Dear Jfdwolff Maybe consider leaving that link into the Proteopedia page - it really shows the enzyme, Acid-beta-glucosidase, which when defective produces Gaucher's disease in a nice way, i.e. in 3D, please take a look at that page, and consider restoring the link, i.e. http://www.proteopedia.org/wiki/index.php/Acid-beta-glucosidase. n.b. the link can be gotten to simply by typing: Proteopedia Acid-beta-glucosidase Looking forward to hearing from you, with best regards, Joel L. Sussman (Joel.Sussman@weizmann.ac.il)

Hi JFW, if you're still willing and able to help review a few of the students' topics from our project, I'd appreciate your expertise. Here are the details again: I have an 8 point rubric that you can use to make quantitative judgments about how much improvement to the stub has been made by the students (and any other editors that help out during our course period) between 3/1/11 and the "final" version at the end of the course (~2nd week of May). Would you be willing to review Referred itch, Satellite cell (glial), Synaptic gating, and Vestibulocerebellar syndrome and score them using the rubric? I would be most appreciative, and of course would acknowledge your efforts in the manuscript that will be written up detailing our project. Thanks much,NeuroJoe (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I can handle those four topics. Do I make my assessment at the end of the course then? JFW | T@lk 19:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lambert–Eaton myasthenic syndrome you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lambert–Eaton myasthenic syndrome for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks! That went a lot quicker than I'd expected. JFW | T@lk 10:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO we should probably discuss the review first and than follow it with context supported by primary research. Or at least leave the stipulation that there is controversy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to leave it this way. It is a treatment that has been backed by evidence and is still discussed in the guidelines, but fails to live up to expectations. JFW | T@lk 21:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumonia is up for April's MCOTM. Are you interested in polishing it up again? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I will be contributing sporadically as a result of multiple competing demands on my time. I will be very happy to sort out specific requests. JFW | T@lk 09:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 11, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 11, 2011. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Not sure if you were actually referring to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Chemicals. The article you mentioned is for a compound class, multiple, not a single compound.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, and I've argued this strenuously at WP MED before only to have people suggest that an article with a synthesis section is not worthy to be a FA. Let's see how it goes this time, best of luck.--Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Adding the link. JFW | T@lk 19:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On benzodiazepine you removed pieces of information (including "ALT" text from images) without an edit summary and marked the edits "minor".

You have been asked repeatedly to comply with these basic policies. Could you explain why this is so difficult? JFW | T@lk 14:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered that you are banned from routinely blanking your talkpage.[1] Yet you have been doing just that. Please consider this a final warning. JFW | T@lk 14:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Messages 7 days or older may be archived (not blanking) on the talk page.
• A final warning seems harsh when my only real intention is to improve articles.
• I will restore the "ALT" text (I thought it wasn't necessary) and summarize my edits. Editor182 (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calmer Waters 02:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

regarding my edit on the entry beth din that you removed

I noticed that you have removed many other edits that various users have made over time to this article including information over semichah. I wonder why you would be so fastidious about many of these edits? They are extremely informative, impartial and desirable. Readers simple want to know about these things and they are integral to the concept of beth din. Please advise. If I am not sending you this message in the right forum let me know. I'm kind of new to this. --Jajogluck (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry your edit fell prey to my campaign to keep the article free of unnecessary bias and loaded language. Perhaps you could have a look at WP:NOCRIT and the general disadvantage of using "criticism" or "controversies" sections. From what you wrote (a section without a aingle source cited in support of your claims) it is unclear why giving the beth din binding arbitration power would be a bad thing. If anything, it keeps the litigants within the parameters of Choshen Mishpat 26 and its dinim on arka'os. You also did not explain what is different about Givas Hamorah and its approach.

In general, I would suggest that you take concerns about an individual article to the article's discussion page. Failing that, each article is associated with a WikiProject (here WikiProject "Judaism", and posting on the WikiProjecct's discussion page may help in involving other editors. Good luck. JFW | T@lk 15:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, there is very few secondary sources too, I looked it over and over, I am actually trying to look for landmarks in the history of the research about asthma, thats why you find that some information is not applicable to today's medicine, as the current understanding of the disease was mostly understood in the 60's and later. please suggest any sources to help expanding the article MaenK.A._Talk 16:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It matters not whether treatments are currently used or historical. All I ask is that you provide secondary sources that indicate which historical reports have changed the understanding of a disease. In other words, sources that meet WP:MEDRS criteria. I would be very surprised if such sources did not exist for a common disease like asthma. JFW | T@lk 19:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, Actually I cant find a book writing about the subject in particular, but I found many sites and few are reliable, and what do you think if I split the article and make it in the form of eras like here, and I can use reliable references used there or els where?? MaenK.A._Talk 22:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the timelines are in any form validated. I can't make any promises, but I will have a look at some point in the next few days. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. can I use this search results to chose the main landmarks and then cite them?? MaenK.A._Talk 22:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to remind you, to give me an Idea about the history section, since I have some free time, and am planing to work on the whole article :) MaenK.A._Talk 22:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Asthma%2Fhistory%22[MAJR] JFW | T@lk 22:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 17258900 looks good also. JFW | T@lk 22:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And PMID 15778490. JFW | T@lk 22:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or 15280175. JFW | T@lk 22:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Barend Joseph Stokvis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 ^talk 17:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - regarding [this revert]: while blood vessel does not currently redirect to this article, there is certainly the possibility of getting to that page when looking for the singer. Indeed, that was what happened with me, and I make a point of adding hatnotes in such cases. Care to reconsider? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be covered by WP:NAMB. It is not a true disambiguation. I think everyone may occasionally go through the process that you did. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation is by definition there to help out editors who did what I did. The question is whether you would be opposed to my reintroduction of the hatnote without me having to go through the red tape of a debate on the article talk page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the mood for a drawn-out discussion, so feel free to reintroduce the hatnote. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc:

Just posted a bunch of small stuff on rhabdomyolysis for you on the article Talk page. It may turn out to be a "whole bunch of nothing", but even so - I did fix ONE spelling error for you.

Your overall grade - A+ (as usual). Have a good one. Talk to you later.

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love the edit summary ("gotcha doc")!

Will have a good close look at your recommendations. Every little helps. JFW | T@lk 19:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't resist that Edit Summary - you're the first and only person to EVER revert one of my edits! Its a love-hate thing between us! :-)

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, we're even. JFW | T@lk 20:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even? LOL - not a chance, Doc. You wish! Hey - after rereading some of my suggestions, THEY sucked too, so I went in and re-edited my post ex post facto (no pun intended). I'm quitting now - it's all on you. Let me know if you want me to bother you somewhere else.

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your comment about "no need for boldface - a breast implant is not a device either", I have posted a reply on my talk page. I observed that you deleted the term before giving me an opportunity to respond.

Under paragraph 3 of the following link, the FDA official publication specifically refers to this as a "breast implant device" ( see http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm070819.htm ). Furthermore at the 66th meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the FDA, the term "breast implant devices" are used in their official report (see following link: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/transcripts/2005-4101t3.htm). At another FDA General and Plastic Surgery Devices meeting the official report contains two citations using the exact term "breast implant devices" (see link: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/transcripts/3989T1.htm).

Lest you believe that this is exclusively a term reserved for use by the FDA, I am attaching a medlibrary.org reference which employs the term "breast implant devices" (see: http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Breast_implantation).

Please do not believe that this is an American designation either. The following link also establishes that Breast "Implants are classified as medical device (MD) internationally" (see http://www.mdco.gov.hk/english/emp/emp_gp/files/breast_aug.pdf).

In regards to your analogy to an ICD, an international company headquartered in London, Aortech International, employs the exact words "breast implant device" in its report (see http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?type=news&code=cotn%3AAOR.L&it=&articleid=5491311&action=article). Are they aware of your concerns about multiple noun overkill?

In summary, I would not presume to tell the FDA that they are improperly employing "multiple noun overkill" as used in their official publications. This agency establishes the legal classification of breast implants as medical devices. I am puzzled by your semantic discrimination. Do you have a medical reference which substantiates your claim that " a breast implant is not a device either?" According to the FDA, to which I am legally bound to comply, it is absolutely a medical device and should be irrefutably referred to as medical devices. Please read the first sentence of the following link: "The Medical Device Amendments were enacted, giving FDA authority to regulate medical devices such as breast implants" (see http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/BreastImplants/UCM064242)

I'd be grateful if you could respond to my comments.Otto Placik (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doc:

Had so much fun picking at you yesterday on rhabdomyolysis, I figured I'd continue on with pneumonia. Found three (obvious/non-controversial) spelling and grammar errors and went to fix them real quick, but the software told me to "bugger off", or something to that effect.

If you are a "Honcho", "Diety", or of whatever Wikirank that can do so, will you please check my "rights" and let me know what I need to do to "apply" for the one that lets me fix simple stuff like that as long as I behave?

Thanks. Hope you don't get a community-acquired pneumonia today!

Your nemesis: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your edit went through fine.[2] What error message exactly are you getting? Your rights are the same as always: you have reviewer and rollbacker rights. JFW | T@lk 17:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about what you said earlier this month about List of hematologic conditions and wanted to ask your opinion on what best to do. I have attempted to create a list that may very well be out of my abilities to complete (if that is even possible) in any reasonable amount of time. Also, the way I set out doing it (with a short summary of each disease process) will make such a list eventually to long (already at 61k and nowhere near comprehensive) and will have to be broken up into smaller sections at some point if continued. My question is, do you think I should abandon this project entirely (G7) and retract the links, or maybe just work on changing it to a list of anemias, remove the rest, work on it further, and after a peer review, attempt a feature list run. Any thoughts? Calmer Waters 02:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is impossible to do the field of haematology justice in one article. It might help to split up the current article and use the content you've worked on as a framework for other article. The current anemia article is dreadful, and would greatly benefit from getting your work spliced into it. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your right with trying to combine a whole major field of medicine like this into just one article the way its setup is not really plausible. I think I bit off more than I could chew trying to duplicate the success that the list of cutaneous conditions had without the foresight or proper thought given to what a monumental task it would be. I will start removing the links to that list and then move it into my sandbox; taking your kind suggestion, look at how best to incorporate anything helpful into existing articles. I will take a look at a few well written articles similar to the article anemia and maybe try to take that framework to help better that article. Thank you again. Calmer Waters 03:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see this Cfd discussion again. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jdfwolff. I've undone your revert [3] as I can't see the logic behind it - the aim of the edit appears to be to explain the topic at a lower technical level, which seems to be rather useful in communicating information on this topic (on the basis that those that read this article won't necessarily understand the technical terms used in the article), or otherwise adding additional detail. If you disagree with the edit, please could you leave a message on the talk page of the user rather than solely in the edit summary (which can easily go unnoticed, unlike a talk page message)? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor left a post on the talkpage, to which I responded, explaining my edit. On the whole, I'd prefer if you looked at my explanation there before reverting again. JFW | T@lk 05:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention. I released the contribution, because Dengeu fever as also malaria is not common in sub-tropic area, but common in tropical climate as Indonesia. Using an unapproval vaccine and drug might be have a certain risk, but sometimes is a choice depends on the urgencies, mostly for severe cancer. If we know to handle the dengue fever, the disease is not harmful, but sometimes several children die due to they (including the family) don't know it will kill them silently/unpredictablely by dehidration and thrombocyte leakage when they think they are gradually become health (day 3 and 4 critical moment), so controlling thrombocyte daily is needed. By the way I will agree with you if the contribution need another article as a home, if necessary. Thank you again for your attention.Gsarwa (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wolfy! why the big padlock on the Wessely article? I looked up the sources. Reads like some soviet style rant to me now. What's a girl to do?

Spread some comment luv hon.

Catherine

Have we met? I think your edits were regarded with suspicion because they very closely resonate with additions made some time ago by an editor with a strong agenda. I will comment further on Talk:Simon Wessely. JFW | T@lk 00:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya wolffy- Catherine here. I've lost my password do you know how I get it back? I posted on the Wessely page so thought I'd post here so you can see. Hubbie gets back from Preston soon so can't hang around but maybe if you want to chat you can join our facebook group on CFS and read more about Wessely? here's my post:

I ain't going to look back through all that stuff. I think though you are making this page a "coatrack??" for your own odd agenda. We'd be in the shit if you were a doctor lol as even in the states most folk think Wessely is a bit wacko compared to heroes like Leonard Jason. There goes one cool shrink. As for my choice of edits I read about this stuff on a facebook page and these edits getting banned by some guy. So I thought someone has to have the chutzpah to post this stuff. Tell it like it is. Good doctors listen to their patients. Do you know how I get my password back if I've lost it? I'll look up the facebook group for you and maybe you can join which would be cool. Are you on facebook? Wessely's sons posted on the facebook page and started abusing my friend Andrea so we had to ban them :-( that made me mad and so I though I'd edit the article in a professional and unbiased way :-))

Spread some comment luv

Catherine

To get the Wiki to send you a new password, go to Special:UserLogin, enter your username and click the button "email new password".

In truth, I have already read a fair amount about Prof. Wessely and his work on CFS. A while ago I intended to update the article further, but I am no great fan of editing "under fire". All I do currently is make sure that we keep the article reasonably neutral. I am fully aware of the strong feelings in the CFS/ME patient community, but that does not mean that we need an article stuffed to the brim with general negativity. The WP:BLP policy exists for this very reason (it all started with the Wikipedia biography controversy in 2005).

