User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 20

I see you have deleted the famous victims section. Perhaps the title "Famous Victims" sounded too misleading. I can see your standpoint as also a doctor and a compassionate human being, but one can also argue that victims can find hope to see some examples of people who actually recovered from the decease. Take the Testicular cancer section for example... But of course, Wikipedia is all about neutrality, so it doesn’t really matter what I say. I just wanted you to hear my point of view, and that the listing was not intended for any reason "random".

FYI: There is some concern in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autism epidemic that you may have voted twice. Cheers! -AED 20:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may have observed that the result of this AfD was "no consensus", however, I believe that there was a consensus in that the article should not be kept in its present condition (i.e. "delete", "merge", "delete and merge", "rename", "rename and merge" split the "non-keep" vote). Is there a proper way to appeal this decision or bring it to another vote? Any suggestions? -AED 00:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Sandy 00:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is going to be slightly odd if that article is merged into

Autism (incidence) since the start of the latter was the incidence fraction of the verifiable residue of A...epidemic. I suggest renaming A...epidemic as epidemiology, then focussing its attention on epdidemiology.Midgley 14:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It would be immensely helpful if you could chronicle the dispute, using diffs, instead of simply offering your interpretation and casting allegations. I'm also wondering on what grounds you have based your accusation of sockpuppetry. JFW | T@lk 06:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a question that's at the intersection of medicine and policy, so I wondered if you could help me. Are the illustrations at cancer.gov OK to use in Wikipedia? It appears to be a

Frankly, I thought we were already using cancer.gov as a source. I can't see why it would not qualify for {{PD-USGov}}. JFW | T@lk 21:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I'll try uploading one, and see if anybody complains. --Arcadian 11:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hello Dr Wolff: Hope you had a good Yom Tov! Please see User talk:Judah haNasi#Problem with your Judah haNasi user name and add your comments. Thank you. IZAK 05:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jfdwolff, i was thinking of inserting this picture of a Melamed in Jewish education. Any thoughts? Shlomke 09:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think from his first appearance to current he has been disruptive rather than a contributor. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.10.231.219&diff=prev&oldid=48987143

He is also spreading or recruiting similar behaviour, and becoming more forceful. Is the way forward an RFC, mediation or requests to administrators to consider matters, please? Midgley 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 You are mentioned in it. Midgley 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jfdwolff, I asked Cesar Tort and Ombudsman for mediation or arbitration. They didn't respond so regretfully we must proceed. Without mediation, we go straight to arbitration. If you're willing to support this, please read the below. I'll file the request later today, unless you suggest otherwise. Joema 19:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Arbitration policy
• Arbitration template
• Arbitration evidence
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• User:Snowspinner/Arbcom - Recommended reading: A guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.

Jfdwolff, since you were involved in one POV tag reversion (which was itself reverted), if you want you can add a statement here:

WP:RFAR

. Ideally briefly summarize your view of criteria necessary for the POV tag. Just create another "Statement by Party x" heading beneath where Rockpocket made his. Thanks. Joema 13:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew you'd be back. Thank Heavens, I was truly thrilled to see that familiar name on my Watchlist. Please stay. If you think the trolls are getting to you, I will have some exercises that will help. Some involve Roman mythology or microprocessors. And there is always the judicious use of

Yeah, you're right, I can't resist procrastinating here, though I'm not back either. There's still far too much that needs to change here before I pack up my stuff and move back in, as it were, but I still enjoy a visit every now and then. Thanks for the welcome back. --W(t) 03:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My original comments on certain pages were when I was even more of a Wiki newbie, vague things such as "this needs work" and "someone has to do something about this." The comments are, I think, irrelevant now. --Yodamace1 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFW, thanks again for your recent support on atorvastatin and statin. I also didn't know working at a public hospital (with our ever-shrinking drug budget) implied being "thoroughly vested in the pharmaceutical industry". =) Cheers. -Techelf 09:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been accused of all sorts of ghastly things. But then in the fight against corporate malevolence, all is allowed. Never mind the huge commercial risks that have to be taken to develop a new drug, or the large amounts of basic clinical science performed in drug company research facilities. Constant Gardener syndrome. JFW | T@lk 20:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a minute, could you look at Gastroenteritis#Drug_therapy? I think the recommendations there might be ill advised. --Mdwyer 18:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do nicely. Thank you! --Mdwyer 17:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. JFW | T@lk 20:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JFW, I really appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per

