This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Apology
I just read that your line is medicine as doctor. I am a lawyer and I have no background even in biology and medicine. So, in utter good faith, I EDITED and added Filipino News about a thing which prevents heart attacks, linking one URL news to 3 articles; my fault, so I beg your understanding. Thanks. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 14:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Arguing against a strawman
You have repeatedly justified edits on the basis on outright misrepresentations of my position, even after I have made multiple attempts to inform you of your error. If you cannot presents arguments against my actual position, rather than a position that you made up, then reverting my edits is highly inappropriate.Heqwm (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be more helpful if you were clearer about your position so it is not open to "misrepresentation". What you have been doing is confuse argument with incivility (as repeatedly done on Talk:Ten Commandments). Myself and Jon513 have been trying to explain that you are trying to advance a view that is "non-standard" at best, as substantiated by several sources. You seem to think that your view is "plain reading" of the Bible, but clearly 3000 years of Biblical scholars disagree.
If you are unhappy, simply place a
request for comments. This will attract other users to the debate and may settle matters. Otherwise I will patiently await the sources I've been asking for. JFW | T@lk
06:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I said "Disputing an assertion DOES NOT CONSTITUTE presuming the reverse". I said "And I have said, again and again and again, that I am not saying that." And that's not clear enough for you? I'm sorry, any normal person with basic English skills, when told "I am not saying that", will conclude that the person is not saying that. If that's not clear enough for you, you should take that en-4 box off your page. I haven't been confusing argument with incivility. Making up positions for other people is not "argument". What, exactly, is the "nonstandard" view that I am trying to advance? YOU are the one declaring your position to be "plain reading". Why in the world are you waiting for me to produce sources when YOU are the one making the claim? Are you completely unfamiliar with how WP works? And BTW, "myself" is a reflexive pronoun. The subjective pronoun is "I".Heqwm (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I asked you to outline your positions, not
attack me
. If you want me to take your position seriously, do not do it injustice by insulting and SHOUTING.
In the discussion, Jon513 and myself have provided evidence that your reading of Exodus 34 is not in keeping with most traditional interpretations. Please discuss in a constructive tone, on Talk:Ten Commandments, what you want. JFW | T@lk 09:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For protecting medical articles, ensuring they adhere to a high standard of credibility, and for maintaining the integrity of wikipedia, I'm awarding yon Wolff a barnstar, thus. Yoicks! WLU (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Defend the wiki! Lupus erythematosus EL spams again! I'm really starting to think about doing just vandalism reverts. WLU (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
talk
) 08:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
maze and minimaze and AF
I left you a message on my talk page. jamesmcclelland (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm also interested in adding an actual Cox maze page in addition to the minimaze one, but this can't be done until the minimaze page gets renamed back to minimaze (from maze). Do you know how to expedite this? I see that you have commented on the minimaze talk page about this issue but you may have misunderstood me and DLodge - we've agreed that it should revert to minimaze, but apparently there are two ways to do it, by "moving" it (which I could do, but it apparently eliminates the edit history) or by renaming it, which requires someone at wikipedia with higher authorization (if I understand DLodge correctly).
This has been rather frustrating, this issue of correcting the page name has gone on for more than one year. Thanks.jamesmcclelland (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Moving is the only way of getting a page to an alternate title. Copying and pasting to a newly created page is discouraged, because it confuses the edit history. I have now moved the principal page to minimaze procedure and have created a stub at Cox maze procedure that could be expanded. The page maze procedure is now a disambiguation page. JFW | T@lk 07:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks loads. Much better. I'll commmit to adding to the Cox maze page.jamesmcclelland (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Judaism
Would you be able to drop me a line at [EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED] please? DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 01:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Anaphylactic Purpura as a pre-cursur to SLE or other autoimmune disease
Hello, I am an MT(ASCP) in the the U.S. and have a daughter (age 12) who has been diagnosed with Henoch-Schönlein purpura. She has bouts with it on and off but with each new onset, seems to get worse. Last time she had kidney pain and worsening spots on her legs moving up her legs in increased numbers. We are going in for BUN, Creat, CBC, PT, APTT and other testing today.
My question is this. Her father has Psoraitic Arthritis and rheumatoid disease runs rampant in that family. Is it possible that my daughter may be in line for SLE? I have a friend whose daughter had Henoch-Schönlein purpura at age 10 and now battles SLE in her 20's/30's. I couldn't figure out how to email you directly and my daughters physician does not seem to be an expert with this group of diseases and has not referred us to a rheumatologist but not sure if it's necessary. Thank you, Tami R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.106.199 (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I am not an expert in paediatric rheumatology, and my work on the HSP article is based purely on the references that I've used rather than clinical experience with the condition. I am also generally not given to dispensing medical advice on the internet. If you have specific questions on your daughter's health, I believe her physician is the best person to address these, as he/she will have the results of immunological studies (e.g. ANA/anti-dsDNA/ENA, antiphospholipid antibodies), biopsy results (if available) and may be willing to discuss the matter with an expert.
I am aware of some genetic links between lupus and rheumatoid arthritis as recently demonstrated (PMID 17804842), but otherwise I'm not sure how strong the link is between lupus and previous HSP. Best of luck. JFW | T@lk 17:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
talk
) 08:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Natalizumab
Is it just me or is Natalizumab a really weird page? I removed the 'brief summary' sections ('cause they're not brief and they're stuffed with quotes) and was reverted. Don't know much about the page and you've edited, so wondering what you think.
Also, is there guidance regards the use of "Natalizumab (Tysabri)" versus just "Natalizumab"? I think the brackets are unnecessary, and don't they usually point to a brand name rather than generic (my reason for removing, I see it as a type of spam). I checked MEDMOS briefly, but didn't find anything. Will have a closer look. WLU (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Because I found nothing in the archives of Talk:MEDMOS, I've brought this up
there, so there should be a more centralized discussion. Thanks, WLU (talk
) 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This is more something for
WP:PHARM, but I prefer to stick with the generic name of a drug as much as possible (see sildenafil) and only mention the brand name when necessary for context. The names of drugs are carefully chosen to reflect their use or effect (e.g. Tamiflu for oseltamivir, Tracleer for bosentan
), and technically become a marketing gimmick.