Could you conduct further discussion about the article on the article talkpage. JFW | T@lk 18:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the password tip, I'll do that now honey :-) And yeah, no negativity, just the hard truth, the man ain't liked by patients and that's a pretty serious failing as a doctor. I knew an internist once and he never got no patients 'cos folks just didn't want to see him. Wessely's a jerk but that ain't no excuse for posting all negative, but there has to be a little don't you think? You couldn't have an article on Stalin as some cheerio who had nice chats with Pushkin and was a great benefactor of the arts. No, you gotta allow some negative on Wessely as it's all, what you say "POV" with no ying and yang?

Catherine

You're welcome.

Please do not discuss the article or Simon Wessely with me on this talkpage. If you have concerns about the article, you must do so on the talk page so that other contributors can weigh in. JFW | T@lk 21:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Mr. Wolff. Sorry I see you are a doctor and I said a few things (blush). I guess a great doctor is accompanied by a great angel as they say and I'm sure that's you :-) I went to the desk thing like you said and I posted about all that was happening. So maybe someone can straighten me out on how all this works. Sciencewatcher seems a bit of a jerk. Surely you should assume good faith and not choke so much on stuff.

Catherine

Thanks. I try to assume good faith where possible. Take care. JFW | T@lk 22:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your message regarding the external links I've added to several cancer type pages. However, these links are not spam and are in no way intended to improve search rankings. The links go to web content from Macmillan Cancer Support, one of the UK's most trusted sources of cancer information as well as it's leading provider of support (medical, financial, practical and emotional) for people affected by cancer in the UK. Macmillan is a 100-year-old registered charity whose cancer information is certified (and annually audited) by the Information Standard, the independent scheme begun by the Department of Health.

The links we're attempting to add are more valuable to users than some of the existing external links on these pages. I've read the Wikipedia external links policy, and as they advise, I have posted similar messages to his on a discussion page.

Please advise on any helpful tips we should follow to ensure these links are not removed in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.118.102 (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you followed the lead of Cancer Research UK and enhanced the content of the Wikipedia pages themselves. People who know how to use Google will also find your pages. It bears remembering that Wikipedia aims to serve not just patients and their relatives but the entire population. Links are sometimes appropriate, but again the link descriptions were very wordy (probably unnecessarily so) and this needs looking at. JFW | T@lk 19:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Sanderson (talk · contribs) is requesting unblocking. Can you provide some more info on the sockpuppetry on the user's talk page to help an unbiased admin review the block? Toddst1 (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Toddst1 (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your further comments. I'd be very grateful if you could point me to further examples where I could provide further explanations without resorting to parentheses. JFW | T@lk 15:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Sorry to be a nuisance about this. Here are some thoughts:

• Neutrophil granulocytes (the most abundant white blood cells) enter the muscle tissue,...

  Neutrophil granulocytes—the most abundant white blood cells—enter the muscle tissue,...

• If an underlying muscle disease is suspected (e.g. if there is no obvious explanation or there have been multiple episodes), further investigations may be required.

  If an underlying muscle disease is suspected, such as when there is no obvious explanation or if there have been multiple episodes, further investigations may be required.

• Temporary measures include the administration of calcium (which does not change potassium levels but protects against cardiac complications), insulin (which redistributes potassium into cells), drugs from the beta-adrenergic agonist class (such as salbutamol) and infusions of bicarbonate solution.[14]

  Temporary measures include the administration of calcium to protect against cardiac complications, insulin to redistribute potassium into cells, drugs from the beta-adrenergic agonist class (such as salbutamol) and infusions of bicarbonate solution.[14]

• If kidney dysfunction develops (usually 1–2 days after the initial muscle trauma), renal replacement therapy (RRT) may be required. RRT removes excess potassium,...

  Kidney dysfunction can develop, usually within 1–2 days after the initial muscle trauma. This may require renal replacement therapy (RRT), which removes excess potassium,...

The 'Common and important causes' table seems choked with parentheses, but I'm not really sure what can be done about that.

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JFW. Please don't take offence at my opposition of "Rhabdomyolysis". I have great respect for you and for your excellent contributions on Wikipedia. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful suggestions, Jfdwolff. I have done my best to improve the references section of the pyelonephritis article. I have added several MEDRS-compliant and current textbook sources, and a few review articles from peer-reviewed journals. I have also removed the unnecessary medical terminology source and done a bit of copyediting. There is still a lot of work to be done, but I think this is a pretty good start. Before I go any further, I would like to consult with you on the article's organization. MEDMOS suggests the following outline for disease-related articles:

• Classification
• Signs and symptoms
• Causes
• Pathophysiology
• Diagnosis
• Prevention
• Management
• Prognosis
• Epidemiology

This is not exactly how I would have chosen to organize the article, but I assume the suggested outline is the result of some sort of consensus. Is there a good reason why we should deviate from the suggested guideline? DiverDave (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently deviate from the MEDMOS guideline when editorial judgement requires this. In my mind, you can't really discuss "classification" before you have discussed the parameters on the basis of which you might wish to classify a disease. JFW | T@lk 19:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amoxicillin#Medical_uses Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no access to issue 57, which is now 2 years old, but BNF 61 (section "Medical problems in dental practice", page 29) appears to completely rule out any antibiotic prophylaxis. This is based on National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Clinical guideline 64: Prophylaxis against infective endocarditis. London, 2008.. A recent study in the BMJ (doi:10.1136/bmj.d2392) indicated that this restriction was not associated with worsening incidence of endocarditis. JFW | T@lk 11:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Dr. Wolff, I thought I would ask you a question here (please feel free to delete it). I also am not fluent in wikipedia, nor do I have any interest in doing so. I am trying to post relevant information on a commercially available product (something that is quite frequent on wiki, see the entries for sildenafil, bevacizumab, etc...)

I spotted some recent input you gave on a page called Macula Risk (page I created by the way...) and have some questions to ask of you:

1) Original research- what does this mean? Is this improper? Please explain. I have addded more than 15 academic references

2) You indicate "No evidence that this has been properly validated"- would you like me to E-mail you the article outlining the validation of the technology, as published in IOVS (one of the most reputable journals in opthalmology) or just provide you the reference? Also, each of the individual markers in the composite assay has also been validated in at least 2 seperate, non-company sponsored studies, which in total have included more than 30,000 test subjects. I can send you all the references you need.

3) "no WP:MEDRS-compatible sources supporting DNA-based screening for AMDm."

The input given by wiki is:

Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in a field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine. Sources for all other types of content—including that in medical articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline.

I can provide you with copies of the following articles 1) Seddon et al "Prediction Model for Prevalence and Incidence of Advanced Age-Related Macular Degeneration Based on Genetic, Demographic, and Environmental Variables", IOVS May 2009 2) Zanke et al "a genetic approach to stratification of risk for AMD' Can J Opthamology 45 (1) 2010 22-27

Both of these outline the technology in the assay and its applicability

If you have any further questions regarding the academic pedigree of the genes in the Macula Risk assay, i would be more than happy to send you all the pdf's you need

Regards,

Gerry (Geert) Belgraver Dutch Guy canuck (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You called out to me at my IP address. See next for my identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.8.74 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is me. Thanks for calling out. A Prof with little time for this, but want to actively encourage other well-trained individuals who are contributing. If yo recall what it was that I editted anonymously, gladly engage you in any necessary discussion. Prof D. Meduban (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Wolff

This is Professor Anirban Maitra from the Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center at Johns Hopkins University. I see that you deleted some important external links related to pancreatic cancer, and especially those associated with Johns Hopkins University on Feb 2nd, 2011. Please note these links were not put for the purposes of self promotion, and certainly do not come under the category of "unnotable external links" of which you seem to be a self styled expert. The Johns Hopkins Pancreatic Cancer patient chat site was the first chat site dedicated to this disease, and on this very chat site was where the future founders of PanCAN, the largest patient advocacy organization for this disease in the USA, met. The existence of this chat site is an invaluable resource to patients, many of whom link to it from the Wikipedia page when they search for answers to their terrible disease. On this chat site, hundreds upon hundreds of patients and caregivers meet other afflicted individuals and get succor for their condition. Second, the link to the National Familial Pancreatic Tumor Registry (NFPTR) link which you also deleted happens to be the world's oldest and largest repository of familial pancreatic cancers, and has been one of the major sources for discovery of familial pancreatic cancer genes. There are over 3,000 families with pancreatic cancer who are part of this registry, and removing the link to this page is a gross disservice to other similar kindred that have multiple family members with the disease and are looking for answers. Finally, the main Goldman Cancer center webpage forms a portal through which patients with advanced disease often seek second or third opinions at our center, which has one of the largest pancreatic cancer populations in this country, if not worldwide. As a physician, you do great disservice to patients and family members who are looking for qualified answers from some of the foremost experts in this disease by clubbing these links under the connotation of "linkfarm" and deleting them. I would urge you to follow the historical contributions of Johns Hopkins and its pancreatic cancer clinical and research team to the understanding of pancreatic cancer, its biology, and its therapy before making empirical decisions of this nature. You are welcome to email me directly for clarifications, or to learn more about the contributions of Johns Hopkins and the role some of these websites have played in helping pancreatic cancer patients. I will revert these links back on the website in Wikipedia, and would greatly appreciate if you do not arbitrarily delete them. Thank you. Amaitra1 (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Amaitra1[reply]

Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. The external links are possibly the least important part of any encyclopedia article. However important the Hopkins pancreatic cancer work, which I do not deny, one needs to retain perspective.

Coming to my talkpage and making personal attacks ("you seem to be a self-styled expert"), as well as resorting to pathos ("As a physician, you do great disservice to patients and family members"), is really quite unhelpful.

I note that another editor has replaced all links with a DMOZ link. If you want to discuss this in any further detail, I suggest you post further messages on Talk:Pancreatic cancer. JFW | T@lk 22:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the editors aren't able to resolve this in discussion at Talk:Pancreatic cancer, then you can ask for additional help at the WP:External links/Noticeboard (where some of the people best informed about Wikipedia's WP:External links guidelines can be found). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partial edits to the Macular Degeneration page do not do it justice

Dr. Seddon's poster is put in text below- and was obviously presented at ARVO 2011. I recommend proper searches prior to edits that delete recent, valid and interesting information

Note: her COMPLETE lack of commercial relationships- she does not work for anyone in the opthalmic space, and hence her work should be above doubt from various purists?

5235—D1119 Prediction Risk Modeling for Progression to Advanced Age-Related Macular Degeneration Using Baseline Demographic, Environmental, Genetic and Ocular Variables Johanna M. Seddon1,2, Robyn Reynolds1, Yi Yu1, Mark J. Daly3 and Bernard Rosner4

1Ophthalmic Epidemiology and Genetics Service, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 2Ophthalmology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts 3Ctr. For Human Genetic Res., Mass. Gen. Hosp. and Broad Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 4Channing Laboratory, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

Commercial Relationships: Johanna M. Seddon, Tufts Medical Center (P); Robyn Reynolds, None; Yi Yu, None; Mark J. Daly, Mass General Hosp. (P); Bernard Rosner, None

Support: RO1-EY11309 NEI/NIH; Mass. Lions Eye Research Fund Inc.; Research to Prevent Blindness; Macular Degeneration Research Fund-Ophthalmic Epidemiology and Genetics Service, Tufts Medical Center Abstract

Purpose:To expand and further develop our predictive models for progression to advanced stages of AMD associated with visual loss based on demographic, environmental, genetic and ocular factors (1,2).

Methods:In this prospective evaluation of 2,937 individuals, 819 progressed to advanced AMD, including geographic atrophy and neovascular disease, during 12 years of follow-up. Subjects were participants in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study. Covariates included demographic and environmental factors, six variants in five genes, baseline macular drusen size, and presence and type of advanced AMD in one eye at baseline.Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to calculate hazard ratios for progression to advanced AMD. To assess the ability of risk scores to discriminate between progressors and non-progressors, an algorithm was developed and receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the curves (AUC or C statistics) were calculated. To validate the overall model, the total sample was randomly subdivided into a derivation sample and a test sample. Then another model was built on the derivation sample and assessed for calibration and discrimination in the test sample.

Results:In multivariate models, age, smoking, higher body mass index, ARMS2/HTRA1, C3, and two CFH genetic variants were associated with increased risk of progression, and C2 and CFB were associated with decreased risk of progression. Presence of AMD in one eye increased risk in the fellow eye, and increased drusen size increased risk of progression. Both genetic variables and drusen size remained highly predictive of AMD progression when they were mutually adjusted for each other. The AUC for progression at 10 years in the model with genetic factors, drusen size and environmental covariates was 0.915 in the total sample. In the test sample, based on a model estimated from the derivation sample the AUC was 0.908.

Conclusions:Factors reflective of nature and nurture have excellent ability to predict who will develop advanced disease associated with visual loss. These risk scores and progression rates are useful for AMD surveillance and for designing clinical trials.1. JAMA 2007;287:1793-1800.2. IOVS 2009;50:2044-53.

Keywords: age-related macular degeneration • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: risk factor assessment • genetics Dutch Guy canuck (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was an abstract. Can I again please point you to WP:MEDRS. Only a secondary source, ideally a high-quality review article, would be adequate to support claims that a modality like Macula Risk is of clinical use. Please continue the conversation on Talk:Macular degeneration, so other contributors can participate in the discussion. JFW | T@lk 18:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done 19:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch Guy canuck (talk • contribs)

Congratulations! The consensus is in your favour so I have no dispute. Best wishes, Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You contributed to the recent discussion at WP:Cfd. The closing editor recommended that a discussion be started on a new name and we should seek consensus there before proceeding to Cfd again. I've opened such a discussion on Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel and invite you to participate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 21, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 21, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 00:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on a most uneventful Main Page appearance. I look forward to your next one :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You da man. MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks chaps! JFW | T@lk 17:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say that mythology is a "loaded" term when applied to certain traditional stories recorded in the Torah. I don't agree for a moment with this very subjective assessment--not based on the accepted common usage of the word--but let's just set that aside for now.