Thanks! -AED 21:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Private information was put on my user page ('not my talk page) by user:128.139.226.34. I have removed it but it should be deleted from the history. I assume that it is the same person who had his email address posted on Talk:Nazirite. thanks Jon513 19:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit and critique. I am very new to this stuff and am not real sure about how to do it. "VAM" is just my friend, and I get tired of seeing incorect or incomplete info on him, so thought I'd add what I had written, with his review/ critique. Trust me, I've been through the "peer review" mill--this is entirely minor. I had one attending who had more red ink on my case report, even after I had submitted it so many times I simply quit counting, than I had typed in black ink. He was amazed I didn't quit it. Finally, there was essentially no red ink and was ready to submit it to McKusick, who is editing it before I send it off to Arc Dis Child. McKusick told me additionally he, himself, was going to be "too hard on it" because he knew I could produce. --MI Poling 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but from whom am I sending regards and from where? My institutional address is <REMOVED>

You're right; he is a legend. But you don't think about when it is just you and him--you can't. Besides, he's not that way and keeps reminding me of how much he and I have in common. He's really into history and humanities too and would agree with you; indeed, he's told me the exact same things and helps me with all my history theses. But, I'don't want to short-change Dr. Anne here. She's helped me a good deal as well. Indeed, she has more common sense and is generally more pleasing to speak with. He often defers to her as well. The paper going to Arch Dis Child, all being well, is a case report on Freeman-Sheldon syndrome (craniocarpotarsal dysplasia) not the interview. I'm looking at another journal for the intewview, however. Any suggestions?--MI Poling 23:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am somewhat annoyed that you removed my link which I feel provides relevant non-commercial information not provided by the page, I am more bothered that you did not check the link I fixed. The existing Alexander link takes you to a page that doesn't exist anymore so I replaced it with another about the same technique. Please explain. I'm confused or maybe just new here or both.

Also, as I look through these external links, there are a couple that appear to violate your standards. I would like to see some consistnecy in your judgement. SallyB 16:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 16:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at my note regarding Patricia Bath under the "Famous Ophthalmologists" section in Talk:Ophthalmology? Thanks! -AED 21:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the guy who nominated all those pages for deletion is just mad at me. I nominated

"JFW, I will observe that some folks are now crossing the Rubicon in haste (Tearlach's rush to block). I asked earlier for your help, I mean it sincerely. I think you have the stature and ability that could help me implement path 1. Even if it fails, *you* can say you tried. Path 2 is always available, and boringly easy." [2] Can we talk? I am concerned these guys are going to get more whale than they dreamed of[3] and nobody blamed nature the first time. But everybody else loses, just like the first time. I can think of little better way to prime an opponent than bloodying their nose this way.--66.58.130.26 02:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts to salvage John as a contributor are laudable. I have responded to your comment in the RFC. I would strongly suggest you get a username - it makes things incomparably easier and is more anonymous than your IP (which seems to be in Alaska - does that explain your affinity with whales?) JFW | T@lk 08:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will seriously consider making the switch after things settle down.--66.58.130.26 06:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, judging by the user page (I didn't track the admiration pages at Whale) and other editors' new comments, that was more response than I expected (I would have settled for finer changes). I think praise, and especially helpfulness, from others would mean more than anything I could say.

I notice Ombudsman popped up twice at the "dance". I am not sure exactly what all is going on but maybe I could help. The blow out over biological psych seems kind of petty, I have gotten lots worse and we never even started formalities much less Arb(!!!!). (I cannot sustain the rate though)--66.58.130.26 23:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've