I'm concerned about the debate on a medical page, which is why I went for MEDMOS. Would WP:PHARM trump that? Should I post notice over there? WLU (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I would certainly notify
WP:PHARM of the debate. There may be some fresh views from that neck of the woods. JFW | T@lk
07:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sézary's disease
Hi JFD, i'm trying to expand upon
Sézary's disease and as such am trying to find an image relating to it (perhaps something regarding erythroderma or lymphadenopathy?) and was wondering you had anything to contribute with? Regards, CycloneNimrod (talk
) 17:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You have an interesting choice of subjects! I have no access to large amounts of public domain medical images. Perhaps MastCell (talk·contribs) might be able to help, as I am presently caring for anyone with Sézary.
I think there is a great dearth of good free medical images for use in Wikipedia. In the past I used my digital camera and got patients' verbal permission, but I've become more paranoid and would now be hesitant to do so. I am still looking for clarification on the intellectual property status of X-rays and CT scans. JFW | T@lk 20:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether that is supposed to be a compliment or not! I find all medicine interesting, so I simply find a condition in the books that I own and search it on Wikipedia. If it isn't on here in detail, I try to expand it.
I'll get in touch with MastCell, see if he can help. I appreciate you don't have that many images, I just thought it was worth a shot ;) Thanks again, CycloneNimrod (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It was a compliment, not to worry! Many of the articles you've worked on had never made it onto my Wikipedia radar. I personally started off with rare and somewhat esoteric subjects initially, only attacking the more common conditions when I had found the confidence. JFW | T@lk 21:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah that's okay then ;) At least I know i'm on the right track! I do occasionally make small edits to the larger articles, it's just your in the public eye a lot more if you make a mistake! CycloneNimrod (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Contact
I thought I left you a note here. Likely didn't. I left a comment on cabala discussion page, thread Kabbalah. You had commented that Kabbalah means different things to different folks and I replied. Please consider establishing contact with me [EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED] or on Cabala talk page. Thanks Johnshoemaker (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You hadn't left a message here. You are free to email me, although I prefer to keep discussions about Wikipedia content on-wiki unless the subject is sensitive. JFW | T@lk 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll go to Cabala-talk to see if we are in contact there. In short there appears to be a cabal of WP editors who instantly remove any of my mentions of the use of the word cabala by Carlo Suarez. Suarez is the only one I've found who delivers the Hieroglyphyic values of the Aleph-Tav. After 26 years of applying his values to Torah it has occurred to me that the popular, public use of the words cabala in all its spellings is to obscure the understanding of Torah that comes from understanding the Aleph-Tav. The cabal has hidden any use of cabala(in its various leavenings) that are not mystical(beyond the intellect.) History indicates that this hiding has existed as long as Torah has existed. It is just more blatent here on WP. Please consider going to my talk page and help me to communicate with the ones who instantly hide Suarez. They ignore my attempts to contact them. The thought occurs that this attack is for the purpose of drawing attention to Suarez. His values agree with all dictionarys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnshoemaker (talk • contribs) 04:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
My first note to you was in WP Talk: WikeProject Judaism /thread--Kabbalah. My user talk page shows the problem best.Johnshoemaker (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no in-depth experience in Kabbalah. The Talmud is good enough until I'm older. I have no idea who Carlo Suarez is, and I tend to be a bit suspicious if one person's views are seen to be important enough to displace an entire body of thought, especially when there are allegations of a cover-up as old as time itself.
If you want me to get involved as an outside editor, you will need to provide an honest summary of the debate (e.g. on what ground are Suarez' views removed by the "cabal") and probably a few diffs. JFW | T@lk 12:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jfd, Just discovered that you didn't reply to an edit to WP: Religion section on "cabal." The following dialogue was on WP Project Judaism.
You wrote: "The problem, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, is that Kabbalah means different things to different people. Many seem to think that Kabbalah is the same as Occultism, which is a mistake. Others mistake it for Mysticism, which it is to a certain degree but not alone. When dealing with articles in a bad shape I would start by finding good sources. Sadly, there are not many Jewish sources in English that offer an accessible and systematic approach to Kabbalah; some of Aryeh Kaplan's works? JFW | T@lk 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I wrote: "Yes, different things for different people; like the word "God" or "peace." In Carlo Suarez's CIPHER OF GENESIS he claims that the Aleph-Tav are Hieroglyphs, spiritual glyphs(spirit = non-material part of man-- intuition, inbtellect). He uses the term cabala to define this knowledge system and its use. He gives the values of the Hieroglyphs. It is not "beyond the intellect", mystical. In late '65 or '66 I read an article in the Sunday supplement to the NYT which held that a Jewish male over 40 who had memorized Torah and read all of Talmud and other writings could apply to be taught the significance of each "letter" of the Aleph-Tav: if he promised not to speak of this until he was 50. Suarez writes that the 40 and 50 indicate Mem and Noun, not age Mem is a period of formation. In the New Testament the Pharisees are written to have said to Jesus, "why are you talking of these things and you are not yet 50?" Carlo writes that there was an "opening of cabala" in the '60s(now closed). He thought physicists would be most likely to find interest in the formulas of Hieroglyphs in Torah. As a Physics graduate student at the time it made perfect sense. We, by consensus, use well defined symbols. We are trained to "feel" formulas of these symbols. By chance I was forty when CYPHER OF GENESIS found me. I am reasonably certain that there are editors who will not instantly forbid a page termed Carlo Suarez Cabala. I am hoping you're one.Johnshoemaker (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Tonight: A few minutes ago when I thought you had replied to WP: Religion section on "cabal" I interspersed replys to phrases in your reply:
"I have no in-depth experience in Kabbalah. The Talmud is good enough until I'm older."
-=-= Over 40?-=-=
I have no idea who Carlo Suarez is, and I tend to be a bit suspicious if one person's views are seen to be important enough to displace an entire body of thought,
-=-=I'll expand on CYPHER OF GENESIS if requested. What body of thought would be displaced by learning the Hieroglyphs in which Torah is embodied. The stories about Torah are as garments. Knowing the definitions of the Aleph-Tav will only temporarily displace the garments from the body of Torah.-=-=
especially when there are allegations of a cover-up as old as time itself.