What then would be a more accurate and appropriate word to describe an ancient and traditional narrative with magical and symbolic elements that cannot rightly be presented as established history, and which is not accepted as such by most historians?

Moses remained forty days and nights atop Mount Sinai. Did he truly? Is that a fact that meets Wikipedia standards for historicity? No. Obviously some kind of modifier is needed here.

In any case, since "mythology" doesn't suit you, what more appropriate modifier would?

Thaliomiles (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss this on Talk:Ten Commandments, as indeed I have tried to do. I think the text was perfectly fine without your little addition. JFW | T@lk 06:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JFDW. Agree with your comments. Slowly feeling my way! Dhj davis (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re. this edit, I don't think the point was to advocate a particular reconstruction, but to use the WP:COMMONNAME in English. I would have thought that was 'Jehovah', but it looks like I'm out of date, and 'Yahweh' is now more common. — kwami (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment on that talkpage. The name that Anthonycole used is clearly not COMMONNAME for anyone apart from those that read academic literature. I'd say most people would refer to the God of the Bible as God. JFW | T@lk 14:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I prefer 'Jehovah', which is widely recognized. Enough for it to be used for jokes in Monty Python. It also doesn't pretend to be the authentic pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That name is based entirely on a misreading. Python doesn't really do it as a reliable source in my books :-). JFW | T@lk 16:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was a mistaken reading or a conscious adoption of the Adonai vowels because they had nothing else to go on. Doesn't really matter: it became the English name, and per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH, that's what we go on. Python may not be a RS, but they do illustrate that the term is well known. — kwami (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		I hereby give you this special barnstar for all the good edits you have added to the encyclopedia. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!!! With wikilove! Hashar (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apoligies for my erroneous edits on Rhabdomyolysis. If you need to revert me you'd better let me know on my talk page in future, as I don't generally watch all of the pages I edit. In this instance the error came about because both the original BMJ and reprint of Bywaters had the PMID of the reprint – PMID 9527411. I've corrected the BMJ one to be PMID 20783577, and corrected the same error on Artificial kidney and Acute kidney injury, so it should now all be correct. Thanks Rjwilmsi 11:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you carefully merge the material? Chesdovi (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the articles were almost word for word identical. If I missed something out please let me know. JFW | T@lk 13:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could have performed the redirect in 2009 when I merge tagged it. It needs a thorough review to make sure no information is lost. I don't have time now. Chesdovi (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if anything got removed then please alert me. JFW | T@lk 13:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JFW. I saw your correction on the article of vertebral artery dissection about a partial Horner. I think if it is partial, there should be no anhidrosis and if there's anhidrosis it shouldn't be called partial. I've made a remark about it in the talk page and added the definition of partial Horner to the Horner entry. PizzaMan (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will need to look at the source to see why they used that term. JFW | T@lk 09:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fast reaction! Thanks, i'm curious. PizzaMan (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The observation is from doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2009.01.013, which states that a partial Horner's may occur in VAD. Elsewhere in the article it defines partial Horner's as lacking anhidrosis, so I will change that, but I am not entirely sure whether it is correct as transsection of the symphathetic chain at that level should lead to anhidrosis also. Your neuroanatomical expertise would be welcomed. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JFW, how would you feel about adding a link to DengueMap to the Dengue fever article? (I've also left another question at the Talk page, but I'm sure it will pop up on your radar.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a nice make and would make a useful external link. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very nice. JFW | T@lk 16:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've gone over the article for the umpteenth time and am satisfied it meets the FA criteria by a mile :) I do have three nitpicks, all involving the Signs and symptoms section, but they don't affect "FA readiness" in any way so I thought I'd add them here instead:

• I feel the words "dengue hemorrhagic fever" should be in the section, even though it follows the new WHO description (am I right?), as the dengue fever/hemorrhagic dengue dichotomy is still firmly entrenched in the minds of most people and many sources (over here in endemic dengueland anyway).
• I'd like to see something on symptom frequency, particularly regarding "typical" or "textbook" symptoms which I suspect are probably not that common at all (see my note re. the classic rash on Talk), but that's mostly curiosity on my part and I wouldn't be surprised if there is no reliable information on this. By the way, I noticed RJH's question about a "second rash" at the FAC page, and Harrison's does mention that the initial flushing is followed by a maculopapular rash (the classic one) "near the time of defervescence". If the current sources fail to mention this, I'm more inclined to go with them—tropical medicine is obviously not the forte of a general clinical textbook.
• There is no mention of biphasic fever—do the sources cover this?

I'm also mulling over a new map modeled more closely after the one in the 2009 WHO guidelines (more recent data), but, again, that's more of a personal preference and I have absolutely nothing against the current map. Heading over to FAC to add my support right now. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have commented here [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have added further detail to the article. Comments? Some might be best combined in the the clinical course? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've combined the additions into the "Clinical course" section. Would still like to hear what JFW and Graham have to say about mentioning biphasic fever, if there is so much variation in how often it is reported. Perhaps keep it out, if the highest-quality sources fail to mention it (that was my original question). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses - thanks Fvasconcellos for the thorough read.

• I agree that those words ought to be worked into the text. I will have a look and see if that can be orchestrated.
• The sources are none too precise about the exact distribution of symptoms, and I can think of a number of reasons why this might be the case (e.g. age groups affected, proportion of people with previous exposure who might be at risk for DHF/DSS); James has found data for the rash, which is great
• The biphasic or "camelback" fever is alluded to, but not in the main sources that I have personally accessed. I do know that "classic fever patterns" (e.g. the tertian fever of malaria) are often anecdotal rather than supported by actual observational studies. Naturally I am open to any source that supports this. A quick detour to my 16th edition of Harrison's was fruitless (but then the section is short). JFW | T@lk 23:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK Doc, I will agree to let Thor smack me instead, but only on the condition that - when you get time - you would be so kind as to scan my new contribution basaloid squamous cell lung carcinoma and remove that irritating "New Article" tag. Deal? :-O

Your fan: Cliff Knickerbocker, M.S. ([[User talk:Uploadvirus|talk]]) (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will have a look at this in the next 24-48h. It would help immensely if you could template the references and add PMID codes, so I can consult the references if needed. JFW | T@lk 00:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distrustful, picky, conformist, slave-driving physicians. Where's a milligram of alprazolam when I need one?

Cliff Knickerbocker, M.S. ([[User talk:Uploadvirus|talk]]) (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't know you better I'd have read you the riot act! Now, to work. I have pituitary apoplexy to update as well. JFW | T@lk 10:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my friend, I guess you better get to reading best you can, because I just "sucker-punched" you and - with you lying helpless on the concrete - booted you in your cranium about 4 times over at Talk:Basaloid_squamous_cell_lung_carcinoma

P.S. - LC patients die of widespread metastasis, NOT infection :-O

Cliff Knickerbocker, M.S. ([[User talk:Uploadvirus|talk]]) (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that violence makes me quite uneasy. As for LC deaths, I have personally witnessed a fair number who had acute superimposed infection with respiratory failure; I wouldn't be able to say how representative that observation is. JFW | T@lk 12:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, If you have the time and/or the interest, could you please take a look at the debate at Wikipedia Commons regarding the suggestion to delete a photo that is being used in medical articles? I have been told that you have knowledge and experience in such matters and I hope that you may be able to share your perspective with other editors. It is here: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Human fetus 10 weeks - therapeutic abortion.jpg Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! So sorry but I see my link does not connect you and I have no idea how to direct you to the discussion. Can you figure it out by the information I have offered? Gandydancer (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's here:[5] Graham Colm (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki link fixed. NW (Talk) 18:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented. It's quite a good image as it happens. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, though I will admit it is a bitter pill for me to swallow. Yes, it is quite a good image, though "good" may be an understatement. Strikingly beautiful comes to my mind and held in a human hand like that for "protection" does make it appear quite vulnerable and precious as well. This is why the Pro Life editors continue to fight tooth and nail to keep it to illustrate the Abortion article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a completely separate issue that can only be resolved through consensus (and/or dispute resolution). Physicians who have no ethical objections to abortion are fully aware that a fetus has all major characteristics of a human organism at the completion of the first trimester. JFW | T@lk 15:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I seemed to be drawing you into a debate as that was not my intent. I realize that it is a completely separate issue and I have argued for its removal from the abortion article based on my thinking that it may have been staged to show the beauty, fragility, wonderment, and so forth rather than as an illustrative photo for physicians as one would commonly see in a medical text. I will need to drop that line of argument if indeed it is the type of photo used in medical texts. Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a medical text one would probably expect a schematic drawing or a cut-up laboratory specimen. JFW | T@lk 14:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jfdwolff, I'm aware you don't keep a watchlist so feel obliged to point out that I have specifically disagreed with your comments in the above discussion. Perhaps you feel my interpretation of the GMC guidelines (amongst others) is wrong. My opinion on this matter is not set. Colin°^Talk 14:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I will knock something up on coturnism but I doubt it will meet with your approval Sheredot (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know. This is a poorly researched area where we need to be fairly flexible with sources. JFW | T@lk 10:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Shi'ite parallel, see Roy Mottahedeh, Lessons in Islamic Jurisprudence (a translation of Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr, Durus fi Ilm al-Usul), where the last third of the book is devoted to "procedural principles". A more general account is given in Mottahedeh's The Mantle of the Prophet, and in Momen's Shi'i Islam. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't know of any scholarly work specifically making this comparison. And if I were suggesting that, therefore, one must have influenced the other, that would indeed be original research. Merely pointing out a resemblance is a different matter; and if you look at the other systems I mention the resemblance is instantly obvious. I don't think there is any influence one way or the other: it's just a pattern that any legal logic is liable to fall into. To take another example, pointing out the resemblance between Jewish hazaqah and Roman usucapio is surely uncontroversial: again it's obvious as soon as you look at them. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pain has a way to go before FA, but do you think it is ready for GA? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly worth a try. What I would suggest is copying the criteria from WP:WIAGA to the talkpage, and ensuring point-by-point that these criteria are met. I can't promise that I will review it myself... JFW | T@lk 11:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know nothing about the GA process but, given what you say, I'll read up on it now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you are the right person to contact about this. Expasy have changed their URLs for their enzyme page, meaning that the link provided by the EC number template is no longer correct. Expasy's new URLs are of the format http://enzyme.expasy.org/EC/1.16.1.4 It would be great if you could fix this as it is such a useful template. If not, who should I ask? Many thanks in advance. --RE73 (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed. JFW | T@lk 10:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting this out. Yes, you are right I really should sign up to the molecular and cell biology project! --RE73 (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	A message of Wikilove
	Congratulations on the promotion of Dengue fever to featured status! I learned a lot about this disease from the article, and your edits helped make it of the highest quality. Thanks for all the work you do on Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to you, James and Graham for bringing such an important topic to FA status. Hope you've got your next project lined up! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. I've always got stuff going on. Currently night shifts are undermining my inspiration, but I might finish pituitary apoplexy and send it to GAC, or do something meaningful with strongyloidiasis. Also need to update idiopathic intracranial hypertension and perhaps do something with pleural empyema. JFW | T@lk 04:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well done all. When does it end up on the main page? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The external links I am adding to pancreatic cancer are NOT spam and are NOT meant for self promotion. These links are from non profit organizations that provide very important services to patients and caregivers with pancreatic cancer. You are doing these individuals extreme disservice by repeatedly removing the links from the page. As someone with a medical background this borders on irresponsible. Email me directly if you need to be educated. Anirban Maitra @ Johns Hopkins University Amaitra1 (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)amaitra1[reply]

You are NOT an expert on this disease. Removing these external links is a great disservice to patients. As someone who deals with this disease on a daily basis, I am shocked by your irresponsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaitra1 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start by not patronising me. Discuss on the Talk:Pancreatic cancer page. You risk being blocked from Wikipedia by repeatedly reinserting content that several other editors think does not need to be included. JFW | T@lk 09:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Delete please this page and be so kind — rename this page.--Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 09:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Does not seem controversial. JFW | T@lk 09:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 09:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind keeping an eye on Chiropractic? Despite a long standing consensus to discuss controversial edits on the talk page first, an editor has basically re-written half the article within the last few days, including several edits against consensus. Thanks! DigitalC (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little interest in getting embroiled in articles about complementary and alternative medicine. The ongoing kerfuffle on vertebral artery dissection is sufficiently off-putting. I hope you are not construing my opposition to QuackGuru's roughshod approach as an endorsement of chiropractic. If you have problems with QuackGuru these should be pursued through the dispute resolution system. JFW | T@lk 03:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for an endorsement of chiropractic, but rather an endorsement of wikipedia's editing policies. I think QuackGuru's block log can attest to the fact that the dispute resolution system simply doesn't work. DigitalC (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might be relevant - DigitalC (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. JFW | T@lk 06:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the meat glue article inadvertently and posted it as I saw that it was subject-related. I will not fight you on this as you seem to know the topic better than I do. Best regards, --Achim (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About that [6]. The little red dot was hard to spot. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Wikipedia: WikiProject Medicine. It states, "This project aims to enable Wikipedians to cooperate, organize, make suggestions and share ideas on the improvement of the medicine and health-related articles." As I stated to James, anal sex is a health-related article. Yes, people who engage in it won't necessarily have medical problems. But people who have vaginal sex won't necessarily have medical problems either, and yet I don't see you removing Sexual intercourse from being within the project's scope. Anal sex is just one aspect of sexual intercourse, so why shouldn't it be within the project's scope? Why shouldn't it be within the project's scope when it's been shown to be far riskier than any other type of sexual activity? The article clearly demonstrates this. Anal sex is riskier in terms of STIs/STDs, and is even risky when it comes to the anatomy of the anus/rectum, if people aren't careful (sufficient lubrication, and so on). So exactly how is it wrong to list this article as within the scope of WikiProject Medicine? Because, no doubt, when it comes to having a project weigh in on aspects of this article, WikiProject Medicine would be just as important as Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality (even more so considering how inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality can be).