As to the Ombudsman I have limited insight into his background, I suspect that he is part naturopathic, part orthomed and feeling trampled all over. My apologies if he insinuated no telling what generality, suspicion and fear onto you as an individual when he vented. Everyone is on a defensive hair trigger. Both sides need to try to find positive messages and paths. Here's what I think needs to happen: Adrian and Ombudsman especially need to get their fur down, and they may need sympathetic help rather than just lead pipe. I have to say in John's RfC, Adrian crowded me a lot and came on too strong - and he was being relatively careful and polite with me - I would say that things would have deteriorated fast with many of the others. If I can get Ombudsman down out of the tree, can you do something about Adrian? I see that Ombudsman needs to build a little more faith, homework(b/g?) and effort that careful manners under stress, stmts, good references will earn a place in the book with less contention. Hopefully his situation will be a lot easier than John's. Partly he may spread himself too thin. But there is a feeling of getting one's chops busted too. One of the areas that really needs to be better addressed is various scientifc evidence levels available with respect to medical-legal "proof", references from other fields and how to join them in an article - I think it might help if one quotes various levels of demonstration ie. that's not orthomed or referenced naturopathic or clinically, epidemiologically, etc backed. Simply clearly making the distinction seems a most important part. Again NPOV WP:RS implementation issues. Let's try to keep the ball rolling?--66.58.130.26 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joema was completely justified in getting an RFAr, but should have made it an article RFAr. This happens frequently. The Arbcomm could then have commented on the fact that consensus was achieved on the talk page and that the critics should have stopped tagging it. An RFC would not have worked, and RFM would have failed for want of a qualified mediator.

I have little interest in what Ombudsman is (he can be G.W. Bush for all I care, although I suspect he'd regard that as an insult). I'm just concerned that Wikipedia should not be the forum for really unconventional ideas that have a massive Usenet backing but not much foothold in the Real World®. There are numerous people who believe 9/11 was the work of Dick Cheney, but huge pages analysing every fine point is just a bit over the top; we're not a hosting service for crank theories. I agree the work of Ralph Paffenbarger on the benefits of exercise is ground-breaking, but to write an article on him ignores the contributions of his co-authors. Bizarre articles like stovepiping and mandated reporter are obviously intended to fight strawmen (e.g. the ludicrous assertion that medical students undergo initiation rites, which he calls "hazing"). All of this is not constructive editing. It is pushing an agenda. JFW | T@lk 16:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the article on mandated reporter was informative. Where and when I grew up, that would be a far more restricted, usually voluntary item and generally considered intrusive. Unsuspecting innocents, especially young parents might be surprised at the length of and (lack of) professional qualifications for that list. Indeed, one of my younger college roommates, both parents doctors, and a himself a specialist, later groused and cautioned about problems with the new reporting systems while clerking. I did not fully appreciate his words until reading news stories a decade or so later.

So, what can I do to help?--66.58.130.26 18:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The situation with Ombudsman does not need your help. It needs the Arbcomm. Whatever your own opinion on the mandated reporter thing, Ombudsman has a history of writing articles that do not satisfy Raul's Razor. This is a Bad Thing. JFW | T@lk 05:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Cesar Tort, I don't mean to pick on him, considering Ombudsman has been around a lot longer. However Cesar has threatened to have an army of Scientologist friends mass-tag Wikipedia articles. [4] Premeditated, organized mass defacing of Wikipedia is fairly hostile. He's later said he was new so this explains his threats, but his underlying position obviously hasn't changed, as is obvious from his most recent posts. Both Cesar and Ombudsman have extremely strong feelings about this area. Cesar explained he doesn't like the objective, neutral, factual Britannica-style approach, calling it "stupid" and "pure rubbish": [5] However Wikipedia is an encyclopedia exactly like Britannica, and the main mission is describe the topic, not debate, critique, or analyze it. There is no lack of venues to debate topics people feel passionately about. However Wikipedia isn't the place. Joema 18:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of Cesar's threats, and I agree they have polarised the situation. The stance against NPOV is also worrisome. JFW | T@lk 05:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you have merged the page I created on History of Acne into the Acne Vulgaris page. I know there was not much content but (1) the History of Acne page was in existence only for 1 hour (2) there is a lot more which could be said about it (2) every subject has an interesting history and it seems a pity to clutter a medical information page with the history of treatments which are no longer considered valuable. Blood-letting, for example has a long and interesting history, yet one would hardly recommend it today. User:Willow4.

