science experiment using Brawndo Captain obtuse (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make that change, but I agree. Interesting experiment on the blog! JFW | T@lk 22:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your encouragement. I'm very new to this side of wikipedia so I hope this is the correct way to get in touch with you! I will try to find some sources - do you know if gpnotebook.com would be acceptable? I'm in the midst of revision at the moment though so it's probably best if I tag that section of the article as needing references. Thanks again, this has been a good welcome to the wikipedia community :) Thebagman (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

GPNotebook is itself based on peer-reviewed science so ideally those studies should be quoted preferentially. But in the meantime it is regarded as authoritative by WP:MED (see WP:MEDRS).

I'm glad your experiences have been positive. I find that I've learnt a lot of useful stuff by working on Wikipedia articles, especially on things one would not necessarily encounter in clinical practice on a daily basis. JFW | T@lk 20:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing the link to the Devics support group on the Devics page? This is a rare disease with very little information available to people who suffer from it, less than 1000 worldwide is my understanding. Devics support is the premier source of information and support to these people. Your removal of this link is petty and misdirected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepandbear (talk • contribs)

Petty and misdirected, perhaps, but I'm trying to follow our external links guideline which is quite unequivocal about online forums.

Rather than using Wikipedia to advertise the existence of the forum, wouldn't it be much easier to make the Wikipedia page on Devic's (which is free) a better resource? In that way, readers need not subscribe to a newsgroup/forum to obtain information. JFW | T@lk 15:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not just a social group, it is a resource for additional information about this disease. I think you are clinging to a policy that is intended to prevent abuse, when none is occurring here. Really, does this hurt you in some manner? Did someone on the list offend you? Is the holy purity of wikipedia in danger? Keepandbear (talk · contribs)

I know it is not a social group. I have been trying to explain that forums are typically not good sources of information for the purposes of the "external links" section, and they require registration. A quick glance at the group's homepage simply shows more links to other sites and very little easily accessible content. Again, wouldn't you prefer to use your knowledge of the condition to improve the Wikipedia page content itself? If you need any help with this, feel free to contact me. JFW | T@lk 15:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You only have to register to post, not to get information. Here's a sample email from just today, from someone who was just diagnosed: "When I get home I am due to see the neuro on the 27th. I am going to be armed with tons of info., much of which I've gotten here! I will ask him why he didn't start me on something besides the rather low dosage of prednisone." This is a resource that can SAVE LIVES and you are more concerned with the wikpipedia style guide. I just don't get it. Here's another, just from today's postings: "Devic's prognosis varies, due to a lot of different reasons; time wasted on the wrong meds because of the wrong diagnosis. This is why we're trying to get the word out" Doesn't the Hippocratic oath mean more than the wiki style guide? Keepandbear (talk · contribs)

I'm quite tired of your ad hominems. I have explained everything a number of times now. I do not have the final say in this matter. Starting a discussion on Talk:Devic's disease and involving other users would be the most suitable next step forward.

You must understand that Wikipedia is not primarily a web directory - it aims to provide general information on all topics an encyclopedia would normally cover. It has no duty of care, and does not give specific medical advice. JFW | T@lk 16:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia." Well, assumptions can be overcome. There is already a discussion there that makes irrefutable points, and the last post was unanswered. Can you rebut ANY points that he made? You say you aren't the last word but you keep taking the links down. I ask you one more time - what is more important, getting information out to people with a disease that can and does kill them, or the wiki style manual? We are not doing this for ANY PERSONAL BENEFIT. I'm not sure why this link offends you so much.

The link does not "offend me" as you seem to be suggesting, but I do not believe it is necessary. I have left a message on Talk:Devic's disease and a request on WT:MED for other users to comment. Please comment on Talk:Devic's disease. JFW | T@lk 16:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of point 9, thanks . I found the animation useful as it is, that is, it makes easier to get some facts since it is dynamic. I will make a note that an flash 8 is required. Please don't delelete it. Thanks again.

I understand, as long as I see the sources cited on the animation page are reliable (updated pharmacology textbooks), but since they are copyrighted textbooks that can't be refered from wikipedia because they are printed textbooks.

No, there is nothing wrong with referencing textbooks. Indeed, that is what WP:RS is all about. JFW | T@lk 20:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The JAMA article is so fresh a criticism/commentary may still be coming; the article isn't on PubMed yet AFAIK.

IMHO, the CTPA article ought to refer to the pulmonary embolism article with a "main article" link; the diagnostic use section repeats info from the PE article-- but does it poorly. Nephron  T|C 17:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the "diagnostic use" section should discuss as little as possible about the actual diagnostic workup for PE. It should, if anything, mention alternative forms of imaging (invasive pulmonary angiogram, VQ scan) and the relative strength of CTPA where comparisons are available.

I'm sure the JAMA study will be carefully scrutinised by those who are worried we are overtreating PEs. I'm starting to wonder whether we should get VQ scans for people with a soft contraindication for anticoagulation... JFW | T@lk 19:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking to the request you had-- I don't know a good article off the top of my head. Unfortunately, I'm snowed with other stuff at the moment (reviewing a paper, taking care of people on the nephro service) or I'd go look for one. I hope you've had a good holiday! I've had a good one... but it has been waaaay too short. Nephron  T|C 09:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wales appoints six arbitrators	Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Plants
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please help me around.I will be glad if you would guide me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicsharingwatuknow! (talk • contribs) 14:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please can you look at the note I left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Thanks, Colin°^Talk 10:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. However, if I could have fixed this, I would. I believe that I can't move the page back. I want Ketogenic diet to preserve all its edit history. This needs admin buttons? Colin°^Talk 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait for a response by OccamzRazor (talk · contribs); if he agrees I can do the necessary moves without a problem. The edit history is not completely lost, but I agree that it should be at the most appropriate place. JFW | T@lk 16:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

His response is to ignore. I had plans to turn that into a GA this coming year. I'm weeping. I'm looking at someone's sandbox, but it is the #2 Google hit for the subject. Colin°^Talk 23:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC) They can't even spell Ketogenic :-( Colin°^Talk 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have left a further message. Given that he seems to be on-wiki at the moment I will leave him only a little while longer to support his actions. I have reviewed your arguments and totally agree that the evidence stacks up in your favour. JFW | T@lk 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For responding to a request for help over Ketogenic diet, carefully analysing the situation, and being bold. Colin°Talk 16:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I got working on this article today - Ledderhose's disease. My father has the condition. I'd appreciate if you looked over the article and assessed it; being a doctor yourself, you would know best. I also formatted the refs per your note on the article talk page.