Why is Wikipedia: WikiProject Medicine starting to be so strict in what it lists as within its scope? Do I need to bring this up over there on that talk page? Start and RfC? What? Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to keep the conversation concentrated here [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with James that we should keep the discussion central. There is a limit with regards to the scope of the Wikiproject. I contend that risk factors for medical illness are not automatically part of the project, much like bungee jumping isn't. JFW | T@lk 06:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been here for seven years though. I just decided to join that Wikiproject. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 07:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I dumped the wrong template. {{MedWelcome}} is for newly arrived editors with a possible interest in medicine, while {{MedGreeting}} is for established editors who have joined the WikiProject. JFW | T@lk 07:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#QuackGuru . Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very good night Jfdwolff,...
very briefly, and to thanks for your previous notes,... and welcome too,...
...and also to says that i hopes can continues here,... for much, much more time,... in this stage (for the moment),... correcting the writed texts here (those because my english it's not good,... still),... and in the projects also,...
...and about the medicine project would likes to request also,... respectfully (and if it possible),... an effective time-window of more or less 3 hours,... to can review the article of the month (pneumonia),... those because i cannot edit on them (appearing me only the source code),...
thanking you again for the welcome,... and all possible help (actual, and future),... and hoping also can see you again,...
and with my regards,... --Cpant23 (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no problem,... i'll be reviewing other articles in the project in the meantime,...
with my regards,... --Cpant23 (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Metformin.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool, get rid of it. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cholesterol Depletion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cholesterol Depletion (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it myself. JFW | T@lk 17:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my name is Andres and in my ITGS (Infromation and technology in a global society)course, of the IB I need to interview someone who is related tot he issue of my choice. Since my issue is Wikipedia I was wondering if I could possibly interview you. I would greatly appreciate if so. Please provide me a way to contact you such as an e-mail address so I can send the interview. Thank You Poysndi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Andres and thanks for your message. Please contact me by sending an email through EmailUser. JFW | T@lk 18:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ravschwab1.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, this process is getting more stringent by the minute! I have temporarily tagged the image as "fair use", but I have forwarded the email to the permissions address. I doubt you will read this message, because when it comes to image permissions, WP:DTTR somehow doesn't apply. JFW | T@lk 22:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same section of "rising concerns about dependence" has been added to Alprazolam (lead), Benzodiazepine(lead), Benzodiazepine dependency by editor 67.173. You have reverted already in Benzodiazpine because too long for the lead and MedRS. I believe it is a reliable source, namely a manuscript of a journal article, look at PMID. Seems to be a review article. But I also believe it is much too detailed for the lead and tangential to e.g. Alprazolam, as it talks about tranquilizers in general. Please take a look. (It is extremely difficult to work with this editor because he tends to misrepresent sources. Took about the whole evening to revert his other contributions, however this one seems legitimate in that it cites the ref correctly) We need another (your) opinion there. 70.137.153.193 (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 70.137.153.193 (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) This is the section in question:[reply]

Based on findings in the US from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), an annual compilation of patient characteristics in substance abuse treatment facilities in the United States, admissions due to "primary tranquilizer" (including, but not limited to, benzodiazepine-type) drug use increased 79% from 1992 to 2002. Thus, the DAWN and TEDS data sets demonstrate clearly that the misuse of these sedative/hypnotics is on the rise, and cause for concern. 70.137.153.193 (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please think about getting a username. It will protect your identity more than editing from an IP address.

Secondly, the addition is too detailed for the lead, however much the content is relevant. You are correct that the reference is a review. The sentences in question seem to have copied & pasted from there. It is also focused on the USA, and a worldwide perspective is probably more useful. JFW | T@lk 15:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is IMO tangential to the Alprazolam article as it applies to benzodiazepines and tranquilizers of similar mechanism likewise. It is indeed US-centric, that is why I separated it from the preceding block, with which it was mixed before. The preceding block is a ref which is a review article by Uni Utrecht I believe. It is clear to me that e.g. USA, UK and other European countries have developed their own understanding of the appropriate use and related labels and legislation. I believe it belongs somewhere into the benzo dependency article, but not in the lead. Previous ref states, what the cited ref also says somewhere else, namely that the development of abuse and tolerance is unlikely. Personally I believe the Yankees are a bit hysterical, as seen by "date rape" drugs and the fact that you can have a gun, but not a beer at 18 years of age. In fact the then 21 year old students at colleges can't obviously even handle a beer without hollering and puking all over the place. Probably a result of puritanism. Cheerio! 70.137.153.193 (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there JFW, I noticed some edits to ALS and RLS that seemed odd. The user [8] has a website [9] that suggests inflammation is the cause of RLS as well as a legion of other disorders, and is promoting a diet / CAM intervention to "cure" these conditions. I suspect the edits are an attempt to mould public perception to suit his worldview and as such have been reverting his edits. However given my biases I may be being overzealous and would appreciate another set of eyes on this. If you are in agreement please do let other members of WP:MED know as I am only checking in on WP seldomly these days. Best wishes, --PaulWicks (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very dodgy stuff. There are WP:MEDRS, WP:SYNTH and WP:COI-related problems. I would remove his contributions and challenge him on the basis of these guidelines. JFW | T@lk 23:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JFW, the book I refer to on the Restless Legs page is self published. Actually, all of the information from it is online. The book is not even for sale anymore, I took all of the information from the book and put it online for free. If you look closely at the website you'll see I'm not selling anything. There are no books for sale and there are no products I'm pushing. In fact there are not even any affiliate links or ads. I assure you that there is nothing "dodgy" going on.

All the other information I posted about the connection between inflammation and ADHD, Cancer etc. comes from studies or article that were in legitimate medical journals. I've looked at other Wikipedia pages, and the vast majority of references are of the same nature ... references to studies published in legitimate medical journals. All I'm doing is placing a few lines on the Wiki pages of medical conditions that have a "proven" connection to inflammation.

I believe that you should try the innocent until proven guilty approach. If I'm allowed to continue publishing my blurbs about inflammation, and then some day you find out that I'm pushing a new herbal cure for inflammation, or have written a book, then you have every right to yank my entries. However, there is not one stitch of proof that I have any sort of agenda other than wanting to present some simple scientific facts to people. In doing this, I'm doing what I believe is the right thing. People can either skip over the blurbs about inflammation, or read them, and if interested, they can look deeper into the connection. --Dwimble1 (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach to the sources is original to the point that what you write seems to be a synthesis of what you've read, rather than what the sources are actually saying. I suggest you follow my advice and stick to sources that meet the criteria set out in WP:MEDRS. I was not suggesting that you have an agenda, other than promoting your sincerely held personal viewpoints. JFW | T@lk 02:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read it very carefully and will try again.--Dwimble1 (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-entered the information about the relationship between RLS and inflammation, carefully citing the journals where the information came from, and still my posting was removed? I read over WP:MEDRS very carefully, and as far as I can tell, stayed within the parameters?--Dwimble1 (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me who removed the addition to restless legs syndrome, but you have completely misunderstood what a "review" is. The studies you added are all primary research studies, mostly of small groups, that may contribute to the understanding of a disease but not in a standalone fashion. Actual reviews do not engage in research but summarise findings from other studies, place them in a framework, and provide models for further research and for treatment. I have quickly skimmed two recent reviews on PLMD and RLS (doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2009.11.014 and doi:10.4103/0022-3859.65284) and neither of them mention the word "inflammation" even once. An encyclopedia cannot place emphasis on a minor hypothesis that is still being tested and has not yet made it into secondary sources. The fact that you find the association fascinating does not mean that the average reader of a broadly targeted encyclopedia article should get the impression that the inflammation-RLS link has been confirmed or is even strongly entertained by the neurological research community. JFW | T@lk 19:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for not posting all of the medical cites for the data that I entered yesterday onti the pages that were reverted by you. I have a detailed study that you are clearly not aware of and I will post the balance of the medical cititations this morning to provide support for the brief statements that I posted and I will repost that data that the medical community has provided the support for with these studies. Thanks! --WPPilot 11:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A slideshow-type quiz on dengue was published in Medscape Reference (formerly eMedicine) this week, and they seem to have read the article... [10] Those guppies are getting to be quite popular :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lot of that content sounds awfully familiar. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on August 5, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 5, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This ref Castro, M (2010 Apr). "Bronchial thermoplasty: a novel technique in the treatment of severe asthma". Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease. 4 (2): 101–16. PMID 20435668. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) is MEDRS compliant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very marginal journal considering the purported benefits of bronchial thermoplasty. Technically MEDRS, but perhaps should be rethought. JFW | T@lk 22:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think it should be mentioned. It is now FDA approved. Maybe make the conclusions more tentative? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of other recent reviews aswell. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who added the information on the Thrombosis article giving the difference between Superficial Thrombophlebitis and Deep Vein Thrombosis, which I think is a valid and important distinction to make, especially for a public that might be looking for information about their own condition given that one is life threatening and one is not. You cited that it needed restructuring to be added but left no details regarding your objection. I'm a newbie so please forgive me if I am out of line in anyway (and I hope I am using this page properly too). I would appreciate any help you could offer to make the entry more acceptable. Also, note that I left a message on the discussion page to explain the entry and it's placement near the top since the article quickly represents the characteristics of the deadly kind without differentiating it from the other kind. Also, I thought it was weird that Thrombus and Thrombosis are not connected even though they are so closely related. Thanks for any help you can give. --Bthegoodwin (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I agree that we need to distinguish between thrombophlebitis and thrombosis. Perhaps a shorter sentence somewhere in the article (and possibly also in deep vein thrombosis) would address this. It would also be useful to briefly mention the possibility of thrombophlebitis predicting the risk of DVT (the linkage is very limited). JFW | T@lk 05:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the link to Polypeople from the page? I would surmise it's both relevant and leads to further information on the subject. Please elaborate your reasons in the edit summary when you make reverts like this. Asav (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support groups usually provide information only to the very small proportion of readers who actually suffer from the condition. They provide little added information for the average reader. The information on these sites is very often not moderated by professionals, and it is quite common for hypes and misinformation to spread by this route.

The medicine WikiProject has agreed that in medical articles, support groups should not necessarily get their external links.

Let me know if any of this is unclear. JFW | T@lk 09:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that certainly seems to apply here. Please remember the edit summary the next time. Asav (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that. Most external links I remove are added by IP editors or new accounts, and I dispense with the edit summary if I don't think there will be a comeback. Should have checked your edit history. JFW | T@lk 12:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I am new to Wikipedia and am learning through trial and error. The website I referenced is a HONcode certified site, however, from your remarks I assume that is not a reliable source for medical articles? My inclusion of "less processed foods" refers to preparing one's own food as to be sure what one is consuming is gluten free. I will be more careful with my wording in the future. Thank you for your comments regarding my warfarin article, I will correct that today. Best, rdavies434 (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2011

Great. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. JFW | T@lk 18:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the one that was provided in the sentence before, but there are many others. And the reason it kills more is because most refuse to prevent it with a retal exam and may not even try to cure it until the pain is too high to resist. Also, african descendents have 60% higher incidence (275/100,000). Source The only reason it doesn't kills more than lung cancer is because it's a lot less common in orientals (107/100,00) than it is in caucasians (187/100.000). Also, in many countries is not that common to smoke, and lung cancer have A LOT lower rates in Africa, Latin America and Mid East countries, less than half than developed countries rates Source. Want more sources: most-common-male-cancer-kills-black-men-more, [11], Global cancer statistics

Citing the provided source: "Breast cancer in females and lung cancer in males are the most frequently diagnosed cancers and the leading cause of cancer death for each sex in both economically developed and developing countries, except lung cancer is preceded by prostate cancer as the most frequent cancer among males in economically developed countries."

Please write this information back there, my english is not as good as yours. EternamenteAprendiz (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you post the same information on Talk:Lung cancer so we can debate the issue there, including other editors. JFW | T@lk 05:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing that last addition as too technically detailed for the article, but I followed the changes and fyi, the editor had written $.50 (fifty cents) not $50. Not sure that would change anything to the article, but you might be interested. MartinezMD (talk)

My bad. I will follow this up with said editor. JFW | T@lk 08:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting Shulchan Aruch. Attention needed at Joseph ben Ephraim Karo. Much obliged. Chesdovi (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a much broader discussion about the naming of Eretz Yisroel over the ages. It would be an idea to take the initiative to start an RFC, rather than having a project-wide low-grade edit war. JFW | T@lk 18:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But you have in the past consistenly reverted such changes. Why the hesitation now? I don't think Debresser has ever reverted your addtions of Palestine. Chesdovi (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that reverting an anonymous user who makes such an edit without an edit summary is reasonable. Having a pan-wiki standoff between several established editors, however, is not helpful. I think an RFC is the only solution, before this spins out of control and the Arbcom gets involved. JFW | T@lk 23:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is common sense that "Israel" for pre-48 articles for sure does not belong. I recommend changing it back to Palestine like you also did to Winchester's edit on June 2, 2011 until this is resolved. Chesdovi (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message you left on my talk page. I took your "appropriate sources" in the summary as meaning "reliable source". Another editor has in the meanwhile reverted my edit and pointed out the issue with primary study in medicine. For me a peer reviewed published article on a trustworthy journal was as good as a secondary source, once one points out that the statement comes from one specific study. --Dia^ (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MEDRS review articles are preferred as they better represent the general opinion of the medical community.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your assistance. This has been a nightmare battle with the user Homerduo, who insists on burying evidence which is quite contrary to the agenda for which he is fighting.