There was no need for a seperate page. Generally, the history of a condition is essential reading (especially obsolete treatments), and should not be split off unless it is so long that it threatens the ideal page size of 32 KB. Please do carry on adding to the section, and consider finding

sources for your additions. JFW | T@lk 14:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd like to modify the ankylosing spondylitis page using some waring box for the TNFα blokers.

Something like the box

This is a pre-like box, does some waring box exists?
I don't know...

I tried to find some docs and articles using some kind of inline warning, but I couldn't find anything... Thanks to anyone who can help me fixing that page!

Boxes are evil. If the content is important enough, the reader will understand its repercussions without lots of unnecessary markup. JFW | T@lk 23:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Sorry to bother you. I've been browsing around the drugs section and I noticed this user has put up three more possible copyvio lists of random drugs- Drugs for Infectious Diseases and Drugs for Orthopedic problems and Drugs by Indication. I'm not that up on deletion procedures and whatnot and I'm not sure what to do - I noticed you had left a message on his talk page and speedily deleted another list. Suspect these need speedied too. Would sort it out myself but unsure of procedure as quite new here. Thank you. Berry 18:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've taken the liberty to delete these as well. If the editor in question returns I will explain that we already have long Wikified lists of drugs elsewhere on the Wiki, and that these uploads were unnecessary. JFW | T@lk 23:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what is actual problem with you guys. But if you have any problem say it directly to me or otherwise i would like to stop posting the articles. I do not get money by posting these. Rich Rich rich_richie 04:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. Wolff , I hope you had a great Pesach!: Please see the new discussions, and add your views, at Talk:Passover#Passover in the Christian tradition, again. Thank you. IZAK 03:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's popular in London as well.

Well, hail from America! And have a nice day. Jason Palpatine 22:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological disturbances straight accross the Atlantic! It's actually lovely weather here. No hail in sight. JFW | T@lk 22:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFW, in the interest of trying to keep the Yona Metzger article fair and more representative, I've added more sections about his actual work as Chief Rabbi. You mentioned before that you had a copy of at least one of Metzger's works- can you briefly give a synopsis of Be-maalei ha-Chayim and Shaagas Aryei in the Bibliography section? Any other books you know he wrote would be welcome additions, too. ShalomShlomo 07:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need to go find the book again. It was co-authored with someone else. With regards to Shaagas Aryei, all he did was write the introduction. JFW | T@lk 11:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read: discussion JKW 16:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No copyright notice is needed once material has been surrendered under the GFDL. JFW | T@lk 23:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. I think they abuse Wikipedia for pushing their product JKW 23:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the

WP:NPOV thing. The article should state that "the manufacturer thinks that [...]", "in an independent assessment person X says [...]" and so on. JFW | T@lk 23:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, this is an excellent argument for deleting their text. JKW 16:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Rephrase it in a way that you think is neutral. JFW | T@lk 16:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. Wolff: You may want to take a look at the latest developments at Category talk:Orthodox rabbis. All the best. IZAK 06:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Wolff. Please look at the article itself and its edits and the talk at

The current attempt to re-establish the Sanhedrin is the sixth attempt in recent history, but unlike previous attempts, there seems to be wide consensus among the leading Torah sages living in the Land of Israel for the pressing need for such an institution at this time, due to political climate created by actions of the State of Israel which have been perceived by various religious communities as actions against their interests. However, though criticism from leading Rabbis is lacking, public support for it is equally lacking. CUT> So it remains unlikely that this particular attempt will gain acceptance within the Jewish community. <CUT Historian2 (talk · contribs)

Have you read the policy I referred to, namely

no original research

? The whole paragraph I deleted was commentary without a source. It would have been valid if you had sourced this to a commentator whose views are relevant in this area. At the moment it sounds like Wikipedia is trying to analyse the situation, something that is not in the remit of an encyclopedia.