Thanks for your time,-xC- 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I've encountered the condition much, but I'll keep an eye on it. I would suggest you have a look at other medical articles (e.g. prostate cancer) to see how the academic references work. Some suggestions: look at synd/3933 at Who Named It? - good for the historical background. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I'm looking over them right now. Are the refs alright in the article now, or did I go wrong somewhere?-xC- 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I've added the historical reference, and slightly improved the citations from medical journals. Good work in general! JFW | T@lk 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! :)

I just wanted to ask you a few things-

• You've changed the name of the doctor to Dr Georg Ledderhose. The ref shows his name to be George. Are you sure its Georg? Then again, you've put in another ref there, so there might be information in that document that I haven't read. Just cross-checking.
• In two documents, the description of its MRI characteristics have been given as well. I figured they were way too detailed and specialized to be included in the article. Is that correct?
• The reported treatments involving collagenase and shock waves are both wrong, of course. These are just two of the treatments which have been tested and proven not to work. Unfortunately, I can't find any refs stating the same or otherwise. Should I remove them or leave in the statements with ref-needed-tags?

Thank you for bringing in your expertise to the article,-xC- 08:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WhoNamedIt uses "Georg", which makes more sense considering he was German. The MRI characteristics may need to be mentioned if MRI is performed often in the diagnosis of Ledderhose disease. If you can find reports on the treatments you have mentioned, there is no problem with inserting them; it is not really our job to assess their usefulness, only to mention commonly used treatments (usually gauged either from the number of reports or corrobated from other sources, such as reviews). Again my compliments on tacking a potentially quite complicated topic. If I have the time I will review the content again over the weekend. You can also try WT:MED directly (not everyone looks at the assessment page). JFW | T@lk 08:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

'Georg' would make sense since he's German. I was just cross-checking, thanks for clarifying.

I can confirm MRI is used to identify it, since that was used in the case of my father. The only thing is, there are terms used such as T1 and T2 and a lot of other phrases that I don't really understand, so its difficult for me to put it all together. Let me get to work on it, I'll see what can be done.

Thank you for your encouraging words,-xC- 16:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just did a little bit of work on Dr. Georg Ledderhose as well. I'd appreciate if you'd look over the article and suggest any improvements. Happy editing,-xC- 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly mention the fact that MRI is used. If I find the time later I will try to make sense of it. The terminology (T1 & T2) can be confusing, but basically refers to the two main types of signal derived by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).

Hope you don't mind that I moved Dr Georg's page to Georg Ledderhose. I can't improve any further on it - well done! JFW | T@lk 19:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add the MRI characteristics soon. No, no problem at all, move it whereever - as long as its where its supposed to be, I've got no issues :)

Thanks so much,-xC- 05:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

On December 31, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederic Bartter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nishkid64. JFW | T@lk 07:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to Bikinibomb's comments about figs and Judaism here, thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 00:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not quite sure what the issue seems to be. BB has some evidence that Judaism attaches a symbolic meaning to figs. It also does so for numerous other things, such as grapes, olives, the colour blue and the head of a fish. JFW | T@lk 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether the symbolic meaning of figs is notable to list them in a glossary of religious terms important in Judaism and/or Christianity. As you know, Christianity has selected certain passages from the Hebrew Bible and has made them central to Christianity. I think the underlying issue is whetehr all symbols from the Tanakh that have found renewed importance in Christianity are of current importance in Judaism. I also think there is a simple policy issue: NPOV has a threshold of notability. Be that as it may I would ask you simply to read the section and see if you have any comments - or questions - you think would be constructive. What more could I ask for? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! It is simple sanity, above all, that the discussion needs! PS feel free to help with the article itself. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,i really need to get this right,Pls help. I was banned for adding mnemonics to many topics in human anatomy and adding a link of the site from which i copied it to external links.(Believe me ,the mnemonics were useful for sure because data becomes useless and the time spent on acquiring and understanding it a waste, when a reader cant remember it when he wants.Mnemonics make remembering easier and helps us to retain data longer.I suppose,they weren't blue either!Sorry for posting horners syndrome mnemonic ) Most of the times i was banned when i added the sitre http://mbbsbasic.googlepages.com.This is a website me and friends in medical school are trying to build.Is it a sin to add a website to external links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicsharingwatuknow! (talk • contribs) 07:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Basicsharing, thanks for getting in touch. The website is nice, but Wikipedia has fairly strict policies on what kind of external links are suitable for inclusion. Wikipedia:External links is the relevant guideline. Several users have agreed that a personal website by medical students is not the most ideal source of information available. I hope you can agree with this.

Mnemonics in general only have a use for people who need to memorise the information in the first place - medical students. I think the general readership is not very well served with mnemonics on anatomy pages. I can imagine there should be exceptions too. For instance, everybody uses GET SMASHED to memorise the causes for acute pancreatitis (to the point that journal reviews refer to it). This would be one mnemonic we should include (see the acute pancreatitis page).