-=-= Time is a concept invented by men. My first noting of the "cover up" was by the Jewish writers of the NT who attributed this to the Pharisees: "Why are you speaking of these things and you are not yet 50? This was attributed to "Jesus." Which is possibly a term for the "school" of Rabbis who disagreed with accenting ceremonies without explaining the spiritual values allegorically represented by the ceremonies.
My first note of the use of the term "cabal" was in late Middle Ages literature that implied a secret meeting of Jewish thinkers for the purpose of keeping secrets. My next noting was when I attempted to discuss the definitions of the Hieroglyphs and saw that mention of Suarez was instantly deleted. Then I found mention of a WP cabal on WikeMedia. It was humorous and I erred in thinking I'd met you there.-=-=
If you want me to get involved as an outside editor, you will need to provide an honest summary of the debate (e.g. on what ground are Suarez' views removed by the "cabal") and probably a few diffs
-=-=There is no debate. The four editors who instantly deleted mention of Suarez or a use of the word "cabala" that is not "above the intellect" will not communicate with me. Their ID is on my talk page. From looking at their interests I feel they are blocking pawns and haven't been tasked with debating whether the Aleph- Tav have spiritual values.
More interesting to me would be your opinion of the possibility of the Hieroglyphic nature of Torah and whether you might be interested in learning them.Johnshoemaker (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please keep your comments brief, and avoid dissecting my every response ("
fisking
"). Wikipedia is an attempt to write a free encyclopedia. If you want to write about Carlo Suarez and his views, you will need to demonstrate that he and these views are notable. You have not done this, and a quick glance on Google only tells me that he has written a book suggesting that Gematria has Egyptian origins or something along those lines. That is fascinating, but unless these writings have attracted a notable school of thought I would not think that his thought is necessarily suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia.
I will let you know when I have started learning Kabbalah. Given that you do not know how old I am, there is little point in speculating as to whether this will be before or after my 40th birthday. Your references to a
deletion review. Just to warn you, users who refer to the existence of a cabal on Wikipedia tend not to get taken very seriously, irrespective of the force of your argument. JFW | T@lk
20:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"More interesting to me would be your opinion of the possibility of the Hieroglyphic nature of Torah and whether you might be interested in learning them.Johnshoemaker (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)"
To keep comments brief I have vivisected your comment: "I will let you know when I have started learning Kabbalah."
Am I to understand that you have no opinion of the Hieroglyhic nature of Torah or refuse to discuss it with me or that you have been taught to ignore any non-establishment explanations of the definitions? There is a tendency of some political, editing powers to take seriously any mention of the cabal within WP. Can you think of a more necessary, challenging, interesting locale for it? Possibly Suarez associated Gemantria and Egypt. He placed no value on Gemantria as I remember. Please, briefly, remind me about Gemantria. Is this the scheme in which the cypher values of glyphs, embodying words are added that "correspondances" are found between two words whose cypher total are equal? It is more likely that no-one will find Suarez notable if they haven't noted his definitions of the Aleph-Tav and WP continues to wipe out any note of his work. Please feel free to vivisect my notes and respond to exactly which phrase enlivens you. Johnshoemaker (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether I find Suarez' opinions interesting is not important. If find your comments on "being taught to ignore non-establishment explanations" a bit on the rude side. I've been trying to offer constructive comments. When I refer to notability, I mean the
reliable
secondary sources is of the essence. Otherwise there is no way of knowing.
If you want to work on an article, but presently find it hard to demonstrate notability, consider using
your userspace to prepare content, which can be moved to the main namespace when it is ready for prime time. JFW | T@lk
07:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
JS wrote: “Am I to understand that you have no opinion of the Hieroglyphic nature of Torah or refuse to discuss it with me or that you have been taught to ignore any non-establishment explanations of the definitions?” You had not replied to my question of your opinion of the possibility of the Hieroglyphic nature of Torah or your interest in those of Suarez and those of us who have espoused them..
"I'll let you know when I have begun to study Kabblah." Please indicate how I can avoid the implicaton that your decision to not give an opinion or learn something about "Kabbalah" before you are old enough to study it was not due to training.
The definition of Aleph, One, is “training”. We are all subject to and created by training. Please show me how I could have worded this one reason for your lack of reply so as not to be perceived as “rude.” Note that I didn't suggest, as posible reason, a conservative curiosity.
Would you be interested in learning the Hieroglyphic values of Waw 6 and Baht 2 derived from Heb/English dictionaries (they agree with Suarez)?
JS first note to you: “I am reasonably certain that there are editors who will not instantly forbid a page termed Carlo Suarez Cabala. I am hoping you're one;”
You referred me to: reliable secondary sources are of the essence.
You note above that you found an article that said that Suarez wrote that Gementria came from Egypt. May I assume that you feel you have glimpsed at the essence of Suarez and are in agreement with the editors who have tagged any comment on Suarez for instant deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnshoemaker (talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am not sure what difference it would make if I gave you my personal opinion on the "Hieroglyphic nature of the Torah". I would assume that you have approached me for help with Wikipedia, not to listen to my inspired wisdom. I am fairly traditionalist, and believe that the Torah was written in a Semitic language and transmitted by a Semitic people who had lived in Egypt for several hundred years. That seems to contradict hieroglyphs.
I am not a formal student of Kabbalah, although I am certainly aware of many of its tenets from the study of works that draw on it. I hope this answers your question.
The secondary source I found was someone's private website, hardly a
reliable source
. Google results have not given me the impression that Suarez' work has left a major impact. But Google is not always a barometer of notability.
I think you should not create an article called Carlo Suarez Cabala. Rather, you could try a short biography of Suarez with a section on his Kabbalistic thought and his bibliography. Provided this asserts his notability, it is more likely to survive than an article that credits him with an entire school of thought. JFW | T@lk 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You have offered helpful WP suggestions. Jewish thinkers are rare in Mississipi and I am interested in your opinion of whether each of the Aleph-Tav have a definition. The difference it would make, if you expressed your opinion on the possibility, is that we could then forget the topic if your opinion is that there is no possibility or share our definitions if you accept the possibility.