As a Physician Assistant, my goal is to insure proper treatment for patients. I began my research into the drug Chantix (varenicline), after hearing numerous reports from colleagues on it's dangers. These statements appeared to me to be based on nothing other than public reports. My research has shown that since the drug first earned it's reputation of causing depression and suicide (for which there were no documented studies in the early years), there has since been statistical research which has shown evidence that this is, in fact, false.

The study which Homerduo continually tries to hide from the appropriate section, 'Depression and Suicide', was one done in the UK during 2009. The study found that out of almost 11,000 participants, Chantix showed no more evidence towards causation of depression or suicidal ideation than any other drug in the study. Obviously, this is crucial evidence and deserves to be posted in the proper section.

I ask you, if the study had in fact shown the opposite, that out of 11,000 subjects they did indeed find that the drug caused depression and suicide, would it be urged to be placed in that section by the user Homerduo? I think the answer is clear.

Further, I have attempted to shed light on other aspects of this controversy, such as in the 'Controversy' section, where it is stated:

"On September 3, 2007, musician Carter Albrecht was shot and killed by his girlfriend's neighbor, during an altercation in which an inebriated Albrecht was reportedly banging on the neighbor's door and yelling incoherently. Albrecht's girlfriend and others close to him have publicly claimed that varenicline contributed to the erratic behavior which led to his death. [18]"

What Homerduo refuses to be mentioned (he continues to remove my editing there as well), is that Albrecht had also been consuming large amounts of alcohol prior to the incident. This is hardly trivial data. Refusing to allow such facts to come to light is the epitome of propaganda, and it infuriates me that a single user is allowed to govern the information and tone of a Wikipedia page purely of their own volition. It screams similarity to the horrific public debacle related to the widespread belief that vaccinations cause autism. Now that we know this is not the case (in fact, Andrew Wakefield, who first made these allegations, has had his medical license revoked after it was found he faked the data), it's plain to see how easily the public can be swayed. As a provider who has prescribed Chantix to many patients, with much success, I only ask that the information on BOTH sides be presented with equal attention and weight, regardless of personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.95.251.38 (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BMJ study contradicts a large number of other reports. It is therefore better to discuss the findings in the context of all other reports. The best thing, of course, would be to find a source that discusses all reports, identifies methodological issues, and comes to a final conclusion. I can't imagine it will take long before such a source becomes available. See WP:MEDRS for the sources that we need most.

With regards to Carter Albrecht, your choice of phrasing is such that it looks like you've added stuff that is not in the source.

I would really like you to participate in the discussion on Talk:Varenicline and come to a consensus that everyone can agree with. Just reverting each other is not productive in the long term, and does not lead to a neutral encyclopedia article. JFW | T@lk 07:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the BMJ study does contradict much other report ... specifically, primarily PUBLIC report. When a study fails to confirm public report, something is questionable.

In fact, there are many other studies which have shown no link between depression and suicide and Chantix:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21810630

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21295286

In fact, it has even been shown to decrease depression in patients with prior diagnosis:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19323966

It boggles the mind how can say that the because the BMJ is contradictory to public report, it does not belong in the Depression and Suicide section. The study was done specifically on the topic.

As to my phrasing related to the Albrecht case, I fail to see how stating that he had been intoxicated on large amounts of alcohol prior to and up to the incident is 'adding stuff not in the source', when the source states that over three times the legal limit of alcohol was found in his blood. In fact, your assertion is nothing other than mind boggling. But I guess I have no say in helping truth come to light, and anyone who comes to the page will, unfortunately, not have access to truth. I guess that's why we're always told as scientists to refrain from using Wikipedia as a verifiable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.95.251.38 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were adding the BMJ article to the lead section. It should be discussed in context. Let me rephrase what bothered me about the Carter Albrecht edit: you were editorialising, rather than stating the facts.

I am in turn a bit annoyed that you are now attacking me rather than taking my well-intended offer to help you resolve your difference of opinion with Homerduo. You will find that I am not biased towards either of you. I think the varenicline article needs to be neutral and fair, with an appropriate balance struck between the possibly slightly alarmist reports of possible harm and the studies that were only designed to find large outcome differences. Now can we continue our interactions on Talk:Varenicline? I will not expect a response from you here unless you wish to discuss a totally unrelated subject. JFW | T@lk 18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ketamine.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Troglitazone.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your welcoming message! I'll look into the suggested FAQs and guidelines. Btw. just out of curiosity: Do you also edit the Nederlandstalige wikipedia? I'm mainly asking since I've noticed oh-so-often in the past that it's in desperate need of editing... What is your opinion: I would like to edit Dutch pages, however, Dutch is not my nativa language and one can really notice this in my writing. Would it still be better to update the facts and hope that someone else cleans up my language, or better stick to languages I'm sufficient fluent at?

Kind regards, Tatyana

Meneswa (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you! I have made a small number of contributions to the Dutch Wikipedia, but most of my work is here. There are various reasons why I'm here, not least because I use English in my daily practice.

It would not be a bad idea if you corrected factual errors on Wikipedias in other languages, but it might be worthwhile to explain on your userpage that you're not a native speaker. If the factual content is up to scratch, others will hopefully deal with the linguistics. JFW | T@lk 14:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I'm a little confused by your comments.

Here for example is one ref that might be of interest:

Maximilian Schöniger-Hekele,* Dagmar Petermann, Beate Weber, and Christian Müller Tropheryma whipplei in the Environment: Survey of Sewage Plant Influxes and Sewage Plant Workers Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007 March; 73(6): 2033–2035. PMC 1828826

The statement that there is no known trigger for this disease requires a citation seems a little unusual. If the statement were that there is a known trigger then it would make sense to have a reference.

As you can see from the reference above and elsewhere in pubmed this organism appears to be an enviromental bacteerium that causes disease from time to time. The majority of reported cases do affect the GI tract but it may also cause disease elsewhere. These are facts that have been validly published.

Wikipedia is usually a source of (fairly) reliable information particularly when it is properly referenced. If new information provides a different picture to that of older secondary sources this is all the more reason for people to use Wikipedia. If the secondary sources have chosen not to highlight infection sites other than the GI tract then I confess that I would find these sources to be misleading at best.

If this does not answer your concerns I would be grateful of you could expand on them further. DrMicro (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Peer reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles. They contain a mixture of primary and secondary sources as well as less technical material such as biographies." DrMicro (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC) This is a quote from WP:MEDRS. DrMicro (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above"

The source used are reliable peer reviewed publications. The edits made described only the conclusions of the source. The references were given. This all appears to be compatible with WP:MEDRS. This is the reason for quoting WP:MEDRS.

The epidemiology of a disease should include the route of infection where known and the source of the infection in the environment where known. This was lacking in the earlier version and this is a serious omission in any account of a disease.

The pattern here appears to be one of a common organism that manages to evade the immune system in some as yet known fashion. The alterations in the immune system whether primary of secondary are part of the disease process.

I am not familiar with any secondary sources covering this material at present. Given that the oldest of the sources I cited were from 2009 this is not entirely surprising. It would be most useful if you could source additional secondary sources that would confirm what the cited primary sources have stated. DrMicro (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it was the editor's responsibility to find and cite sources compatible with WP:MEDRS. I think we are agreed that the source I have cited are compatible with WP:MEDRS. Additional sources are indeed very welcome additions.

The additional source you have cited on the talk page seems to confirm that the causative organism is indeed an environmental organism that only occasionally causes disease presumably by evading the immune system in some as yet unknown fashion. This being the case I presume we can rely on you to now insert this material into the page. DrMicro (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that you might wish to read the article and edit the page to avoid possible confusion over the inclusion of additional material in the whipple article. I suggested this because you have previously objected to the inclusion of material that has been used despite it being compatible with WP:MEDRS.

For the record I would also like to point out that there are many many articles including a number that would fall under the heading of 'medicine' on WP that make extensive use of primary material that is properly cited.DrMicro (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im afraid I fail to understand what you meant by your last comment. Could you please expand? DrMicro (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC) The referred to page deals almost exclusively with deletion (or non deletion) of pages. I am not aware that the Whipple's page was being considered for deletion.[reply]

If you mean that the argument that other pages cite primary material is insufficient by itself then we are in agreement. However it is clear from the material quoted in WP:MEDRS that primary source may be used in articles and that is is commonplace in WP. The second part of this statement can be confirmed by inspection of any number of randomly chosen articles under the heading of 'medicine'. I would suggest that you may have be over zelous in your understanding of the guidance given in WP:MEDRS by focusing on the recommendation that secondary sources should be used and misunderstanding this to mean that exclusively secondary sources should be used - a point contradicated by the guidance in WP:MEDRS itself and by current and widespread use in WP. DrMicro (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the emphasis in your last remark is misplaced. No article is ever based entirely on primary sources: rather they use just as WP:MEDRS recommends a mixture of both secondary and primary sources.DrMicro (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you seem to agree with this: "The most excellent (i.e. featured) medical articles are built almost exclusively on secondary sources" The word 'almost' seems to indicate that primary sources may be included in even featured articles.DrMicro (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 21:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo JFW, dear Colleague!

the english version of Meningitis was translated and slightly modified by us. After FAC the german article was now identified as excellent. This was possible because of your contributions and fine work on the english version of this text. I would like to express my thanks to you and will emphasize that the congratulations for our new excellent german article may be yours.

With best regards. Andy -- Andreas Werle (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DrMicro (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, JFW. I just wanted to double-check with someone with medical knowledge that a link I just made is in fact the right link to make. In this context, does the "nucleosidic class drugs"→nucleoside link I made make sense? – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! – RobinHood70 ^talk 19:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. JFW | T@lk 19:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected one typo, but that's my limit on Joseph Mulder. The article seems a bit strange, but I can't work with the original Dutch sources to get at what is really intended. Perhaps you might take a look at it? FeatherPluma (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he was written up because Houbraken wrote about him in 1718. Impossible to confirm notability. I've sent it to AFD. JFW | T@lk 20:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at the article in its current condition. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on September 20, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 20, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Great job on Rhabdomyolysis! Bearian (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Well done. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks chaps! JFW | T@lk 13:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jfdwolff: You recently edited my external link contributions to ovarian cancer and uterine cancer by removing them. THESE LINKS CONTAIN USEFUL, HELPFUL AND RELEVANT PATIENT EDUCATION INFORMATION ABOUT THESE CANCERS, so I am not sure why you felt the need to remove them. (??) I am a medical expert here in the US who is just trying to contribute relevant and helpful information regarding these topics. PLEASE do NOT delete such links that provide such valuable information, on these cancers that can help people. If you have any questions or would like to discuss please contact me on my talk page mlvwik or I can email you if you like. THANK YOU VERY MUCH- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlvwik (talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to improve these topic please do. But Wikipedia is not a collection of external links per WP:ELNO and thus the ones you added where removed. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We want Wikipedia to contain valuable information, rather than it just being a springboard to loads of other websites. Everyone can Google the sites you wish to link to, it doesn't need the extra traffic. Please refer to WP:GRIEF. JFW | T@lk 20:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JFDWolff - Please do not continue to threaten me and brandish your 'power' as an administrator. I did not make a personal attack on you, contrary to your misjudgment, and any unbiased observer would concur. You are threatening to block my account which would certainly be reinstated in a follow up dispute and would be a blemish on your reputation as an administrator.Doors22 (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every Wikipedian can give a warning if they feel that another user is violating policy, in this case not to make personal attacks. You called me a Nazi. I reserve every right to remind you of the fact that this was a bad thing to do. JFW | T@lk 05:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call you a Nazi. Rather I compared your authoritarian style behavior to that of the Nazis which is a fine distinction. I did not offer a personal attack as your chosen behavior is relevant and not an irrelevant personal characteristic such as your religion or ethnicity which I never mentioned. You are in your right to 'remind me' that you feel it is a bad thing to do, but threatening to ban me is out of line and frankly not very productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doors22 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my edit? It was an accident, right? Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed. Mea culpa. There was an edit conflict and I copied & pasted my response, but I'm not sure why your edit disappeared in the process. JFW | T@lk 08:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna try to get hold of the Swearingen & Biller text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to tweak the table on Autoimmune diseases and I got "bot"-ed (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autoimmune_disease&action=history ) I wanted to add a column because with the wide range of autoimmune diseases, few of them have a relationship to classical "hypersensitivity" or their own associated "antibody". I have some tidying up to do (it's been a while since I logged on) but I'd like to make this into a table that has some relevance for patients (who might want to skim a list of autoimmune diseases looking for one that might ring a bell)and students (who need an overview) and medical personell (that need a quick study overview). Can I revert back to what I started this morning without offending anyone?doctorwolfie (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're trying to achieve, and I won't revert.