Wikipedia can definitely benefit from your knowledge and experience. I see you're in India - there are numerous articles on India that could do with improvement. Wikipedia:WikiProject India is a collaborative forum for editors working on India-related articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine (WP:MED) is a similar forum for medicine.

Don't forget to sign your posts to talkpages (like this one) with ~~~~. This produces an automatic signature, like this: JFW | T@lk 07:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thnkyou Jeff.You have been of great help.Thank you. Basicsharingwatuknow! (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wolff, Happy post-Hanukkah! Or in my case, happy post-Secular Materialism Day! Not much of a religious fellow am I, but I do like presents.

I put Wiley Protocol in the category of endocrinology. I hate categories, and hate even more finding out where pages go, but I think it's right. However, since it's an unverified hormone treatment, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for the category. Could you let me know if it's the right spot, or help me figure out where the hell it should be? Have I mentioned I hate categories?

Thanks, WLU (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a category for women's health. It is technically an endocrine issue, so I agree with the categorisation. JFW | T@lk 19:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Great thanks. I'll leave it as is, as I can't think of where else I'd put it. HRT also has menopause, though BHRT does not. Does that work? WLU (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BHRT could go in the menopause category too. Could you keep an eye on Linzhoo2u‎ (talk · contribs) who is spamming lots of links to her website? JFW | T@lk 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If she runs up against my watchlist I'll notice it, but I usually only stalk editors if they piss me off by spamming multiple pages on my watchlist. But you never know, maybe she'll get 'lucky'. I'll add menopause to both. WLU (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw you had listed death as side effect of Chemotherapy. Because death would generally be considered an Adverse drug reaction it would not be appropriate to list it as a side effect. If you feel strongly that the article needs the content I would suggest adding it else where in the article with the appropriate references of course. 22:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between side-effects and adverse drug reactions is rather artificial. The mention of "death" has been in that list for months, and was only removed because someone (quite rightly) listed hair loss as a side-effect. I think it is relevant to mention death as a complication of chemotherapy treatment, and would support renaming the section if this makes its inclusion more logical. JFW | T@lk 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to include death you would need to call the section "Adverse drug reactions" as side effects are as a rule not fatal. I see that hair loss is listed twice so I will remove the second listing. I would still strongly recommend references. The article is very under referenced and I am going to place some requests for references on it. Give me a couple minutes before making your changes. Jeepday (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, finished tagging it for references. Based on the structure of the article and the severity of death, if it is going to be included it should have a sub section ===Death===. Jeepday (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi I posted the suggestion that we should have a London Wikipedia meetup next week here. Would be cool if we could get some people together. I was thinking either a social meet or maybe a collaboration meetup where we bring a selected London article up to GA or even FA status. Poeloq (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. JFW | T@lk 07:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on in the Medicine Wikiproject. Would you mind adding your input to the RfC on the Fibromyalgia discussion page? Djma12 ^(talk) 02:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Was that a serious comment? --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment was serious, the phrasing was admittedly tongue-in-cheek. JFW | T@lk 13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not convinced it falls foul of WP:WIAFA 1e. Are you really going to fail it on that? I'm not sure we can predict immense flux in the nature of his article, any more than we can for any bio of a living person - and we promote hundreds of them each year. --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a comment, not an oppose. I need to have a slightly closer look at the article before I commit myself... JFW | T@lk 14:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! Not sure it's FA myself yet, just was surprised by your contribution. Hope you don't mind my subjecting you to a mild third degree! --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm barred from editing the lupus erythematosus page, someone just added a useless link to the EL section and I noticed there's a couple others that are iffy. Think it needs a little snippy-snip? WLU (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Whaddaya mean, you're "barred"? Which Arbcomm decision have I missed? I agree earlylupussymptoms is a very useless site (it just feeds the fears of hypochondriacs and is completely unreferenced). I have done the needful.JFW | T@lk 22:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow I missed this question. The Arbcom is related to my specific arb hearing which was mostly about a dispute between myself and another editor. It's since been resolved, but took place from Jan-Feb 2007. If you're interested, User talk:WLU/arbitration, but it's really quite irrelevant. Here is the short version, specifically mentioning Lupus. Too bad, because I did quite a bit of work on Lupus last year and it's frustrating not to be able to do vandalism reverts. Plus it's a pain in the ass 'cause I keep bothering others.

Also note this, I've warned the user this time but I still need someone else to revert for me. Finally, I've just edited Head injury and I don't know if I helped or not. The page appears somewhat confusing, possibly mixing head injuries with brain injuries. As usual, I'm out of my expertise. WLU (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mystar hasn't edited for a long time. You may want to file a motion to the ArbComm to the effect that these remedies be voided. I have again removed the deeply ghastly URL, and left a little annoyed lecture on the spammer's talkpage. You are free to read it for entertainment.

Wrt head injury, you need to injure the head to injure the brain... But seriously there are also brain damage and traumatic brain injury that deal with this. (It is actually possible to cause brain damage with poison, hypoxia etc so my opening salvo is not strictly true.) JFW | T@lk 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I kinda like the arbitration outcome for keeping me humble and as a reminder not to be a huge dick. Lemme know if you don't like being my go-to guy for Lupus reverts, I've others that I can exploit :) I did see your lecture, it left me feeling warm and squishy inside - actually fairly nice of you to include some suggestions, the use of italics was amusingly catty so don't feel that your efforts are unappreciated. Were I able, I would have jumped on the 'ban'-ed wagon (HA! That may require a very strong grasp of colloquial North American English, so if you don't get it, trust me it was HILARIOUS), another reason I avoid adminship. Power corrupts and I'm sure it would do so with me very quickly.