Could you help me find Egyptian or Mesotamian literature that bears evidence of a “Hebrew” people? Apiru is the only search term I have found that addresses the question. Archaeology, Philology offers no base documents for Tanach writings that predate 500BCE.
The allegorical significance of the garment wrapped about Torah concerning the march thru YM SWF was explained in an article on chabad.org/library in ’00 “Picture Egypt as the head and the Holy Land as the body. Picture the Red Sea as a restriction, or neck(contains voice box) between them. The head is enslaved to its addictions; the internal dialogue about them is reflected from the Red Sea. The body suffers the bated-breath, heart-rate and intestinal turmoil created by the slavery dialogue.” The goal is to re-connect the head and body. Latin re-ligion means re-connection. Ligaments-sinews connect members of the body with the mind.
My Koren Publishers Jerusalem Torah has a map that shows the journey from Succoth to Baal Zephon to be to the Mediterranean. Tanach says “the sea.” At ASK A RABBI I was unable to find someone with that specific Torah. Likely the map is Talmudic. The Talmud left the museum here in the hometown of the Imperial Wizard before I could look. The bricks of the burned sanctuary were given to two Negro churches under construction. Please consider asking a Talmud scholar if they have seen such a map. The implication is that subsequent references to “Moses brought us through the Red Sea” are allegorical.
The following reasons were given for deletion: "This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent"; "Hi, the recent edit you made to Kabbalah has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive" These editors did not read it; deletion was instant. They will not communicate and refuse to point to one incoherent phrase. Will you look at its few paragraphs?
“Kabbalah means different things to different people” You mentioned that it wasn’t only mystical. I attempted to create a Non-mystical Kabbalah. It was instantly deleted. The disambiguation page for cabala does not have a non-mystical channel. The effect is to exclude any consideration of uses of the words derived from Qof Baht Lammed Hay that are —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnshoemaker (talk • contribs) 03:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The letters Aleph-Tav are clearly similar to other alphabets found in the Middle East. Older kabbalistic works (e.g. Sepher Yetzira) state that the Hebrew alphabet predated creation, and was used to create the world. The whole connection with hieroglyphics has a number of problems.
I am really unsure why you are referring to the journey of the Jews from Egypt to the Holy Land. Much of this is immediately derived from the Scriptural text. For instance, they did not transverse the coastal plane as that would lead to confrontation with the Philistines (Exodus 13). The names of the places where the people camped, many of them not otherwise identified, are listed in Numbers 33. Later sources identify the places that can readily be pinpointed (e.g. Mount Nebo being "opposite Jericho") and extrapolate from there. But what has this to do with hieroglyphs?
To go back to your work being deleted, I think I have explained in sufficient detail why this may have happened. You have clearly read a lot on the subject but you need to phrase your material in a way that readers can comprehend, and in a way that readily shows the reader why it might be important. I think I have also demonstrated the need for sources that support claims of notability. Without this, even the most fascinating stream of thought remains
original research and unsuitable for inclusion in a general-purpose free encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk
08:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Alphabets, Alpha Beta, Aleph Baht, refer to sonic signs that have no inherent meaning. Aleph-Tav is the label for the symbols as Spiritual glyphs. For a reader to comprehend what is a Spiritual Glyph one must experience one. Waw, the sixth is the mental ability to fertilize one concept with another. In a Heb/English dictionary Waw is first given as ‘and.” Reviewing Torah you will see this in the first verse of BRASYT. Gasoline and motor and wheels and map and destination and caffeine…. Waw is an ability in the human intellect. Animals do not have it. It is an element of the human spirit(non-material part of man).
I find no indication that any other alphabet of sonic signs has a spiritual component. My research of Suarez indicates this was not original research with him. Someone explained the system to him and he wrote Cypher of Genesis, Sepher Yetzirah and Song of Songs. Three books in which he used what was revealed to him. He mentions that Yetzirah has the word Abraham. There is little if any evidence that the original much predates Leon’s Zohar. Instead of arguing of the scientific need to respect archaeological verification of sources let me offer that the “creation” by the Yetzirah is allegorical and refers to “written creation” It appears to me that Yetzirah was written at the same time that the Aleph-Tav scheme was devised. You mention a number of problems connection Aleph-Tav with hieroglyphs(no capital). Do we have a problem with Waw?
I mentioned “the journey of the Jews from Egypt” to show you that sites that respect cabala, or the intellect attribute allegorical significance to the stories, garments wrapped around Torah. They are not physical history. I gave you the best example how this story of escape is allegorically valuable as a healing for each individual who has not escaped the slavery to the internal dialogue. Allegorically “the Holy Land” is the body and each of us can only live there if one isn’t captured by that business up there and the wordiness that ensues in the restriction between. I mentioned it cause you wrote you believed in a physical happening so I gave a spiritual allegory I found on chabad.org/library.
Scriptual text primarily comes from the Septuagint mythically ordered by Ptolemy in 290BCE. The myth that 72 Jews came to 72 separate rooms in Alexandria and emerged 6 weeks later with perfectly identical translations of Torah into Greek is designed to make the thinker think of the possibility of that-----0. The spiritual body of Torah cannot be put into Greek stories or any spoken language.
Today, there is a peninsula a little East of Suez, in Egypt. The picture in my Torah places Baal Zephon at its northern edge. Succoth Ethem etc. make a straight line there. Torah, “translations’ do not mention Red Sea of YM SWP. No Philistines there; an Egyptian lighthouse. To the East today as likely then is a thin ridge of coral? That bends back to Egypt in a few miles. Look on a globe or map. A strong west wind would bare the ridge and the returning wave would be sudden. What I am suggesting is that there is more to learn. If the pictures in your Tanach don’t include that one I’ll try to copy it for you and you can ask someone about it.