At the same time, I'm not entirely convinced that the relevant information can be squished into the constraints of a table. Genetic associations are not always as clear-cut as popular science writers would have one believe. It would be valuable to have a high-quality secondary source (see WP:MEDRS) available for specific claims. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First I was going to work through the table linking to other pages when possible, then I can incorporate material from some widely accepted textbooks and more recent journal articles. (Working on a page helps me review background material for some of my other projects at work). Thanks. doctorwolfie (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in 2008 you had some dealings with User:Craigsjones who kept adding Newswise links. Anyway I also recently noticed some of his edits didn't look quite right. I did a quick search and it seems that there is a "Craig Jones" working for Newswise as editor in chief [12], so it looks like he's been promoting the site rather than having Wikiepdias best interests at heart which would explain him ignoring your comments. He hasn't edited for a good while now so I'm not sure if a block is needed but it might bee worth checking some more of his additions.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for figuring that out! The account hasn't been used since 2009 so I think Mr Jones has realised that Wikipedia does not give him more traffic. I am not currently in favour of a block, but if the pattern repeats itself your evidence will be handy. JFW | T@lk 19:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering how you got all of your icons on the right side of your user page? I've been trying to figure it out, but I haven't gotten far. --HolyandClean (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean[reply]

The icons are all inside an HTML table. If you look at my userpage (it is locked, but you can see the wikitext), there is a <table> tag in there somewhere. Each userbox is enclosed in <tr><td>{{userbox}}</td></tr>. It does keep things tidy! JFW | T@lk 19:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! You have no idea how long i've been trying to figure this out. --HolyandClean (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean[reply]

I mean, i've been using every formula for coding I know how to use. Website design is not my field. I got one more question for you.. can you show me anywhere that shows me how to customize my page? I'd rather not going around asking random folks about this issue. Ha. Thanks in advance. --HolyandClean (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:User page design center. Can I make one single point? Making a nice userpage is certainly fun, but Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia and everything else revolves around this. My userpage has assumed its current form over the 7 years I have been contributing to Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 08:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I'm a perfectionist. When it comes to stuff like this[facebook profiles, youtube channels, etc], I feel as if I have to make it unique from everyone else's. I don't know why, but I often feel.. what's the word i'm looking for.. incomplete without it? I really am looking forward to adding to the articles on here. I haven't had the time to do much, because I'm always busy with something. After I'm finished with customizing my user page, I'll probably never touch it again. As long as it's complete, I feel better about it.--HolyandClean (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean[reply]

I was looking at some of the points made on the discussion page, and saw InductionHearing's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inductionheating/Autoimmune_disease . The user was blocked shortly after putting the page up, but it looks like work that might be included. Do you think it advisable? I'm not sure of the circumstances of their block, but the comments I've seen so far don't look too unreasonable.doctorwolfie (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not passing a verdict on the content, but information op people's userpages and subpages has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA and WP:GFDL. No need to worry. JFW | T@lk 23:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for [14]. I often read around wikis just to find inconsistencies of this kind. Point is, the study cited in the reference wasn't consistent with what the article stated. I also agree about the problem with the other source, but it's not always easy to find truly reliable sources about these subjects. Spree85 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you might miss my talk page question I asked one here: Talk:Diabetes_mellitus#Yet_another_intro_rewrite. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have reverted others contributions. I don't have a dog in this discussion (yet) but it looks like you removed at least one intermediate contribution without explanation. Could you either self-revert, readd the deleted text by Yurk, or explain your revert included that? (There could be a great reason, but I got the sense his changes were different than what you were looking at... Hobit (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was intentional, but I forgot to include it in the edit summary. Will clarify on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 08:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And sorry my writing was so poor above. I'm a bit surprised you could parse it...Hobit (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I spend my working day making sense of what others are saying. JFW | T@lk 21:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a Wikipedian and researcher from Carnegie Mellon University, working with Professors Robert E. Kraut and Aniket Kittur. We’ve published many scholarly papers on Wikipedia and are partnering with the Wikimedia Foundation on several new projects.

I have been analyzing collaboration in Wikipedia, especially Collaborations of the Week/Month. My analysis of seven years of archival Wikipedia data shows that Collaborations of the Week/Month substantially increase the amount and nature of project members’ contributions, with long lasting effects. We would like to talk to Wikipedians to better understand the processes that that produce this behavior change.

We’ve identified you as a particularly good candidate to speak with because of your involvement with the WikiProject Medicine' Collaborations, which is one of those we’ve been investigating. It would really help us if you would be willing to have a short talk with us, less than 30 minutes of your time. We can talk via skype or instant messenger or other means if you’d prefer. Do you have time at any point during this week to chat? If so, please send an email to haiyiz@cs.cmu.edu or drop a line on my talk page.

Thanks! (This my personal website)Haiyizhu (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the editing. There are a plethora of very recent and less recent studies showing that D(3) has a disease modifying effect in several Th1 cell-mediated autoimmune diseases^[1][2][3][4] . Mechanistically it should have a disease modifying effect also in RA. Unfortunately I didn't have any luck finding the right study proving that :-(. (I suppose it would not become a "popular drug" for these diseases because it's un-patentable and therefore cheap.) CultureArchitect (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message.

I often hear the argument about unpatentable drugs, but I believe it to be flawed. There are plenty of governmental and charitable organisations that would fund such a trial, e.g. the MRC in the UK. Sadly we cannot predict the future on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! JFW | T@lk 17:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I finally found a better reference here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10464556?dopt=Abstract Results: After 3 months, high dose oral alphacalcidiol (vitamin D analogue) therapy showed a positive effect on disease activity in 89% of the patients (45% or 9 pts. with complete remission and 44% or 8 pts. with a satisfactory effect). Only two patients (11%) showed no improvement, but no new symptoms occurred. No side effects were observed. Conclusion: These results suggest that alphacalcidiol is a powerful immunomodulatory agent with fairly low hypercalcemic activity. Clinical improvement was strongly correlated with the immunomodulating potential of this agent. We noticed dual effects on lymphocyte proliferation and apoptosis according to the prior cell activation state. Alphacalcidiol could therefore possibly be used as an adjunct therapy with DMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CultureArchitect (talk • contribs) 06:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have succesfully identified another small study. Once again: the only kind of sources that is suitable in this context is a secondary source in a reliable publication. See WP:MEDRS (and do me a favour and actually read that guideline!) JFW | T@lk 09:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for edit, but with respect I felt per WP:EN I should restore the lede mention of "Hebrew phrase" and the wiktionary links for 2 Hebrew nouns. Although in fact the sources given in the article (a) do not identify the phrase as Hebrew rather than Aramaic, and (b) do not identify the standard English form of this phrase to enable a wider use of English language WP:RS. I suspect you may be able to supplement the sources? If so please feel welcome to do so. If not no matter this is not a massively urgent or important request in the grand scheme of things. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The {{lang-he}} template already very clearly clarifies that the term is Hebrew. The prefix "The Hebrew phrase [...]" is stylistically a bit awful.

Your undo also undid some other stylistic improvements. I have now reintroduced the Wiktionary links. JFW | T@lk 09:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, are we absolutely certain that this is Hebrew only and not also Aramaic? Also, any idea what this phrase is in English texts? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's not Hebrew about the phrase? Please clarify. Perhaps we should continue on the talk page, so other editors can follow our discussion. JFW | T@lk 20:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Jfdwolff/Archive 34! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Related to this, would you please test out the new script for finding (possibly) medicine-related articles that need to be patrolled? The directions are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#New_page_toy. I'd particularly appreciate your thoughts on it (ideally at the WT:MED page, where Fred has a chance to see them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?. You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image, Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoclot derived Parameters for Hemostasis Management in Critical Care. Sonoclot is also helpful in detecting initial stages of DIC when patient is in Hyper-coagulable state.

Broadly DIC can be classified in 3 stages:

• Hypercoagulable
• HyperFibrinolysis
• Hypocoagulable

Sonoclot is an instrument which does testing for the entire hemostasis cascade till the clot lysis. And the technology is such that Sonoclot helps the clinician about all the above-mentioned stages of DIC. And the treatment regime can be initiated as per the clinical stage of patient. In India hospitals are using Sonoclot for Cardiac Surgery, ICU patients, PTCA. It has very important application in sepsis patients and the results correlate very well with the clinical findings. Indian Army is using Sonoclot for research on early detection of sepsis patients vis-a-vis routine coagulation testing.

Thanks Harbindervirdi (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review articles on this topic? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harbindervirdi, it would be more helpful if you could provide us with secondary sources (review articles, book chapters) that support the use of Sonoclot in the management of DIC. It's all very well using a clever machine, but does it change management, and does it have an impact on hard endpoints (blood product use, length of ITU stay, need for treatment escalation, mortality)? So far, you have tried several times to create an article about Sonoclot. I cannot comment on that, but you need to write original content based on solid sources. JFW | T@lk 09:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	You should be appreciated 100 times more than you are currently appreciated :) MaenK.A.Talk 14:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Jfdwolff! I'm new to the users and I'm not really familiar with this user edit pages thing of wiki! I edited the page on Smoldering myeloma the other day, and for reasons that I'm not yet aware of the page is back like to what it used to be now! I noticed that you had redirected this page to Multiple myeloma, I just wanted to say that I think smoldering myeloma has its own definition and shouldn't be redirected to that page. With me not knowing how to edit it I'd like you to consider this and fix it please! Zahramoravej (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. I think the concepts are best treated together in one article, with the concept of "smouldering myeloma" discussed in context. This tends to be the preferable course of action, unless of course there is really a lot to be said about the diagnostic entity in itself. It is quite unusual to need to fork articles under other circumstances.

In the current arrangement, the reader will understand what multiple myeloma is before discovering the particular properties of smouldering myeloma.

Your addition was changed back by Jean Calleo (talk · contribs) about 18 hours after you made your edits. You can see this by clicking "history" at the top of an article. JFW | T@lk 18:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your comment relates to the inclusion of parvovirus B19 as a cause of hepatitis. The association between B19 and hepatitis has been known for over a decade. It mostly occurs in children and in the immunosupressed. Since you seem to have had some difficulty locating references you considered suitable for inclusion in WP, I have provided a list of over 20 references on the talk page so that you may decide on which if any are suitable. If this list proves insufficient I will provide further additional material.DrMicro (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment related to a number of other edits, and your work on hepatitis today shows that you have not understood my points. JFW | T@lk 21:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who professes to be working in clinical infection diseases, the deletion of yellow fever from the list of viruses that cause hepatist seem odd to say the least. It would appear that you seem to think that infection disease textbooks do not refer to this the first virus known to cause jaundice and the first infection disease to have a live vaccine (17D) that is still in use. Similarly if your knowledge of Lassa fever and the other haemorragic fevers is so incomplete to suggest that the liver involvement is not part of these diseases then there would appear to be genuine grounds for concern for someone who professes to be an expert in this area. Liver involvement in these infections is well known and referred to in the standard textbooks on infectious diseases. This would appear to meet the criteria you appear to wish to enforce.

Liver involvement in malaria is universal. Jaudice may appear later in the course of the disease and is a very poor prognostic sign. Lesimania is a very well know cause of hepatitis where it is endemic. Liver fluke, like its common name suggests, infects livers and causes inflamtion of the surrounding tissue. Elevated liver enzymes are common in infection with this parasite. With the other flukes infection of the the liver is common and causes both chronic and acute hepatitis. Schistosoma are a common cause of elevated liver enzymes in Egypt and the chronic inflation they cause commonly progresses to cirrhosis. Milary TB is known to cause hepatitis - usually granulomatous. In congenital treponema infection of the liver is the rule. It is common with infection with the intracellular bacteria. All of these things are well documented in text books on infections diseases which are exactly the sources you seem to wish to see cited on WP.

Since (1) all these infectious agents cause acute hepatitis and (2) these facts are recorded in the standard textbooks on infectious diseases I am afraid your remarks simply do not make sense to me. Given your extensive record of work on WP I will presume that your deletions of this material were made in good faith even if I have trouble understanding your reasoning.

This may also be relevent: Encyclopedic: Comprehensive in terms of information: "an almost encyclopedic knowledge of food". The listing of infectious diseases causing acute hepatitis was IMHO almost encyclopedic when I left it. There were a few organisms missing - most various filaria whose early stage instars can cause a transient hepatitis. Thier inclusion I was debating as the hepatitis they cause is only transient. It is possible that a simple misunderstanding may have occurred here since it seems that your native tounge is Dutch rather than English.

As an aside I think if you examine the listing provided earlier of B19 and hepatitis you should find several reviews which again are material you seem to want cited on WP. Instead of citing those you deemed fit for inclusion, you simply seem to have deleted the lot. Since this article is rated only as a C class among other things it is in need of additional citations. The list I provided earlier may be a useful source for citations since you stated that you were having trouble finding relevent ones in PubMed initially. I confess I find myself rather disappointed at the lack of use you made of them as I went to some trouble to provide these for you.DrMicro (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My clinical background and my language skills are not relevant here. I deleted your contributions because I did not feel it was my job to sift through the enormous lists of references, many of which are not suitable to support encyclopedia content. I do not dispute that yellow fever causes hepatitis.

Now please indicate that you have read WP:MEDRS and that you understand the importance of citing secondary sources. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 23:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I owe an apology. You did not delete the set of references. They are still on the hepatitis page. I had forgotten when I had placed them. Secondly I have read the page you cited. I even raised this question on the related discussion page. From what I could gather your suggested policy of using only secondary sources did not meet entirely with universal agreement. There would appear to be diversity of opinion on that point.