Sorry about dumping the head injury thing in your lap. I spent far too long last week editing the disease in ornamental fish page (which features this lovely image, though doubtless you've seen, possibly cleaned up, worse in med school you poor bastard) that I just didn't have the heart to tackle another long, complicated and ambiguous article I know almost nothing about. WLU (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind being approached for external link patrolling. Linkspam is one of my bugbears (see my editorial policies), but that earlylupussymptoms site really takes the cookie biscuit.

The head injury article needs looking at, together with all other related neurotrauma. There is a useful guideline document by NICE (UK medical standards body) that I might use to knock it into shape. There is an overlap with the other two artices I pointed at (brain damage and traumatic brain injury). JFW | T@lk 08:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

All I take away from this is "that I might use to knock it into shape." I've been relieved of my editing duties, huzzah! I look forward to your edits :) WLU (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be disruptive here. The simple point is that I noticed that, if you type "Jacob de Haan" in the search box, you are automatically taken to the page for Jacob Israel de Haan, with no indication that there is an entry for Jacob de Haan (composer). Although it is likely that most readers would want the article on the writer, some would indeed be searching for the composer, and would have had no idea how to find the relevant article. Your "not to be confused" note solves this; but I still don't understand why a disambig link is frowned on (and I have read the Manual of Style article). RolandR (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion; I have created the necessary disambig page. RolandR (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I also edit pages that are in need of better copy (I'm a book author) and I've added material and references where appropriate. I have noticed that Chabad added external links to almost every Jewish topic so I assumed that it was OK to add external links too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsabouttime (talk • contribs) 07:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I edit content, add material and add references wherever I can. I will do my best to add the appropriate information within the article itself. I see that Chabad has added external links to almost every Jewish topic page and on many they have two, so I assumed it was OK to add external links too. I also leave relevant questions on discussion pages. (I'm resending this message because I forgot to sign the last one) Thanks again! --Itsabouttime (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you wanted to take this public, we will have it you're way. Since you seem to feel from the height of your throne you still refuse to reinsert my input on celiac diet suggestions, why don't you take a gander to celiac.com (US) and look at what the USFDA has to say regarding malt. I don't know if you are a celiac yourself, your highness, but the rule of thumb is if there is a doubt, avoid it. For the second time, you threw some pantywaste onesided study no doubt paid by the bloody malt industry. My guess is you have Crohn's Disease and are self obsessed with your alleged importance when there is no ability for a face to face meeting. So, the bottom line is, that here in the States, maltodexterin is added to most rice products, and has the potential for adverse affects for the celiac patient. If you can't get that through you thin skull while your in your cave 24/7 sucking on d cell batteries, then shove it up your arse. Oh, by the way, based on the number of contributions that you have done here, what kind of life do you exactly have anyway? Not much by my guestimations, DB. I'm sure you'll throw a hissy fit over this one, ban my ass and all that good shit, but you know what, arseholes like you can have you're little playgrounds to you're selves, since you don't play nice anyways. Oh, by the way Wolff, from one Jew to another, I'd kick you ass for the good of Palestine just for general purposes. Shalom. Your pal in total disgust Ftmyersrick. PS. Don't bother writing back after you recover from your TIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftmyersrick (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a good old-fashioned troll. I'd better not feed you. JFW | T@lk 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

When making numerical claims (such as "Diet and exercise programs produce an average weight loss of approximately 8% of total body mass (excluding program drop-outs)") it is imperative that you provide reliable sources. Could you edit obesity to that effect? JFW | T@lk 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You've contacted the wrong person (I didn't put that claim in the article). It is imperative that you get your facts straight before you act on them.  :) Healthwise (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, since you moved the content around it seemed on the diff that you added this sentence. So it was already there. In any case, I have now tagged it with a {{fact}} tag so someone else can find a source for the numbers. Sorry to have bothered you. JFW | T@lk 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. If you leave a message on my talk page should I leave a message for you there? And if I do, how will you know that I left it there? Is there a way to alert you? And yes, you found my book, but that's the first edition. The current edition can be found here: It's About Time. Thank you again for all of your comments and I will do my best to become a valuable addition to the wikipedia team.--Itsabouttime (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I am sorry, but I don't really know if I'm doing this right. I was the one who put in the "controversy" section in chronic pain. The things I discussed there are things that are often experienced by chronic pain sufferers (like my wife). if I need to phrase it differently (I gathered that its not neutral?) please let me know, but these experiences are not unusual nor rare. If you check the United Nations - International Narcotics Board (UN-INCB) website (which I remember citing), their special report on narcotics will mention most if not all of the controversies.

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.204.72 (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really wondering if it's me you need. I cannot remember removing a "controversy" section anywhere (especially chronic pain, which I don't think I've ever edited).

If you want me to comment on a particular section, please provide editing differentials showing the content you want me to look at. I tend to be negative about "controversy" sections, because it is possible to turn everything into a controversy, and conversely every "controversy" can be turned into a normal divergence of opinions. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi JDWolff, Do you have an email address that I can use to send you a private message? I have emailed you at [email address removed] (an address I found in an old Wikipedia discussion archive) but it seems to keep bouncing back... Many thanks, Danielle —Preceding unsigned comment added by DB90210 (talk • contribs)

Is it about something to do with Wikipedia? In that case I'd prefer to communicate here. If it is indeed private, you can use this link. JFW | T@lk 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wolff, I'm working on Orthomolecular psychiatry with User:TimVickers among others (Tim's new and is acting as a knowledgeable admin helping us sort out the page). A pubmed search turned up a couple dutch-specific papers (a curious set of them actually) and I was wondering if you could let me know if any would be useful for the OMP page?