Readers who don’t apply themselves as you have might not comprehend “Spiritual glyphs” Perhaps you would help. There are 954 references to Suarez on Yahoo. Interesting because there are 9 Hieroglyphs such as Waw. More notable would be your appreciation of the revelation of Waw, which passed thru Suarez and consider revealing them to others.Johnshoemaker (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
John, I am not planning to start familiarising myself with everything Suarez has written. Much of what you have told me above completely lacks context; to the average reader Vav is just one of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Again, however relevant these observations are to yourself, you will need to show that they are notable in other ways before adding them to Wikipedia. I have suggested creating a page on Suarez in a way that asserts his notability, and discussing his most prominent ideas there. Now unless you can do this, I have very little else to tell you. JFW | T@lk 08:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jfd,You have been patient. Suarez's bibliography of ~~18 books will help when I invite people to my talk page on him.
"to the average reader Vav is just one of the 22 letters" - My writing was to you and I trust you understood and accept the Hieroglyphic nature of Torah. I feel it is better to write a little above the usual intellectual fare of the average reader(not you) than to tell him cabala is completely above the intellect. I just then imagined you already knew of Waw. One day I hope you can laugh with me about my naivete. Thanks again.Johnshoemaker (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. Let me know if further help is needed. JFW | T@lk 11:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
ACTH stimulation test
Any chance that you can give ACTH stimulation test some badly needed attention? My attempts have pretty much failed;
some of your other work indicates you may have better luck. And best I can tell the entry may be worth saving. 9Nak (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It is indeed in need of help. I can't do it now, but this review (Ann Intern Med 2002) sounds like an excellent source. JFW | T@lk 09:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank You
Thank you JFW for getting involved with the Afd at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype. The material was way above my head. If you need a computer updated or your taxes done, I am your man. However, this article is completely out of my scope. Again, I appreciate your expertise and knowledge in this area. Sorry to say, (or in my case HAPPY to say) I now hand this off to you. Shoessss | Chat 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Even if the article doesn't make sense, it is clear that Chriscohen is forking Y-chromosomal Aaron because on the main article he wasn't getting his way. JFW | T@lk 23:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as of right now, it seems he is getting his way; all 3 other editors have run out of reverts. Don't suppose you'd be prepared to do the honours?
Also, something odd has happened to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype. It seems to have got duplicated on the talk page. Did you mean to add your !vote to the talk page, or should it have gone into the actual AfD itself ? Cheers, Jheald (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I was hoping you would resolve the issue. Nevertheless, you dragged me kicking and screaming back into the situation. I reverted the edits. Moreover, sorry to say yes, I placed the Afd page into the discussion area, I thought it wa only the comments. It was late, I was tired and I was hoping to move the discussion off the Afd to a more amendable place. However, it seems that did not work a 100%. Never the less, thanks for your help. I do appreciate any help or insight you can give in this matter. Hopefully this is not the last time I see you. Shoessss | Chat 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Rabbis
You made a false statement Orthodox Judaism has always existed, non-Orthodox branches of Judaism with the exception of the karaites date to the 1800's, as such there is no doubt he was doubt he was Orthodox, especially since he believed halacha cannot be changed for the times, fitting the definition of Orthodoxy. The term Orthodox was created by the Reform Jews as a form of an insult. Thus since Orthodoxy is by definition following halacha and not believing it can be changed there is no way Maimonides would not be Orthodox. No reputable (even secular) Jewish historian would ever think that Maimonides was not Orthodox. Moses followed Orthodox Judaism, as did Abraham, David etc. because there was only one type of Judaism at the time. The same holds true for Maimonides. The term Orthodox, as I said earlier was first used by the Reform branch to describe Jews who instited on keeping the laws given to them at Mount Sinai--Java7837 (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure who to ask about this - I saw you removed Provenzano from the Notable Nephrology list, so I'm asking you. I was curious as to Scspit's other contributions and there is an entire Provenzano article which seems to be his CV. I'm not totally familiar with the rules of biography but this seems out of step with other wikipedia articles in part or in total.BillpSea (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Provenzano may be a nephrologist, but he is not more notable than any other professor of nephrology (of whom there are hundreds). I don't think his article should be deleted, as he passes
WP:PROF
, but it needs rephrasing to sound more NPOV.
Scspit is clearly associated with SCSP.net (probably its IT staff), so any links to that site should be regarded as
Hey, thanks for your message. I've been quite busy for the last few months but Im around and still contributing! Heather 10:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Glitzy_queen00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glitzy queen00 (talk • contribs)
MEDMOS
Given the lack of goodwill on the talk page, Paul's "Rv. All changes to the guidelines should be first discussed on the Talk page" wasn't that unreasonable. Your revert back to WLU's change (one aspect of which Sandy liked, but it received no other comments) seems to have annoyed Paul to the extent that he's thrown the baby out with the bathwater -- reverting the entire addition. For the sake of peace, I've reverted back to Paul's earlier discussed edit (as I think WLU is more likely to accept the lost of his edits, and he's on wikibreak now anyway). I was very reluctant to edit or revert at all, but I think Paul's second rv was just disruptive. Page protection? Colin°Talk 22:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Paul has made no attempt to contribute to a consensus. Instead he has been wikilawyering. I am completely beyond caring and was hoping that some
WP:IAR was going to restore the peace. Clearly that didn't happen. I am inclined to take your advice and leave the debate completely until the skies have cleared. JFW | T@lk
22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In case you unwatched that page, OrangeMarlin has created a new discussion on Medical devices, which you might be interested in joining. Colin°Talk 18:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no watchlist (it caused neurosis maligna wikificans), but I'll have a look & see. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I AM ASKING YOU:R U CELEBRATING PURIM? Y? UPON BIBLE IN THIS DAY MORE THAN 75000 HUMAN WERE SACRIFICED, WITHOUT ANY TRIAL, WITHOUT ANY SIN. U KILLED A NATION THAT HAD ACCEPTED U AS AN ASYLUM SEEKER. GENOCIDE HAS A FESTIVAL AND HAPPINESS? WHAT ABOUT The Holocaust?