I agree that the support base for the Sanhedrin is still not wide enough (despite Reb Moshe Halberstam zatzal's involvement) for it to gain permanence. But that is my opinion. And personal opinions of editors don't belong in articles. JFW | T@lk 19:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with this policy (I read it in the introduction to Wikipedia). So what do I do, link hebrew language sources? I will also try to locate the english language Haaretz article I mentioned above. Historian2 (talk · contribs)

Finding a

WP:NPOV in the context given. JFW | T@lk 01:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way, no Emedicine representative has - to my knowledge - made any contributions to Wikipedia. The Emedicine articles, though, are heavily referenced and widely regarded as authoratitive. They are therefore somewhat more useful as references in clinical articles, although peer-reviewed journal articles or textbooks are much to be preferred in this scenario. JFW | T@lk 01:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response about

Hello Dr. Wolff: Could you take a look at the article and recent edits, and add your comments at Talk:Elazar Shach#Rabbi Shach's fame and Chabad. Thanks. IZAK 08:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. It's my first real Wikipedia article, and I haven't even yet learned how to cite sources, so this will be helpful. There are plenty of sites online documenting that Ornish was the first to achieve reversal of CAD (i.e. increased arterial perfusion, shrinking atheromas, etc.) with lifestyle alone, including primary literature. I'll add such notes as soon as I get a chance. Also, if you feel it's excessive to call this discovery "remarkable" I cam say something more understated.

128.218.249.113

Please simply provide the academic references. The reader will judge for him/herself whether his findings were "remarkable". JFW | T@lk 12:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, doctor. Would you be willing to move

Grazie! -AED 03:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc, Thanks for the welcome SMSIRL 02:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein. Shabbat Shalom ! IZAK 12:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: Recently, User:Ems tried to archive the talk at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism by "moving" the entire page and thereby losing a few years worth of edit history in the process. I have tried to correct it but it needs the intervention of an admin to REVERT back the entire process so that the edit history will show up where it is supposed to be (namely on the history of the main talk page and not in "archive 9"). Take a look over there and see what you can do. All the best. IZAK 13:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history has gone to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_9. It's not lost. I will fix this after shabbos. JFW | T@lk 15:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you deleted the edit shown below I would like to discuss with you first any revision of this part of the Mitzvot article as to the role, place and adoption of Jewish law (or its derivatives) in both the Christian religion and in the secular law of other cultures, (American law in particular).

Deleted 17:19, 8 March 2006 by User:Jfdwolff from the Mitzvah article: "Some other faiths (esp. Christianity) have adopted some Mitzvot as part of their own set of beliefs and practice. "

-- PCE 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please use ~~~~ to sign your name, so I don't have to use the page history to find out who you are.

I'll respond on Talk:Mitzvah. JFW | T@lk 07:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw it on Talk:Cirrhosis. It's common, I see it all the time. DDx: (1) EtOH; (2) Meds including NSAIDs and herbal products; (3) NASH; (4) PFIC-like disorder (minor MDR mutation or some other flipase), although it's unlikely in Indians. If all these are excluded (except 4), and other LFTs and US are normal, I'd just follow.

Also, is there a Wikipedia medical quiz? If there isn't, would you be interested if I started one? Will post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. Cheers and hope all is well. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jfdwolff, I've created an Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. I'd love to see your comments, improvements, amendations and nominations, preferably all on the discussion or the actual page there. Many thanks, Nesher 13:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I posted a defense of the article True Torah Jews, I would like to ask you to be so kind and read it, and than rethink your position on deletion. Bloger 00:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My views are unchanged. JFW | T@lk 10:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering if you had a sec; e-mailed you about the same. It's regarding this diff: [6] from an admin. Would appreciate your assistance; he's blocking people for unclear reasons now(see

I've just had a single revert to change harold Shipman's description back from "was a Jewish British general practitioner" to "was a British general practitioner" re-reverted back - see here. An anon user had also had their revertion reverted back a few days ago. My feeling was that placing 'Jewish' as his primary characteristic (i.e. 1st adjective used) before 'British' or 'General Practictioner' seemed inappriopriate. The claim that this is valid as "his mother was a jewish immigrant" (edit summary 13 May) may be a reason to so describe his mother in the "Early years" section. However I am unaware of the following:

• Was he a practising jew ? Or was he also notable for his Jewish observance ?
• Is his jewish backgrtound relevant to his work either as a GP or his homicidal actions (User:Saladin1970 comment today of "yes, religious birthright etc is an important factor" seems wholy inappropriate - are ethnic Jews predisposed to being psychopaths?) The article makes no mention that he was white, had a beard or was a Northerner in the opening introduction.
• Am I being oversensiticve here ? Possibly, but it is for each minority group to decide whether racist/antisemitic/stereotyping is causing offense or not.