• PMID 10876712
• PMID 10812450
• PMID 10812448
• PMID 10812446
• PMID 10707746

Just a quick scan, at this point I'm only interested in those related to mental conditions and orthomolecular medicine. It's a fairly large favour, so please feel free to say no. Apologies for not being able to give you more than the pubmed numbers, my internet connection is crapping out today. WLU (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, Cees Renckens. I think I was subscribed to the NtvG in 2000 and I vaguely recollect the immense controversy. I have not retained my copies, so little hope of me commenting on these articles unless someone can send me reprints.

To the best of my recollection, Renckens (ob/gyn and president of the Dutch Association Against Quackery VtdK) intended to expose a number of charities that were collecting under the "pretense" of being mainstream medical charities, but were very specifically sponsoring orthomolecular research. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... thanks for commenting. Given the lack of full text, I don't think it's justifiable to include it on the current version of the OMP page. Thanks! As always, I'm very appreciative of the time you take. Much obliged! WLU (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads-up - I've reblocked Alpinist (talk · contribs) indefinitely. While he hasn't edited from that account since October, there's been a recent flare of disruptive, BLP-violating edits to Talk:Simon Wessely matching his M.O. and IP. After I semi-protected the page, Libraryofbabel (talk · contribs) showed up. Based on the contrib history and userpage revisions, that account is a pretty clear sockpuppet of Alpinist. I just wanted to give you a heads-up since you've dealt with Alpinist in the past and unblocked him on a promise of better behavior. MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Alpinist is completely unpredictable. I support a community ban and will watch the relevant pages. Incidentally, the Martin Walker One Click pamphlet he spammed was the result of our first exchanges on the Wessely page. JzG and myself are famous! JFW | T@lk 21:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Wolff: I am reposting the following request from User Sh76us (talk · contribs) on my user talk page for wider notification:

I was thinking of trying to stimulate development of a series of articles on Gemara concepts and doctrines, maybe to help children or newcomers to Gemara with explanations of some fundamental concepts that recur throughout the Gemara. Some examples might be articles on Yiush, Chazakah, Ta'aninun (as in "Ta'aninun L'Yoresh"), Eidim Zomemin (forgive my awful transliterations), Migu, etc., etc. Maybe we could even create a category or subcategory for it. I created Breira in this vein. As I don't have the experience or expertise in Wikipedia to know what to do to best develop this idea, I figured I'd come to you for your opinions on: (1) whether it's a good idea; and (2) How to best go about implementing it. Thanks Sh76us (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Idea for Talmud articles. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Wolff: Can you help move the Kehilas Yetev Lev D'Satmar Aronim (Williamsburg, Brooklyn) page to Kehilas Yetev Lev D'Satmar (Williamsburg, Brooklyn) (where it had been for a very long time) because there is no such name or entity with the word "Aronim" in it. It is just a sly reference to the machlokes that was unjustifiably inserted into this article's name. Google searching shows no such name for "Kehilas Yetev Lev D'Satmar Aronim" all one gets are mirror sites that have now picked up this distortion. Thanks for your help, IZAK (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please could you have a look at the edits of Jwri, whom I think may be pushing the boundaries of his own specialty beyond where UK practice at any rate would take it. I have left him a note http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jwri7474&diff=prev&oldid=184698797 but the general issue of classification of operations by specialty is a bit beyond me and I think someone of your calibre is better suited to either identify policy or define one. Thanks. --BozMo talk 10:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

just becouse you created a page, doesnt make it right, alot of people have added onto the Achlorhydria page and youve managed to keep it a stub, your not even correct to keep the current vesion becouse its not right, you can have low gastric levels, and still maintain a positive production of it therefor not having achlorhydria. i sugest you start discusing your deletions and undos on the talk page before someone reports you.. aka. myself. im changing it back and looking thro the past deletions youve made and redoing the page if you want to discuss a problem with it, open the descusion on my user page and i will gladly come to a agrement with you.

i further investigated this case.youve done this to me a few times, and another thing is, your opinions are not deletion worthy, encyclopedias are for all info not just definisions, neurosurgens do the surgery for the tumor becouse it sits directly on a bundle of nerves and the ear doctor isnt licenced to do such surgery, they can sit in yes, but you could have just changed it to that, it is still important to know.

and it seems you do this alot, and many people have said somthing to you, and you dont seem to be stoping, so all im going to say is if you do it to me again, i will report you, end of story, feel free to delete this comment.. i will have it in my directory for future reference if needed.. peace - Roy Stanley ph.d biogen (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I find your language unnecessarily threatening ("I will report you"). Please moderate your tone, because it is unhelpful. Assuming good faith goes a long way.

It is not uncommon for edits to be reverted, certainly not if one believes in BOLD, revert, discuss. On achlorhydria you added something that was already mentioned (the symptoms), and removed interwiki links, a navigation template and a category link. I don't think that my revert was unjustified, and I don't think WP:OWN applies at all.

Given that you are contributing to the English Wikipedia, I would recommend you work on your grammar and spelling. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

lol im pretty sure i menchion on my page that i am a horrible speller and need people to watch my articles, i have editers, but one only does my book and the other only does local news haha. anyway, i dont meen to threten, im just saying you do delete alot of things based on the fact that you think its to much info, and dont discuss the change before hand, you deleted alot more than the symptoms section, so you should have just made the moderate change you saw fit, and i only added to the symptoms not a whole new section, if there wasnt a section then it should have been better organized in the first place.