You are making a grave mistake if you think you can make these kind of comments. If you are referring to the Book of Esther: it is obvious that it is talking about self-defense. Your comments in no way justify the placement of the simply abhorrent YouTube link on Purim. I suggest you strongly reconsider your attitude, because you risk banning from the English Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
IN WHICH COURT OR TRIAL IT IS PROVED THAT ALL OF THOSE 75000 PEOPLE WERE CONVICTED CRIMINAL THAT U R TELLING ME SELF DEFENSE?
KEEP YOUR HORSE, DO NOT THREATEN ME TO BANNED OR SELF DEFENSE!zandweb (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to discuss the Book of Esther with you. You seem to have made up your mind. I am more concerned about your posting of links to antisemitic videos. When I asked you to clarify, you started a tirade in ALL CAPS. If anything is unclear to you please do not hesitate to ask and avoid misunderstanding. JFW | T@lk 01:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:MRC_logo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to
here
.
Please go to
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Fine, delete it then. JFW | T@lk 06:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have a minute free
Hi JFW, based on this comment about stethoscope in January, I've started updating the WPMED project importance scale. Since practically every medical condition and treatment has "international notability," the usual rules seem inadequate. Would you take a look at this draft and let me know what you think? I'd like someone to do a sanity check before I propose it at the assessment talk page. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Responding on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 06:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Natalizumab - Deletion of whole Sections
Hi ......I have just noticed, and I am very unhappy with the wholesale edits that WLU has made in Natalizumab, for reasons explained on the Discussion page, including concerns expressed by others several months prior as to the lop-sided nature of the page. I refer to the Deletion of whole Sections, allegedly in the interests of "formatting", as well as the highly inaccurate annotation of his Edits in the Wiki-History. Well, WLU has referenced you as someone he consulted, and I would ask that you look at the Natalizumab Discussion page to see what we both have to say.io-io (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I was not consulted on the specific issue of the "Brief Summary" section, but I think WLU has taken the right decision. I will continue to monitor the page. Please make it clear on the talkpage how you would like to see the page changed, keeping in mind Wikipedia content guidelines that demand the page to be
supported by primary or secondary sources. JFW | T@lk
00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think he has made the "right decision" ? Take a look at the page, his new section "History" now exceeds 50% of the content, and leads off NOT with the medical need, nor the drug's development nor clinical trials, but with the media-sensationalized scare that you can find with any google. I am indeed making it abundantly clear how the page should look by use of the Discussion page, something he never did, nor ever even read to see the prior concerns of others. As to your reference to "primary or secondary sources", well many such citations were deleted too. io-io (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think much of the removed content can be returned when revised for style and relevance. But it needs to be integrated with the present outline, and I would suggest some data is added not just on trial results (we basically know that it works) but also guidelines and recommendations from advisory and professional bodies. In the UK it was reviewed as part of a technology appraisal for MS; I can't find recent data on recommendations for Crohn's in the UK.
Any medicine that has had a "scare" tends to have a somewhat longer "history" section (see aprotinin) even if that is subsequently quantified and contained; I think this is best countered by adding useful information to the remainder of the article. JFW | T@lk 15:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact a major part of the problem is that "guidelines and recommendations from advisory and professional bodies" were deleted - as you can read on the Discussion page. In the EU, it has not (yet) been approved for Crohn's. The trial results are what distinguish the drug, as there are other less effective treatments, and equally "dangerous" too, but which do not have the sensational history. io-io (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the numerous reports in the lay press make it necessary for us to mention PML, even though the number of cases is very low. As I indicated, you are free to reinsert the important parts of the deleted content, and I'm sure other editors will revise it as they see fit. JFW | T@lk 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere have I said that PML should be omitted. But it should not be highlighted, and it certainly should not start the History section. I notice your comments on my Talk page, and you do not explain what is "right" about what WLU did.
Even today the Ny Times has a nonsense story - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/health/04brod.html?ref=science - stating that the drug was returned not to general availability but back to clinical trials! - and with a completely invented description of a narrow patient group to which it is suppsoed to be "specially" available. And yet FDA quotations (placed not by me) describing how it is available both 2nd-line and 1st-line were deleted! ........This is why I want the page to be really useful, to patients and doctors. I will edit when all comments are in. If you would look back at the older versions, perhaps you might tell me what you really dis-liked ? And please put content before formatting.io-io (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not here to discuss the NY Times with you. I share your view that the page should be informative. You should edit the Tysabri article to reflect what you have said. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. JFW | T@lk 22:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Odd it wasn't moved before. Please review changes to natalizumab 'cause I have no idea. WLU (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Jonathan108 &
Brassiere
cancer claims
He has stuck again with junk science - this time with a claim that bras cause cancer. Care to weigh in on the talk page? I just want to get some "professional" opinion here on the topic. Mattnad (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing has already provided all arguments I could think of. But if there is a lot of fluff in the public domain about this, we may end up adding a proper NPOV treatment of the issue. JFW | T@lk 20:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Our discussion via email
Shalom. I suppose you recall our little email conversation a few weeks ago. I wanted to point your attention towards the revised tefillin article. Spectacularly redrawn to reflect tefillin in Judaism as opposed to how it used to written, as a display of tefillin in culture or I don't know what. Excellent job those editors did. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 21:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a look, thanks for letting me know. That article has been an eyesore for some time. JFW | T@lk 20:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hydroxyzine/reference table
Back in May 2007 you queried with the creator of
Hydroxyzine/reference table whether the material could be merged into the main article of Hydroxyzine. I've placed a proposed deletion tag to the page (collection of facts ≠ encylopaedia, and I always understood subpages of main article space was not permitted. I've also placed a note to User talk:James.Spudeman. David RubenTalk
03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I firmly support deletion of that subpage and any similar subpage on pharmacology topics. We're not Martindale's for goodness' sake! JFW | T@lk 20:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: MCOTW
Ah, old friend, I still do hope to return to more active writing at some point. Right now, all I can hope to do is poke my head in here and there and do some cleaning. — Knowledge Seekerদ 06:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ha! I was toying with the idea of working on some medical articles and thought I’d look back on some of the old ones I’d done. Apparently, though, I’m being accused of having a conflict of interest. How wonderful to see recognition of my work and assumption of good faith. — Knowledge Seekerদ 05:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Responding on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 09:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit. I think you'll find that orangemarlins replies above your comment on his talk page do include an apology and s/he removed the template.
