User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 33

• If you leave messages here, please expect a response from me over here.
• If I've left a message on your talkpage, and I'm slow to respond to a reply made there, please let me know.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.

Sockpuppet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit summary

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

Idiosyncratic user

Hi,

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

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

Ketogenic diet & cancer

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

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

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

Disease of the Week

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CFS edit wars

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

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

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

I think you have a fan

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

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

GERD, OSA, EDS, etc

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

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

We have a name calling

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crazy Tribe

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

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

unblocked

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

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

Diabetes

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

nice person

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

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

speedy deletion

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

Simonalpinist

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

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

Alpinist (talk · contribs)

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

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

Notable nephrologists

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

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

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

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

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

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

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

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

Kudos

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

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

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

Melatonin

Hi,

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

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

Medicine Collaboration of the Week

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

My talk page

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

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

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

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

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

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

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

Automatically delivered by COBot 02:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Protecting migraine?

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

Serology Table in Coeliac Disease

Blood antibody tests for coeliac disease

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

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

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

Cheers!!!

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

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

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

Fallon, Nevada: Cancer Cluster

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

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

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

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

Re: Constipation

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

Deletion review

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

life of brian

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

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

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

Obesity

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

the long goodbye

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

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

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

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

re: my sig

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

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

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

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

ME

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

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

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish history of Wales & N. Ireland needed

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

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

Medicine Collaboration of the Month

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

Admin help required with vandalism of nomination page

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

CFS inflammation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gallstones?

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

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

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

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

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

Cholesterol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP Policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question re community ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did you delete the Kamagra page?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ringworm affair

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

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

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

Serotonin is a Vasoconstrictor

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

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

a quick question

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

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

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

Take care of yourself mate,

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

I have never met Prof Wessely.

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

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

cheers

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

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

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

Best wishes- Simon

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

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

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

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

Obesity history

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

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

Countering systemic bias: Egfrank requests intervention

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

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

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of content deletion

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

Thank you.

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

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

Serious discussions about using the names Reform vs. Progressive Judaism

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

CDC and VA

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

WikiProject Pharmacology Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ultra-Orthodox

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion of sourced material from Atorvastatin

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

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

Your edit on Algesic

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

thanks

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

Autism article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

re: Medic?

Hey Jfdwolff,

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

Mike2vil 23:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Varenicline

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

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

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

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

Chronic fatigue syndrom edits

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

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

MCOTW

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

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

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

Ten Commandments

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

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

Talk:Metformin

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

Port-a-Cath rename

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

Ten Commandments

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

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

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

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

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

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

DYK

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

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

Statin development

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

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

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

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

Heart failure

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

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

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

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

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

article request on WP Judaism

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

*shock, horror*

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

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

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