i dont think i should have to explain this, but if we're going to work together its nessisary you know. i havnt been able to spell or write ever in my life, no matter how much work i did on it, but when i was in pre k i aced in algabra and geometry, when i was in the 3rd grade i already had collage classes and went to a duke university sub school for excelling children, i in no means think im a geniouse at all, but i take pride in what i know, and in learning, part of learning is teaching, and thats what i entend to do here on wikipedia, but, if your going to make major changes.. only change what you see wrong, and only if you discuss it please.. every thing i type does follow wikirules wich gives me the right to stand for it before deletion.. besides.. who else but you and i really reads most of the articles weve worked on... not many people.. haha what do you specialize in anyway? i am a biomedical gerentologist. nice to meet you : P Roy Stanley ph.d biogen (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

any way .. back to the origional discusion, the revising you did this time better suited the cause, the statement 'it is related to...deseases' is funny cus its like your aruing the point, but its a contraversial statment any way, there are plenty of medical journals that say it has nothing to do with any thing else, but at the same time, it counts as a symptom, so you could say its assosiated lol. next, i misspelled x-irradiation, its still a cause and should be menchioned unless you thing radiation sais enogh? else wise.. good job cleaning it up.. why did you change the see alsos? lol just asking peace -Roy Stanley ph.d biogen (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On achlorhydria there was a section called "presentation". I agree that it does not conform to WP:MEDMOS (the section is now named "signs and symptoms", as it should have been), but it is no excuse for duplicating material. I changed the "see also" section because I was not convinced that gastritis was relevant (atrophic gastritis perhaps), and hyperactidity had no links around it (and has no article).

I think it is fairly poor form to write long swathes of text and implicitly expect other contributors to make it better. If you think something should be covered but are unable to phrase it properly, you can always leave a message on the relevant article's talkpage.

You underestimate the popularity of Wikipedia. Even a rather niche article like achlorhydria attracts a fairly large readership; it comes up #1 on Google, suggesting that it is clicked often by people searching for it.

I will delete content that I find unhelpful, with a reasonable edit summary explaining my actions. Every Wikipedian has the right to do this, and ideally the content in question should not be reinserted unless concerns mentioned in the edit summary have been properly addressed.

My specialty is general medicine (what they call internal medicine on your side of the Atlantic). JFW | T@lk 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

indeed, i will just keep track of what gets deleted and look at the reason and see if i can make it better : ) you know people in america dont have grammer, i took english in germany one year as a exchange student and its alot harder than it is here, we have no particular way of talking, could be becouse we are dumb.. but i like to think thats not the case lol thanks for talking -Roy Stanley ph.d biogen (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to post this on WP:Judaism, because before, you sternly said how the project was strictly about Judaism.

However, again, I find myself needing a Jewish POV: Not to push bias, but to perhaps remove it. I thought I'd notify you directly, so that maybe you can help, if you want? Or not. That's OK too.

You may have heard of the "war on Christmas." See the article Christmas controversy.

Many Christians in America consider it "bigoted" if you don't say "Merry Christmas" or if you say, "Happy Holidays," instead. Overall, it is considered bigoted if you don't practice and recognize their religious holiday. Right now, the article is heavily biased and doesn't contain any information about criticism from anyone. One main source for criticism of this claim is Jews, I.E., Abraham Foxman's claim a while back that Christians were attempting to "Christianize" America and that this was itself anti-semitic.

To understand what I'm talking about, here's one sentence from the article [10] that stands out:

Smith further argued that Jews introduced Santa Claus to suppress the New Testament accounts of Jesus, and that the United Nations at the behest of "world Jewry" had "outlawed the name of Christ.

What on Earth is such a fringe claim doing there?

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a whole load on WP:NOR and needs to be revised or deleted. Foxman may have said what he said, but clearly not in direct reference to X-mas greetings. If there is no source for the "Many Christians..." line, this is just someone's POV. I will review the issue as soon as possible, but probably not until tomorrow. JFW | T@lk 10:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 3	14 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: A new weekly feature
Special: 2007 in Review	Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named
Controversial non-administrator rollback process added	Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page
WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect"	News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dr Wolff: In recognition of all your remarkable and consistent efforts (you are probably one of the most normal Wikipedians around) It is my pleasure to honor you with The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar [11]. On Wikipedia:Barnstars this award is described as: "The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. It was created after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, when a fraudulent charity tried to take advantage of the widespread media coverage of the article. This barnstar was introduced by Alkivar on 8 January 2005." Congratulations! and Mazel Tov IZAK (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

On the statin page I added a link to an external site: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_04/b4068052092994.htm It has been removed as "unsuitable". The link is to a reputable site, and the page contains information that is extremely valuable to people taking statin drugs. If you are going to remove this link, can you add another that provides similar information? Since you are a doctor, probably profiting from statin drugs, removing a link that contains unfavorable information about statins is a conflict of interest for you. I checked your pages regarding what criteria you use to remove external links, and none of those apply here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.107.119 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bad article, and potentially relevant. We're sometimes a bit wary about citing the popular press on scientific issues (case in point: not until the 3rd or 4th page of the Business Week article do they mention that the "major findings" detailed in the lead have yet to be published in the peer-reviewed literature). It could be discussed further on the article talk page. As to those cheques from the statin manufacturers, JFW, if they sent mine to you by mistake, could you forward it? I'm still waiting for my bonus. MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

71.112.107.119, I find it interesting that you automatically assume bad faith by suggesting that I might be in the pay of statin companies. What a very bad way to start a constructive discussion.

The "external links" is not for information. If there is information about statins, it should be in the article, supported with reliable sources and as neutral as possible. I fail to see how an article in a business magazine containing unpublished medical research can possibly be useful as a source for such an article. Wikipedia should pride itself in not having to rely on journalism for its sources.