While it is probably unnecessary perhaps I should quote WP policy on vandalism

Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason ... Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary

My understanding is as follows: I have tried to follow your logic here. You seem to suggest that the material was removed because I provided a list of references - 22 in all. The references were not checked because it was not your job to do so. Excuse me for asking but are there editors employed by WP whose job it is to check references? I for one have never heard of such a position. Perhaps I might suggest that you felt you were too busy to check them and for that reason did not do so? Secondly these references were not included in the page but rather in the talk page. Thirdly I did not include them but rather left it up to your discretion to decide whether they merited inclusion. Fourthly none of the references were related to the deleted material. Fifthly the deleted material is well referenced in all the standard text books of infectious diseases and this would seem to be valid material for inclusion even under the most restrictive interpretation of the policy page to which you have referred.

For example elevated liver function tests with a decreased number of platlets is often the first sign that someone has dengue fever. These tests are much more available than dengue serology or dengue PCR particularly on weekends - unless you are in some extremely favoured unit.

I confess that I do not understand why you would want to delete such a listing of organism that can cause hepatitis. You have stated that you language skills and your medical background are not important. You do not appear to be familiar with the material in the standard infectious diseases textbooks published in English. Perhaps I may be wrong there but if I am then why is it not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Perhaps like the references I provided you are too busy to read these? That last may be a little harsh. My own opinion - and one that may be very wrong in which case I apologise in advance - is that you may have deleted these in a 'hissy' fit - aan action that might have been avoided had you left it for a little while. As I said you are a valuable contributor to WP and I would much rather not spend time in talk pages when I can find time to work on the articles instead. I believe if you care to check with the standard references books you will find that I am correct in that all these organisms do cause hepatitis.DrMicro (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list of infectious causes of hepatitis is fine, but you based it on sources that do not meet the criteria set out in WP:MEDRS. Of course I could have searched for sources for each and every one of your additions, but I believe that as an experienced and knowledgeable editor you should be able to do this yourself.

Again, I do not dispute that these infectious agents cause hepatitis, but Wikipedia is not a medical textbook, and the demands on the sourcing are completely different. I would really like you to have a close read of WP:MEDRS, because it lies at the root of our disagreement. JFW | T@lk 18:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement concerning infectious hepatitis is simply untrue. All the organisms causing infectious hepatitis are listed in the standard textbooks.

"Ideal sources for such content includes ... academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher."

IMHO if anyone should be reading this page it would seem to be yourself. If you are not familiar with the standard textbooks please say so ans we can stop wasting each other's time on this pointless argument.

Since we are on this topic this quote from the same source also seems relevant

"Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature"

Unless you have some new and relevant point to make I will consider this matter closed.DrMicro (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am thrilled to see that you have attempted to read WP:MEDRS. However, you really should not be using an exception ("reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care.") to prove the rule. If these viruses are listed in the standard textbooks, why not cite the textbooks?

I will continue to challenge you on this, because using MEDRS-compatible secondary sources (which includes textbooks) simply leads to better Wikipedia articles. JFW | T@lk 09:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be 'thrilled' myself if you had chosen to read what was on the page rather than simply to delete it. Since these organisms are in the standard text books I will restore them.DrMicro (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm is unwelcome. I have asked you to source your contributions to reliable sources. You have instead returned the same low-quality sources (e.g. case reports). What bothers me even more is the fact that you continue not to get the point about sourcing. I'm off to WT:MED to have a good moan about this now. JFW | T@lk 14:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you will not read the references provided. For example

Essop AR, Posen JA, Hodkinson JH, Segal I (1984) Tuberculosis hepatitis: A clinical review of 96 cases. Q J Med 53(212):465-474

This is a review article. If you read what is cited you probably would not be making these silly remarks. It seems rather pointless to continue argue with an editor who simply cannot be bothered to read anything before deleting it - presumably because it is not his 'job' to read these before deleting them.

Please note that alcohol as a cause of hepatitis isn't cited at all. By your lights this too should be deleted. So are many other of the listed causes. On the same theme I am not quite sure if providing a citation for liver fluke causing hepatitis is entirely necessary. See

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue

Most of the parasites causing hepatitis are discussed more fully on the linked page which describe the disease in detail and have citations that would meet your exacting standards. To me this seems a more sensible approach. Your mileage of course may differ. DrMicro (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re WT:MED: I feel sure you will of course note on this page that (1) I did give way on the inclusion of case reports in Whipple's disease (2) there are multiple references to reviews that I provided in the hepatitis page that it appears you could not be bothered to read and (3) multiple causes (including alcohol) on that page have no citations at all that you have declined to delete for reasons that are not presently clear. DrMicro (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this quote might be of use here:

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

Subsection: On revert

"I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know."

(talk page stalker) "Clinical review" is a fancy title for case study or case series. It is not a literature review or a systematic review. Also, did you notice that date? It was accepted in January 1984. That's over twenty-seven years ago.

If this information is in a decent (and modern) textbook, then please cite the textbook, rather than some elderly primary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per WAID. We need to use high quality sources from the last 5-10 years per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jfdwolff, Probably best to reply here. Though I go to work now with the expectation of being lynched in my absence. I agree with the intent but in fact WP moving policy per WP:MOVE does not require a full WP:RM if WP:COMMONNAME is already demonstrated by clear WP:RS, which will be the case for about 20% of moves I guess, but in the case of the other 80% I couldn't agree more. As for WP:UE, with respect it isn't "purist" to look at WP:RS and apply WP policies, it's simply good editing. Please feel free to look at specific articles on a case by case basis and tell me if you think I've transgressed any WP policy in any edit, subsequently deleted or not. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The moves are contested, and clearly need more discussion. The principle of least astonishment applies for naming of any article. What constitutes astonishment, though, becomes a matter of consensus. JFW | T@lk 10:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well sure now they are contested and now require RM discussion, which is perfectly within any editor's right. However in each of the 5 cases WP:EN was noted on Talk, WP:RS were added in the article, noted in edit summary, and WP:MOVE followed. Incidentally while you may have a case for describing other use of Google Books/Scholar as "Googlefights" in some cases, when (a) all WP:RS say one thing, but (b) people refuse to look at WP:RS, then that isn't a "Googlefight", I'm not sure exactly what it is... apart from something that contributes to pockets of substandard articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot exclude the possibility that some moves have irked particular contributors, and they now regard all your moves as suspicious despite all process being followed. I would need to examine more of these discussions to form a clear view on this. If you think you're being talked into a corner despite best efforts to follow policy, perhaps you should give the matter a rest for a bit. Rome wasn't built in a day. JFW | T@lk 10:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely, I intend to leave for a couple of weeks at least if allowed to do so. It's been a slow process, I first started encountered Marecheth Ho'eElohuth's unique variety of English in May, that's 6 months ago, and only now got through to the final articles, inc. the infamous boiling excrement article Chesdovi dared me to RM 3 months ago. It doesn't help that Hebrew/rabbinical study isn't a particular joy for me, beyond occasional misty teen memories - and the some of this sensitivity reminds me why. Anyway, need to get back to work terminal, thanks for you time/advice. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 18:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I like you medical contributions. A Piece of advise: when adding pictures, add a couple of words along with it to explain it, other then the name of it. Dark-X (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I'm not sure which pictures you refer to. Is this about a picture caption or an image upload? Please let me know. JFW | T@lk 20:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per our discussion at Talk:Huntington's disease I've drafted a proposed list of top-tier external sites at User:Dubbin/Huntington_external_links. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Oh, and thanks for the waffles! Dubbin (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen the post. I am not the only arbiter on this matter, so I think we should await responses from other contributors before making any definite changes. JFW | T@lk 19:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted something on the Talk page for Lung Cancer that you have commented on in the past and would appreciate it if you could take a look and respond. It essentially deals with the argument for replacing the word 'cause' with 'risk' in this and other cancer articles. Thanks! Xeodus (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's an ongoing conversation about your desire to change the essence of the article at Talk:Lung cancer, would it not be best to keep the conversation there? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never mind a heads up about a discussion, particularly when the response is so straightforward. JFW | T@lk 10:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't intend to move discussion from the Lung Cancer page, just that I wanted to invite Jfdwolff to contribute as he was heavily involved with previous discussions on the page. Xeodus (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit summary on that revert. I didn't know about that guideline (though it makes perfect sense) and I'm glad you left a trail I could learn from. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, any time. JFW | T@lk 22:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a warm welcome friend. Regards, Solomon, drsolomonvolg (talk · contribs) 16:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Solomon! JFW | T@lk 18:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doc James,

Thanks for modifying my post to fit the article better. Should I add the particulate matter (PM) info and table somewhere else or just leave it off? Boy, you edit fast by the way. Yep, I'm in the same Yale class that most of the other edits came from. :)

Wrong talk page but no worries. Maybe add it to the page on particulate matter. Wikipedia has pages on nearly everything and we need to keep topics on topic. Now I hear you guys are grad students. How many of you are there? It would be nice to have a way to give you feedback as a group. Would also like to touch base with your prof if you could put me in touch with him or her.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the first 33 references cited the following are either case reports of reports of primary research. One primary research report that is not included on this list is the original isolation of the Hep C virus. According to what you have said repeatedly this also should be eliminated from WP.

Villano SA, Vlahov D, Nelson KE, Cohn S, Thomas DL (1999). "Persistence of viremia and the importance of long-term follow-up after acute hepatitis C infection". Hepatology 29 (3): 908–14. doi:10.1002/hep.510290311. PMID 10051497.

Cox AL, Netski DM, Mosbruger T, et al. (April 2005). "Prospective evaluation of community-acquired acute-phase hepatitis C virus infection". Clinical Infectious Diseases 40 (7): 951–8. doi:10.1086/428578. PMID 15824985.

Jaeckel E, Cornberg M, Wedemeyer H, Santantonio T, Mayer J, Zankel M, Pastore G, Dietrich M, Trautwein C, Manns MP (November 2001). "Treatment of acute hepatitis C with interferon alfa-2b". N Engl J Med 345 (20): 1452–1457. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa011232. PMID 11794193.

Ngo Y, Munteanu M, Messous D, et al. (October 2006). "A prospective analysis of the prognostic value of biomarkers (FibroTest) in patients with chronic hepatitis C". Clinical Chemistry 52 (10): 1887–96.

Halfon P, Munteanu M, Poynard T (September 2008). "FibroTest-ActiTest as a non-invasive marker of liver fibrosis". Gastroentérologie Clinique et Biologique 32 (6 Suppl 1): 22–39. doi:10.1016/S0399-8320(08)73991-5

Pascual M, Perrin L, Giostra E, Schifferli JA (August 1990). "Hepatitis C virus in patients with cryoglobulinemia type II". The Journal of Infectious Diseases 162 (2): 569–70. doi:10.1093/infdis/162.2.569. PMID 2115556.

Johnson RJ, Gretch DR, Yamabe H, et al. (February 1993). "Membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis associated with hepatitis C virus infection". N Engl J Med 328 (7): 465–70. doi:10.1056/NEJM199302183280703. PMID 767844

Neri S, Raciti C, D'Angelo G, Ierna D, Bruno CM (January 1998). "Hyde's prurigo nodularis and chronic HCV hepatitis". J. Hepatol. 28 (1): 161–4. PMID 9537854.

Vandelli C, Renzo F, Romanò L, et al. (May 2004). "Lack of evidence of sexual transmission of hepatitis C among monogamous couples: results of a 10-year prospective follow-up study". The American Journal of Gastroenterology 99 (5): 855–9. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.04150.x. PMID 15128350.

Should all this material be eliminated from the article? Please recall this is only from the first 1/3 references cited here.

I look forward to your opinion. DrMicro (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these references should be replaced with MEDRS-compatible secondary sources. Hepatitis C is a very well-studied condition, and there is a glut of fine reviews and textbook chapters available for reference. If content cannot be sourced to one of such sources, I would dispute its suitability for inclusion. As a general encyclopedia we cannot afford to discuss every finding of every primary research study, especially when small-scale, of limited or unestablished impact, and methodologically weak.

I am interested in liver disease, and once upon a time I considered tackling this article in the same fashion as meningitis or rhabdomyolysis. Sadly time and motivation have stopped me from doing this so far. JFW | T@lk 19:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. I have had a go at the stub on benign hypertension. Would appreciate comments. adh (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to follow up on your edit. I know the difference between the two conditions and the fact they may be caused by different things, but surely the most common "layman" definition as used by most people on a non-technical basis is that a pneumothorax is always a collapsed lung even if a collapsed lung might include other things. A collaped lung might not be caused by a pneumothorax but even the infobox at the top of the article uses the teminology "the collapsed lung" to decribe what happens during it.

Maybe it's a terminology issue. Would somthing like, "whilst there are many conditions which can lead to a lung failing to inflate, the the phrase collapsed lung is most often used to refer to the organ's inability to inflate during a pneumothorax."? BigHairRef | Talk 18:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably discuss this on Talk:Pneumothorax, so other contributors can participate in the discussion.

You might have noticed that collapsed lung and lung collapse both direct to a disambiguation page. This page correctly differentiates between the different concepts referred to collaquially as "collapsed lung". It would be plainly incorrect to suggest, on the pneumothorax page, that the term "collapsed lung" is synonymous with the more precise medical term. JFW | T@lk 18:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I've copied the discussion so far onto the article's talk page and added my reply. BigHairRef | Talk 00:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some of the images. Would help with the FA process. What do you think about this image of the hydropneumo? Also we recently had this tensionpneumo. The overlying lines are due to subq emphysema. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pneumothorax in the first image is quite subtle. Well done for spotting that!