I'm holding back from re-reverting (following

Which article are you referring to, and what is the point in this message? JFW | T@lk 13:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a legitimate interest in Kaiser Permanente and should therefore be informed that I have called an RFC on it and on User:Pansophia. Please comment or otherwise join in. Midgley 16:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. JFW | T@lk 13:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - have seen you around on lots of first aid related articles, thought this might be something you'd be interested in (see

Hello Dr. Wolff: I have just placed the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 09:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not every AFD is deletionism. I agree that the Zichron Kedoshim article should have been deleted - individual shuls and congregations are usually not notable. JFW | T@lk 13:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jfdwolff, please read this section closely and make any comments you think appropriate under the "comment by parties" headings: RFA Cesar Tort, Ombudsman proposed findings of fact. Joema 17:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've voted on

I've edit warred enough with RK. He lacks the collaborative skills to edit the controversial topics he is so interested in.

It is up to others to explain that his style is essentially unchanged and that it creates massive NPOV problems. He also needs to understand that long inline quotes are now prohibited by content guidelines unless intrinsic part of an article (e.g. the first paragraph's of "I have a dream" by Dr. M.L. King Jr).

As you may have noticed I have significantly changed my approach to Wikipedia. I refuse to become a major party in huge NPOV/balance conflicts, and have deleted my complete watchlist partially for this reason. In the absence of a form of content arbitration, we will have edit wars until policy is changed. I need only point out that POV pushers go essentially unpunished with the present ArbComm sitting. JFW | T@lk 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a query on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. If you find the time, could you take a look? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. I responded with a brief history and current status of the category, and a request for suggestions on how to proceed. —Viriditas | Talk 00:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. I'll make a note over there.—Viriditas | Talk 12:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to invite discussion, I've added an entry to

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies. —Viriditas | Talk 21:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Haredi rabbis
2. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Religious Zionist Orthodox rabbis
3. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Contemporary Orthodox rabbis
4. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 24#Category:Modern Orthodox rabbis

Thank you and Shabbat Shalom! IZAK 12:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you vote?

Hello Dr, Wolff, looks like you may have voted on this, but you were NOT logged in, so all that shows is an IP address. You may want to go back and correct that. Kol Tuv. IZAK 14:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Wolff

This is what you posted to me:

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry for removing your external links to heart-beats.org, but I have my doubts whether this link is appropriate according to the Wikipedia external links policy. Support groups and/or forums are not typically notable enough to qualify for inclusion in links sections, especially when the information offered on their sites is not authoratitive, the number of participants is small etc.

You are most welcome to contribute original content to Wikipedia, which would be much welcomed. JFW | T@lk 13:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Unclfester""

I'm sorry for your removing the link too, along with appalled. I've perused the external link policy, and the only thing I can find objectionable in my placing the link is that I "own" the site. In this case, of course, owning it means only that I pay for it. I derive no financial benefit from Heart-Beats.org, and I can't see that I ever will. I'm not a raging egomaniac; other than in the Forums we host, where our members disuss the issues that concern us, my name is nowhere on the site. I am very simply a heart transplant patient, who along with a few other patients, has put together a site. While it's true that the site is new, it is being presented within a number of venues to a worldwide audience with the *sole* purpose of providing resource and support for people the world over who need those very things. We are adding resources as we're able, in all of our area, and we have no polotical, monetary, or religeous agenda of any kind, other than to reach out to those people we might be able to help.

I'm sure that Wikipedia does not wish to be overly burdened with outside links that provide no benefit to it's readers. None of these pages were so burdened, though, and this is a service, offered at no charge to anyone on this planet, which *can* provide something of great worth to people. I would have benefitted greatly from something like this when I was waiting for a heart, and I know any number of people who already are deriving that benefit. The links that we post are vetted and appropriate, and when we have something of a specific medical nature, such as an article, posted in our forums, it *is* authoritave, by virtue of having been vetted by a physician specializing in Cardiac Transplant medicine.