If you want information from the Business Week article integrated with the statin article, how about leaving a message on the article's talk page? JFW | T@lk 20:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Varenicline article has a serious error. The article says about the drug side effects that they are "none common" which is simply not true according to the American Cancer Society. Therefore I fixed the error with information from the ASC. You're undo was a misunderstanding because my correction wasn't just from a different sources, it has much different information, in this case correctly. Chantix certainly isn't free fromside effects. I will now proceed to restore the correction I made. If you have any issue with the sourcing, please help me out, but this is a very important point since many potential users of Chantix will probably use Wikipedia as a guide, and it is very misleading for it to say "none common" under side effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lseidman (talk • contribs) 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends what you call "common". No medication is free from side-effects, and I agree that we need reliable sources to distinguish between the "common" and "uncommon" ones. Rather than using these biased labels, it would be much better if we used the data from the studies on which the ACS page is based, and say that "nausea occurred in X% of patients", which is much more neutral and more factual. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay I think we're in agreement. I think I saw such a source earlier, I'll try to post that once I get a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lseidman (talk • contribs) 04:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how long do you intend to leave the article full protected? Isn't full protection of a high profile article for a period of over 5 months a little extreme? --69.118.143.107 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that it is a high-profile article, and I agree that protracted protection is a little extreme. However, it has only been fully protected since 1 January this year after an old friend joined the RSPCA and became a vociferous campaigner for Capybara conservation (a very large rodent with webbed feet and no tail). Details of his mischief can be seen in the article's edit history.

Several options are open to you. I expect the full protection to be downgraded to {{semiprotected}} at some point. By that time, users with an autoconfirmed username should be able to edit without restrictions. I suggest you register an account and patiently wait for the protection level to be downgraded (without much fanfare for the obvious reasons).

If you identify an important problem on the Parkinson's page, consider leaving a message on Talk:Parkinson's disease prefixed by {{editprotected}}. Administrators will be able to make the necessary edit if it is deemed important enough. JFW | T@lk 20:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

NCurse _work 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Berci. I need to finish my planned work on rhabdomyolysis before starting on stroke in earnest. JFW | T@lk 20:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi JFW, I was wondering if you could take a quick look at Tolosa-Hunt syndrome which i've recently expanded from a stub. I was also wondering if you have any other sources on Tolosa-Hunt syndrome which could be used to help expand the article further? Regards, CycloneNimrod (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PMID 16776691 is a recent review (2006) which includes the most recent criteria. It isn't free however, so your other option would be PMID 11606665, which is free if you don't mind registering for the JNNP website. JFW | T@lk 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks a lot! I'll see if I can expand the article a little further now. Regards, CycloneNimrod (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi JFW, this is just to let you know of the above proposal (at the TownPump I believe), just now. Also, I'm busy with other things in my life, so please don't expect me to even check WP for any answer in the foreseeable future. I hope someone will just do it. But I would eventually do it myself, if either you or dab (or anyone else) encourages me. For7thGen (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You are referring to this discussion (Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam), which was conducted in 2004 and therefore happened 3 years ago. I think it is immediately obvious that there is no consensus for any move over there. Dbachmann was mainly concerned about the socio-religious impact of the titles of both articles, something not recognised as a valid reason in the naming conventions.

If you think pages should be moved, record them on WP:RM and start a discussion on the talk page for each article. I'm also busy; I won't expect you to check WP for any answer but neither will I encourage you. JFW | T@lk 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

@For7thGen ????? Mattress N.sato (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I wondered if I could ask you for a big favor. I've been working on concussion, which I noticed you've commented on in the past, and I wondered if you could look it over for any factual errors or distortions. I've submitted a peer review, and I would absolutely love it if you'd have time to comment there (though I understand if you don't). Thanks much! Peace, delldot talk 14:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Aww, thanks so much JFW! Actually I wrote most of those a long time ago, but I'm getting back into the swing of real content editing :) But my work is nothing compared to your own incredible work on the project since time immemorial, I see you everywhere! I'm glad you mentioned bringing it up on WPMED, will do. No worries about the delay, I know you're busy, and it's a favor anyway. Peace, delldot talk 18:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem with the 31 hour block. I just normally block vandalism-only accounts indefinitely, but I see where you're going with point 2 (innocent users being affected), but I don't think that point 1 (vandal could come back on a different IP) is relevant to the length of the block since he would vandalize again whether that IP was blocked or not. But, in the end, most vandals are just bored so I don't expect he'll be sitting around waiting for the 31 hour block to expire just so he can vandalize again. Now I'm rambling. The 31 hour block is good. I'll do that when blocking IPs instead of indef. Useight (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My point was that indefinitely blocking an IP for vandalism will not lead to a cessation of vandalism from that person. I agree that it pertains to all accounts - anyone can return as a sockpuppet. JFW | T@lk 09:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know I'm not here unless I've got something to ask for. Hopefully this is a minor one, and quickly answered. How does one know if a journal is a reliable source? Is this one? Is there a simple way of finding or calculating the impact factor and applying it to the page, and is impact factor an appropriate approach to use? I swear, one of these days I'll find another admin to pester with medical/science/journal questions but you're just so quick to answer... WLU (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a solid rule here, but if a journal is indexed for Pubmed (check here) it is more likely to be a reliable source than if it is not. Dissociation is not, but then it appears to be a humanities journal.

I tend not to jump to the impact factor to judge the relative reliability of sources. When a disease is rare and only covered in specialist journals, the usefullness of the source may be obscured by their lower impact factor. Things are always more helpful if there are secondary sources (e.g. reviews, press reports etc) that accord importance to a paper. On rhabdomyolysis, I would have discarded the "Biblical coturnism" case (see the history section) as fanciful speculation, but the fact that all major subsequent reviews make mention of it gives the theory, however speculative, an aura of importance. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, in the causes of obesity Obesity#Lifestyle I added the opinion that it is not a result of too much calories per se but rather of eating carbohydrates. I referred to Gary Taubes recent book of the subject whihc is rather a throughtout literature review of the research in the last century.