Uhh, I agree that I wasn't originally a party to that discussion but KS asked me to comment. What is your place in this? JFW | T@lk 23:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Orangemarlins talk page happened to be on my watchlist and I thought he was pretty restrained and polite to KS. I thought your comment might be viewed as a pile on. As it happens nothing came of it.
OK. It was all in the interest of WikiLove. JFW | T@lk 07:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I don’t doubt that he meant well when he placed it. But it's a pretty poorly phrased template when you think about it. We tell people to “
own articles they create and that others will edit them, but then use a template naming the creator prominently as a troublemaker. (The template essentially would be read as “Knowledge Seeker or someone else may have a conflict of interest.”) — Knowledge Seekerদ
19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope the matter is now settled. Could you review
Hello Jfdwolff. You are welcome to comment in the ANI thread, and I was so rash as to mention your name in my own comment, since you made at least one edit there. If you have an interest in whether admins ought to be looking into the editing of the Natalizumab article, you're welcome to participate. If not, please excuse the interruption. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I have little desire to engage with Io io editor (talk·contribs). Instead of lamenting WLU's approach, this editor has had many opportunities to improve the article. JFW | T@lk 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Not much reason anyway, three people to date have waded in and said it's a mis-understanding. My good name is newly rinsed and hanging to dry. I'm satisfied. But could you look at
Hello please look at the discussion page of osteoarthritis, a reaction is appreciated, regard Willy Witsel, The Netherlands--217.120.103.16 (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
hello jfdw I added some refs to the osteoarhtitis page and added this externela link Scienticif Research Osteoarthritis to make available a collection of pubmed articles on this topic. Could you suggest on the discussion page of osteoarthritis how I could participate, regards willy witsel --217.120.103.16 (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed your links because you were adding them to a large number of pages. The pages are also in Dutch, which is not really useful for readers of a English encyclopedia, most of whom will not be able to read it. Finally, it is entirely unclear why such a link is necessary. If you want to discuss orthomolecular treatments for common conditions, consider adding a description of these treatments to the article in question, based on a
thank you for your reaction. my question was specific for osteoarthritis, I would like to help with that article but my english is not good enough, could I articipate using the discussion page only and submitting there reliable sources and indications how they can be used in the article and that somebody else changes the article, see my question on the osteo discussion page--217.120.103.16 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree the talkpage is the best page to discuss this. JFW | T@lk 12:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thanks I will add some sources to my question on the discussion page. regards Willy --217.120.103.16 (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Purim
Thanks for following up my copyedits. NB that I was merely improving the flow of what had been written, I don't consider myself educated enough to opine about something like rabbinic vs. biblical holidays, so thanks for your changes, and for your aggressive deletion of the excess material about the Persian empire etc. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Terson Syndrome
Thanks for your query.
Terson syndrome originally was defined by the occurrence of vitreous hemorrhage in association with subarachnoid hemorrhage. Terson syndrome now encompasses any intraocular hemorrhage associated with intracranial hemorrhage and elevated intracranial pressures. Intraocular hemorrhage includes the development of subretinal, retinal, preretinal, subhyaloidal, or vitreal blood. The classic presentation is in the subhyaloidal space, which is beneath the posterior vitreous face and in front of the retina. Hopefully, this clarifies the situation for you. :-) EyeMDT|C 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hypereosinophilic syndrome
Thanks for your comment regarding the quite frankly very promising results of a new treatment for the disease. I've tried to encorporate some of the information tonight, i'll try again tomorrow. Also, I remember speaking to you about your career a few months back, i've managed to obtain some work experience within the field of respiratory medicine, should give me a decent insight! Regards, CycloneNimrod (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well done. Let me know if you have any further questions! JFW | T@lk 00:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Need Help at Anorexia Nervosa
I proposed an edit at anorexia nervosa that is being blocked by one other user. I wrote extensively on the talk page providing justification for my proposed edit. I'd like to see at least one more opinion.
Thanks in advance for your help.shbrown (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Electrochemotherapy on cancer page??
hello, can you please provide some feedback as why you have moved electrochemotherapy paragraph from the cancer page? Please reply to this talk: Talk:Chemotherapy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leskovsek (talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have already clarified my opposition on
reliable sources, it might be more appropriate to make a brief mention of electrochemotherapy on the chemotherapy page. JFW | T@lk
21:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Need Help One More Time at Anorexia Nervosa
I'd be grateful if you could please read the most recent discussion posts. I will respect your opinion and will not return here to ask again about this specific topic. Twice is already imposing. Please accept my apologies in advance.shbrown (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Thanks
Hello. I’m Italian. I’m sorry for my bad English. I apologize for that.
I really enjoyed your thanks. I think that images are most important for an encyclopedia.
Sincerely --Jacopo Werther (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
talk
) 23:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Binding of Isaac article name change
Five editors have responded to my proposal to change the name of the article Binding of Isaac to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at Talk:Binding of Isaac#Name of this article. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. Thanks for your participation! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me of the outcome, Bryan. JFW | T@lk 20:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've done some copyediting, but lack to time to complete the job this morning. I would suggest you use {{Cite journal}} where possible and link PMC articles through the {{PMC}} template. I also removed the Feynman quote, because it appeared to be your personal observation. JFW | T@lk 11:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comment on Asher/Cholesterol (fixed) and all your improvements to the citations and article structure (Personal Life section and removal of the distracting Feynman quote). Much appreciated, and good training for me - Pointillist (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Allopathy
I think your last edit may have deleted a bit more of the talk page than you intended.... - Nunh-huh 06:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It was an attempt at censorship, Nunh-huh. Honestly. JFW | T@lk 06:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm there with you :) - Nunh-huh 06:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Costs
I saw it was deleted from the article and I just wanted to see why this was done so I can avoid deletions in the future. Thank you--Chintzypop (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping by; I will respond on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me. Do you think I would be able to add to the target therapy drugs article? Also, another question, I did not just use the new story to cite my contributions (it is what sparked my interest), but also used many medical journals as well. What sources would you recommend if not the ones that were used? Thank you --Chintzypop (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you're right - but on the face of it those NIH/NHLBI links provide good info. On reflection... Maybe they're a bit thin, and they do certainly overlap with what is already offered - so maybe you are indeed right. No strong feelings either way, really ... GNUSMAS : TALK 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
MS - typically disabling (cognitive/physical)
I am going to revert to the way I had it. I recall that you are from Holland or Belgium, and so perhaps English is not your first language. I am not describing Progressive disease in the sense of PPMS.