I'll be interested in your reply. Any future content I might provide is, until then, a matter of conjecture. I have to say that it's more than a little discouraging to post something intended to help people - something that does not exist yet on that page - only to see that help removed, on the grounds that it's small and not authoratitive. It seems to me that few groups can be more authoratitive about certain aspects of these procedures than a group of people who have lived it. If it's true that Heart-Beats.org doesn't belong as an external link in the very specific areas I had placed it, then I see that as a great shame. I find it intruguing that, on the Organ Transplant page, there's room for a special section for websites which object to the selling of organs, and no room for websites trying to the best of their ability to provide resources and emotional support the very patients dying for want of those transplants. I can't say that I see that as a terribly positive thing.

Best Regards,

Steven Foster [email protected] Steve 22:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thank you for the courtesy of your reply. I have a few points to make in response, though at this point I admit that they're likely to be moot points; it seems that no matter the discourse between us, the link will not be allowed to remain.

In your reply, you used the phrase "even if a small group of people may eventually benefit from it". It seems to me that would have more meaning on a page entitled "Surgery". On a page entitled "Organ Transplant", however, I would think that the number of people who might benefit from such a link relative to the total number of visitors to the page would be proportionately higher. A small point, perhaps, but it makes sense to me.

In response to your statement that Heart-Beats.org is American and aimed at Americans: First, as I pointed out in my original response to you, Heart-Beats.org is intended to be nothing less than *worldwide*; that, in fact, was one of the original reasons for its founding. It’s true that we're new, and it’s also true that the majority of the people who began the site are citizens of the United States; however we're working with people in other countries to add resources as we're able. I'd like things to be progressing at a quicker clip, certainly, but almost everyone involved in this project, regardless of nationality, is disabled, and it takes a bit of time.

You've asked me to avoid labeling your actions as "appalling", and not to be disappointed by the removal of the link. I wish I could *not* feel that disappointment, but that's not possible. While I'm perfectly aware that, as you point out, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it strikes me that the first goal of an educational tool should be to help. Had I posted a lengthy missive in the midst of another person's article, I might better agree with your position. I did not; I simply posted a link, and while you're doubtless correct in saying that many other users would agree with your assessment, their agreement does not automatically make that assessment any less disagreeable to me. I 'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not saying that you have anything less than fine motives, but I remain appalled; I find it a pity, and not just a bit ironic, that on a page dealing with Organ Transplantation, the voice of the very people to whom that phrase most applies remains unrepresented and is not permitted. I agree that an encyclopedia is a place for education and facts. It simply seems to me that there is a place, particularly in a section for external links, for somewhat of a fuller picture.

Thank you for your good wishes. Despite our continuing difference, I trust you'll accept mine on your behalf, as well. Steve 22:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It’s good to hear from you again. Despite our disagreement on this particular issue - and how boring it would be if everyone agreed all the time - it's a pleasure to correspond with you. Thanks for your suggestion; I'll do that on the individual pages as soon as I have the chance (disabled with three kids makes for an interesting day at times). I trust this finds both you and yours doing well Steve 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for signing on - I'm the foolhardy fellow who kicked it off - as you will be aware, there is just so much to do.....Best regards, --Smerus 12:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#recent_changes I am concerned that

Hello Dr. Wolff: Please encourage new User:Jewish to change his user name, see User talk:Jewish#Problem with your user name. Thank you. IZAK 16:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFW, was thinking about starting this for a bit. I'd appreciate your assistance. Please check out

These edits certianly seemed at best ill-thought out, and assuming good faith, I had a look at some of the other contributions from past weeks which all seemed to be sensible wikifying, adding of cross links etc. I've left the user a message on their talk page User talk:Mac, but this all seemed rather odd. David Ruben ^Talk 00:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore most of above - I've engaged in some useful dialogue - user seems positive assset to Wp and just had a bad edit day - partly also that terminology Spain/US/UK for midwives and nursing staff on gynaecology wards is different.David Ruben ^Talk 01:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I based on the template on the Toronto Notes 2005 (

I changed the name of the template to Oral antidiabetic drugs and removed the biguanides that aren't on the market any more. I'm inclined to remove the sulfonylureas you added, as I have the impression they are widely used (at least here). Nephron  T|C 00:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the Scope on Wikiproject Gastroenterology! Very punny! Indeed, it was the punny choice for my user name -- Samir धर्म 09:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]