I understand your problem with inserting this in the causes section. However, the current status of the causes section is faulty given the current research result as accepted in the low-carb section. It is absurd. can you suggest a way to point this out in the lifestyle causes section without inflating it? maybe a line about the variety of opinions? YechezkelZilber 01:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Taubes' book is clearly controversial, and is one of whole line of works on the subject. The work is relatively recent, so it is very hard to see (e.g. through secondary sources) how much of an impact it has had. I don't disagree that we need to provide more information on diet as a cause for obesity, but that should be sourced to medical science (just like the remainder of the article), with Taubes' as a postscriptum.

Nowhere does the article claim that high-carb or high-fat foods are any worse in causing obesity. If there are various opinions about, all should be cited adequately before embarking on a debunking exercise. JFW | T@lk 01:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is actually strange that there is no article yet on Taubes' book. I tried to write a draft on my side. But it is a tough job. Maybe I should do it in a short manner. Better than nothing anyway.... YechezkelZilber 02:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the book need its own article? JFW | T@lk 02:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. except from being a very throughtout review of the literature with very provocative conclusions, he made an impact. The writer published several papers in "Science", you can also see his article [12] "what if it was all a big fat lie" in NYT. YechezkelZilber 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy collaborating on a short section in obesity that explains the different nutritional theories behind the obesity epidemic. JFW | T@lk 17:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments responding to my email. As all sources were published years ago and some are cited in the current article, no new or original research applies. Literary integrity is demanded of all documents. Literary Integrity is not a theory, but a necessary requirement. Conflict of interest could not apply as long as the edits relating to Literary Integrity are established by verifiable historical and current mainstream sources. Danflo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danflo78 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Will reply on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 17:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to congratulate you on getting that horrible list killed. It was a white-knuckle affair, but I'm pleased with the ultimate outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. Yes, I would be interested in learning more about the possibility of making a tool based on my template. I have not done this before. Could you please provide some explanation on how to do this?Shannon bohle (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Will reply on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I created a JS tool on my User:Shannon bohle/Monobook.js page. Now what? —Preceding comment was added at 01:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the new top portion--Can you work with that? I think it still may need an HTML portion to work.Shannon bohle (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The user interface I have is HTML, which you said would not work. I am trying to consider another approach rather than a drop-down menu. If you have any other suggestions I would be happy to hear them. What about a PHP/wiki extension instead?Shannon bohle (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a message on my talk page. Also, an administrator has nominated the template for deletion. Despite the fact I said I was working with you to try to put it up for discussion, this administrator says that they will not remove it from the deletion list.Shannon bohle (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have commented at the deletion discussion. JFW | T@lk 16:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the barnstar, is the first I get and it feels good. Since I finished with the MS treatments article I have been working in this one and I hope that in a few months it will become a FA. (be sure I will ask for some help :-) --Garrondo (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I think your rephrasing of the MM introduction sounds fine. I did want to comment on your statement that: "we cannot weasel about this: myeloma kills within a few years"

This is not really true. If you are elderly with comorbid medical conditions and advanced disease (as, it is true, is the case for many people diagnosed with MM), it likely is. As even the later portion of the wikipedia article indicates, however, if you have stage one MM your median life expectancy is over 5 years; if you are younger than average and otherwise healthy, and/or if you have less advanced disease within the range of what is considered stage one, median survival is significantly longer. There are plenty of people who have lived 5, 10, 15 or 20 years after diagnosis and are still in remission - as you can see on the discussion page for the article itself, where there are comments from two people who are currently in remission more than 7-8 years after diagnosis, both of whom clearly feel the introduction as it was was inaccurately gloomy.

I certainly appreciate your dedication to wanting to make sure that things are above all else accurate and honest. But, with information of this type, it's also incredibly important to not overstate things. As a medical professional, I just watched someone read the earlier phrasing of introduction and literally panic, nearly hyperventilating - although this was clearly contradictory to what their physician had just told them about 15 minutes ago, they immediately thought "oh my God, my physician wasn't telling me the truth because she thought I couldn't handle it; actually, I'm most certainly going to die before I turn 50." But, their doctor wasn't lying to them; rather, the information on our page was inaccurate and imprecise.

I think it's often just hard to remember that what seems like it might be true of a particular patient you might have in your mind (eg, 82 yo with advanced disease and renal failure) isn't necessarily going to be accurate for all patients (say, an otherwise healthy 37 yo), and blanket statements in the introduction that don't acknowledge this (eg, "The prognosis is poor.") can be unnecessarily damaging for readers.

Thanks! Anon.

This is obviously the reason why the article needs to be very clear on the prognosis. Indeed young patients without comorbidities, a good performance status and few complications will do quite well, and apart from the standard treatment there are numerous new options (e.g. bortezomib, HSCT/autograft) that have radically altered the gloomy picture from 10-20 years ago. I agree that the intro was quite harsh and needed rephrasing, but the average myeloma patient is elderly and has a somewhat gloomy prognosis.

Would you be interested to join Wikipedia and become one of the contributors to medical articles? We're doing well, but there's still quite a lot of work to be done even on major topics like stroke, COPD and diabetes. JFW | T@lk 16:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and thoughtful response! I actually meant to reiterate at the end of my comments that I did like the way you'd ended up changing it. I guess I was mostly responding to your change-notes, more for the sake of discussion than anything else....

I have been adding bits and pieces to medical and biomedical science articles that I know things about, but I'm a little concerned that given my professional specialty, if do it from an actual logged-in account, it would be pretty obvious for anyone who knew my professional activities to have a pretty good guess of who I am, and I'm still not quite sure how I feel about mixing authorship in this kind of a project with my main professional role. You are clearly very knowledgeable about a wide variety of medical issues, so I would guess you may be in this kind of a position yourself - any thoughts, or discussions on this you would point me to?

Thanks again for your comments! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.248.45 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)