With regards to the tension pneumothorax, I'm not sure what the red arrow is doing. I notice the patient is intubated. Was this a ventilator-associated pneumothorax? JFW | T@lk 16:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The red arrow just points to the side it is on. I have a copy without it. This was trauma / ventilator associated with a failed chest tube if I remember correctly. Was only involved in the case tangentially. The flat line in the hemothorax means that a pneumo must be present else you get a curved line for the fluid level.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might add the second one, but I fear that the first image is a tad too subtle to be illustrative! Good point about the absent meniscus. JFW | T@lk 17:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want a copy without the arrow? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have several images, including File:Pneumothorax CXR.jpg which shows similar changes. JFW | T@lk 17:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are optional. Thus though I would remove them and just put DMOZ under further reading.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I think there are reasonable grounds to distinguish between properly authored reference works and external links. Feel free to revert me. JFW | T@lk 00:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that cardiac failure was not a cause of inflammation of the liver (hepatitis). The material I wrote was based on reviews of the histology of hepatitis. The pathologists seem to think that cardiac failure is associated with inflammation. As you know this condition can progress to cirrhosis which is the end product of inflammation of the liver. For those reasons I beg to differ with your opinion.DrMicro (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the condition is not understood well enough to say that. The presence of inflammatory cells does not equal hepatitis, and it could well be that the congestion is the main driver of progression to cirrhosis. Have you got a source that expressly says that cardiac cirrhosis is mediated by hepatitis? JFW | T@lk 15:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the added diagnostic markers included jargon, I do not understand what You meant by unreliable sources. Both papers which were cited was in high ranked peer reviewed journals --JK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.117.2 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my edit summary, which you were able to read, I provided a link to the medical sources guideline known as WP:MEDRS. This guideline provides very clear steps to follow in the identification of sources in the medical sciences that are suitable for encyclopedia articles. Generally these sources are high quality review articles in journals with a reasonably high impact factor, or graduate and postgraduate level textbooks. Neither doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3001551 nor doi:10.1111/j.1540-8167.2009.01455.x meet those criteria. This may be an interesting development for experts in the field, but the actual notability of the findings is only established when it is cited in a secondary source. I hope you understand. Please have a look at MEDRS, because you will find that once you follow its advice it leads to very good encyclopedia content. JFW | T@lk 20:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do. Have provided feedback again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to have to remove all non-WP:MEDRS sources. JFW | T@lk 20:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree. I will be tackling this article soon as part of the translation project and will be doing so than.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have hepatitis C at GAN. And further changes you think need being made? I see you edited it a while ago.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, you're on fire! I'll have a look. The pneumothorax FAC is going to take a lot of my time in the next few days though. JFW | T@lk 10:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Pneumothorax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trachea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have finished the update of the core medical aspects and nominated for GA. Wondering if you could take a look?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really prefer to wait until the pneumothorax FAC is over... I have to say that the current version of the article is very brief. JFW | T@lk 21:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I sort of struggled with this. The history of the disease for example is more appropriate for the article on diabetes mellitus as is the societal and culture aspects. I guess I could create subpages and have a summary in both articles.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question. I must confess that I fail to see why Milton Wexler should be omitted from the history of the Huntington gene. He along with his two daughters were largely responsible for setting up the organisation that lead eventually to its discovery. The cited paper is from the Annual Reviews of Medicine. The author is Wexler's daughter - a professor of psychology. She was the second named author on the 1983 paper which locatized the gene to the tip of chromosome 4 so she has a unique perspective on this disease.

I agree that this material might not belong in the more scientific parts of the article but it is part of the history of the disease. The mention of the parties with Hollywood stars attending might seem irrelevant but this practice allowed Wexler to keep the salaries down and attracted people to work on this disease rather than some other where the work paid better. As far as I know it was (and still is) a unique incentive for a scientist to work on a project. Others had tried to recruit people to work on this disease before this but failed to meet with the success that Wexler had.

For these reasons this material seem IMHO to be relevant to the history of the disease. I would be grateful if you could explain your reasons for suggesting that it does not belong in the history of this disease. DrMicro (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I removed was the salary of the staff and their mingling with celebrities. That is not directly relevant to the narrative, and I fully agree with Dubbin on this. It might be relevant in Wexler's own article, which you seem to be working on. Please take this to the article talkpage if you want to have a wider discussion about this. JFW | T@lk 23:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your point. Now the reasons have been clarified I think the edit is very reasonable. Thank you for explaining this to me.DrMicro (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Dubbin's original edit summary[15] could have been clearer. Apologies for the fact that mine wasn't more specific either. JFW | T@lk 12:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Dutch-to-English

I would be grateful if you could check quality of google translation (my understanding - National Bank of Belgium agreed to distribute images of the banknotes it has issued using the same rules as euro banknotes) - please reply on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BEL-500f-rev.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated Huntington's disease#Research directions to rely on secondary sources per your message - feedback appreciated, thx Dubbin^{u | t | c} 14:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through Hypertension and tried to update and improve the article. You were kind enough to comment on some previous additions I made - if you get time I would welcome your comments. Incidentally my email is now set up as public if you want to contact me. Adh (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that you have made excellent progress with the article, and I appreciate your constructive responses to my pedantic points. Unfortunately I just haven't had enough time even to fully review the article; real life keeps cropping up. I am giving the article my top priority (on Wikipedia) and I shall write the new section as soon as I can. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note. Pedantry leads to good articles, and your comments are much appreciated. The FAC seems to be moving slowly anyway, but thanks for looking into the epidemiology content. JFW | T@lk 23:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Snowmanradio is adding unhelpful (albeit well-intentioned) suggestions. I'll try to get through the Epidemiology re-write. Once I've done that, I'll have time to respond to Snowmanradio. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the outcome. :-( On the other hand, the article is significantly better now than it was three weeks ago, and that is our collective aim, which I think is more important than the gold star. I'll keep going on the "Epidemiology" section. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Axl. I am slightly encouraged by Sandy's note that a fresh start in a few weeks would in all likelihood lead to a better outcome. JFW | T@lk 20:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wanted to reply on the fac page a few days ago but it was already closed. I'll see if I can help with any outstanding issues and would fully support a renomination in the near future. --WS (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for the offer. JFW | T@lk 23:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Kashrut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slaughter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jfdwolff, I edited cholesterol putting sources for a statement in the article which you reverted. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed it says to just replace the citation needed text with information on the source. Shaddix (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some doctor you are, can't even read a scientific journal. And the information is already in the article, I'm just providing the citation. The thing says citation needed. The wiki article says to just put it in the article. You have no grounds to revert the changes I made. If you don't want to take the time to do the copy editing then leave it alone and let someone else who does do it. Shaddix (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here you go. Firstly, making personal attacks makes you very unpopular and often gets people blocked from editing. Secondly, repeated reverting without discussion leads to blocking. Your edit does not reflect current thinking on the subject (references are from 1952 and 1954 respectively); please discuss on the talkpage why you think the rabbit has such a peculiar metabolism. I also recommend learning to format your own references, rather than expecting others to tidy up after you. Finally, try to log in when making edits rather than giving the impression of using multiple accounts. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edit simply cites the information already in the wiki article. I am not making an edit that does not reflect current thinking. I am citing a source for the line of text that is not popular opinion. The only reason I mention rabbits in my edit is because the source mentions rabbits! The particular source is from 1952 yes, and is hilarious because it's from Ancel Keys. This is the guy that people like you think determined that dietary cholesterol was dangerous in the first place. Something he never stated and explicitly said is not true. To placate your wanting something that isn't just a dry url: http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the-truth-about-ancel-keys-weve-all-got-it-wrong/ Shaddix (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really should stop reverting and start a discussion on Talk:Cholesterol. The kind of sources we need are compliant with WP:MEDRS (i.e. not something over half a century old, or someone's blog). I have requested protection of the page. JFW | T@lk 22:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably one of the guys who wants to put statins in the water right? Shaddix (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you will find that my views are rather more nuanced and I think you should have assumed good faith and discussed your changes on the talk page when I suggested this. I have decided not to ask for blocking despite the fact that you are editing from your IP address as well as your registered account. JFW | T@lk 21:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've noticed your good work to the good article thrombophilia. Thank you for that. I have the goal of getting venous thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism upgraded in their quality ratings. I don't share your medical expertise though. I was contacting you because I thought, at most, you might be want to partner up to work on a good article together or, at least, offer some suggestions. I am currently thinking it makes the most sense to try to work on improving VT first, then DVT, and finally PE. Maybe you would recommend another approach. One drawback to the VT article is that it seems like it could get complex quickly. For example, there's the issue of superficial ones, or maybe they deserve their own article. Then the term venous thromboembolism is currently a redirect to VT, but I guess it would be a bad idea to cover anything related to PE there, even though VTE is currently bolded in the lead. It seems that there would be very considerable overlap between "good" VT and DVT articles. So far, I've added a classification section to DVT, expanded the prevention section at VT, started a pathophysiology section at VT, etc. Anyhow, any of your wisdom would be appreciated. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles all need a fair bit of work, and I am quite willing to help you identify the most appropriate sources (always a good starting point) and update them accordingly. I'd say the "venous thromboembolism" article runs the risk of duplicating information from the DVT and PE articles, and it would be good to be very clear about a framework for these articles. I'd say the "epidemiology" and "pathophysiology" content overlaps very strongly, and it might be an idea to keep all this in venous thromboembolism with summarised headlines in the DVT and PE articles. In contrast, the more clinical aspects should be covered in the respective clinical articles. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer for sources, that would be helpful. I'm thinking that because the title for the "venous thromboembolism" page is venous thrombosis (without reference to embolism), it wouldn't make sense to cover anything it depth regarding PE there. I guess another idea is that we could have a venous thromboembolism page, but have it be short, perhaps a definition and a paragraph of context, and maybe eventually a summary of updated DVT and PE articles. Biosthmors (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually quite tricky. Many publications refer to VTE are one disease entity with two main clinical manifestations (some also include cerebral venous sinus thrombosis). As for embolism, the vast majority of emboli from venous thrombosis are pulmonary emboli, although it is possible for them to migrate to the systemic circulation through a R->L shunt, known as a paradoxical embolism. This explains why it is possible to have a stroke after a DVT. JFW | T@lk 16:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the same topic: should thrombus and thrombosis be merged? --WS (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thrombus is about the physiological process; it might be appropriate to merge it with coagulation.

Thrombosis is pathological. It should be a disambiguation page that directs the reader to the different forms of thrombosis (arterial vs venous vs paradoxical, different vascular beds). JFW | T@lk 15:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if you think a venous thromboembolism page should exist, what do you think it would best look like? Biosthmors (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my question was very good, for what it's worth. :-) I've started focusing on DVT at the moment. Perhaps I'll focus on DVT and PE before trying to envision a perfect eventual venous thromboembolism page. It does make sense, though, for one to exist given how it is treated in sources and considered to be a disease entity. Biosthmors (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jfdwolff,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to email me a questionnaire here. JFW | T@lk 07:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jfdwolff. There's an issue relating to a Dutch source that I think would benefit from your wisdom. Would you be able to look at User talk:Honorsteem#February 2012? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. All of this is about primary sources. Could you clarify what I could do to help the discussion along? JFW | T@lk 10:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jfdwolff. I appreciate your work on this page, however, your classification of glimepiride as a 3rd generation sulfonylurea is incorrect according to the standards of medical reference and pharmacology used here in the U.S. I have updated the page and listed the appropriate references on the talk page. Why do you believe this agent to be a 3rd generation sulfonylurea and what resource are you referencing that identifies it as such? Vana3474 (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the glimepiride page it says that it is sometimes classified as 2nd and sometimes as 3rd. There are plenty of sources that label it a third generation sulfonylurea, such as this textbook. I suggest we continue the discussion on Talk:Sulfonylurea. JFW | T@lk 22:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to contribute to the page.

“

A research study[5] by the United Kingdom's Department of Health has identified that telehealth can be an effective way[6] of managing Diabetes. This means that Diabetics can monitor their condition at home more regularly reducing the dependence on visits to see their medical practitioner.

”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naivepanda (talk • contribs)

FYI, I responded to this at User talk:Naivepanda. Biosthmors (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your other contributions on telehealth, and I am not sure whether you are correct. There are numerous aspects of diabetes care that cannot be done by telehealth, such as retinopathy screening. The document you cite is not a research study. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jfdwolff - I have found a secondary source of the research results http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare-network/2011/dec/06/telehealth-significant-benefits-cut-deaths — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naivepanda (talk • contribs) 09:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MEDRS. By a secondary source for medical content I mean an academic source. The DH document says very little about their methodology, statistical measures used etc etc. It all sounds very nice but the exact nature of the intervention is unclear. We know that in heart failure, telemonitoring does not provide much benefit (doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1010029), a finding not displaced by the DH experience. JFW | T@lk 11:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about academic source, but the WSD study by DH was evaluated by City University London, University of Oxford, University of Manchester, Nuffield Trust, Imperial College London and London School of Economics. http://www.city.ac.uk/news/2011/dec/city-research-leads-to-government-focus-on-telehealth The report that has been used for the link is the initial findings of the trail, the full report has not been released yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naivepanda (talk • contribs) 09:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then we should wait until the full report has been released. This seems to be WP:NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. JFW | T@lk 10:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is something very wrong with Gnatbuzz (talk · contribs). Take a look at his recent edits at Joseph (son of Jacob) and Étienne Brûlé. Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Blocked temporarily, pursuant to my previous warning. Hope he takes his nonsense somewhere else. JFW | T@lk 22:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. If she's a problem again and I miss it, let me know. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her response is amazing. Particularly since if she is the person from Ontario with the same name, she is indeed a biologist and seems to be an intelligent person. But she now claims she gets her information from dowsing, etc. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]