Before the page failed to describe what MS "typically" means to everyone (it is immediately associated with physical or mental disfunction to some degree - this is what it is feared for). In fact the first huge 20-line paragraph, plus the 2nd paragraph, while describing the internal workings of the disease, fail to describe what it literally means to a patient at all. In fact disability is not mentioned until the 3rd paragrpaph, and only then in the context of "preventing disability".
Finally, the words I used were a) "typically" - which means "normally associated" (not always) and b) "disabling" - which does not mean totally disabled at all - it can be any degree towards that, a reduction in abilities rather than a toal loss. Indeed, I dont recall the prognosis section says about physcial disability, but I believe that fully 50% of MS patients have some degree of cognitive disability alone.
For all the above reasons, I believe what I wrote was filling a gap in the introduction and was also well-measured...w/regards....io_editor (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
My English is fine, thank you.
I wish you'd consider discussing first before going back to your version, see
When using UNDO, please be so kind as to provide an
edit summary in addition to the text automatically generated. My edit did not constitute vandalism, which is the only situation in which one could use UNDO without offering further comments. JFW | T@lk
00:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry must apologize, initially realized that I wanted to address both those words I had used, and it all would not fit in the box; also I did not think the timing mattered (and I thought it too late for EU) - anyway your newest edit gets the message across succintly.....io_editor (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just signing off, and yes that was bad form, because even though I left the message here, on the MS board itself it looked very abrupt/dismissive, I definitely should have mentioned something there in the description, my apology once again.....io_editor (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Re NNT, I think your comments are too personally directed and I recommend you take a break until you can deal with the content itself rather than experience this as being in conflict with the other editor. Who, by the way, is doing a good job of staying focussed on the content. --Una Smith (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing personal here. I will indeed take a break, because the whole thing is tiring and my concerns are not being addressed. I have made several points about the problems with the source, the information cited from the source and the context that ought to be provided; I thought that was reasonably content-focused. JFW | T@lk 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
All good. When you get back, consider how to show rather than tell your point. It is not clear to me, by the way, so perhaps also not clear to the other editor. Regards, Una Smith (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, Una. Could you clarify? JFW | T@lk 19:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
New discussion on Talk:Number needed to treat is getting at what I mean. The article needs a lead, by the way; currently, it jumps into the heart of the topic without context. --Una Smith (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
On the remark that I placed on the entry concerning Maimonides
Dear Jfdwolff, you have removed my remark without acting on my request, and without relocating my remark to the pertinent talk page. The reason why I put my remark inside the main text (despite being aware of the function of talk pages) is that without doing so, it would be well-nigh impossible to indicate which sentence I meant. I leave it to you how you wish to act on the problem further, as I believe that I did what I had to do, and, as it appears, for no tangible consequence. I believe that by removing my remark, you have placed mere "appearance" above "meaning", for the sentence that I had marked conveys no meaning. Kind regards, --BF 21:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
You should have followed normal Wikipedia practice by leaving a message on Talk:Maimonides. I wasn't quite sure which sentence you were referring to, so I have left it to you to quote the relevant piece of text and then your reservations about it. That isn't particularly hard.
Can you imagine a reader going through the article, which may or may not make perfect sense, and then bump into a boldfaced comment that basically says that you don't understand the text but want someone else to improve it. JFW | T@lk 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jfdwollff, thank you for your note. To answer your explicit question, yes, I can perfectly imagine. When entries constantly get updated, any comment in a talk page referring to a particular paragraph becomes useless in the shortest time; referring to a line number makes also no sense, both on this account and, more importantly, on account of the fact that the number of words per line is not a constant, but differs on different browsers. Aside from these, most people do not look through talk pages. My approach, although admittedly controversial, was the most effective way of getting an error removed, which to my opinion is more important than having an error in an entry which otherwise is a very well-written one. Incidentally, I never said that I did not understand a sentence (your mere suggestion of this is offensive to me, something that you should perhaps have known), nor that I wanted that someone else would remove that sentence (please re-read my text); I said that the sentence was incomplete and that not being an expert on the subject matter myself, a qualified person would better look into it and complete it. Be it as it may, I shall not take any further action. Should you wish to look at the problem yourself, you could always look into the old version of the entry with my remark in it; otherwise, well, I find the whole episode regrettable, having wasted my time as well as yours, leaving aside having to suffer the indignity of being told that I might not have understood a sentence. I propose that we end the discussion here and now and part for good. Kind regards, --BF 11:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for offending you. The content you are concerned about is of limited quality, and I have generally steered clear of it because I don't understand it.
I'm not sure if this is as much of a waste of time as you think it is. In any case, if you have problems with an article and messages on the talk page are not being followed up, you can always try the
WP:PHILO are most likely to be helpful. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. JFW | T@lk
12:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jfdwollff, thank you for your kind message and I accept your apology. As for waste of time, by my reckoning, if one is not careful one spends more time on Wikipedia discussing/arguing with people than contributing to the contents of Wikipedia, which is, as matter of fact!, the aim of being here in the first place. When I have some free time later in the week, I shall try to get the problem (mentioned in my Note of yesterday) fixed; unfortunately, right now I am short of time and will have to stop being on these ages. Kind regards, --BF 19:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: Information on the mode of action of vernakalant and tedisamil
Hello. Last month you asked be to include information on the mode of action of vernakalant and tedisamil. But unfortunately, I do not know yet their modes of action. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Surely that information will be available somewhere! JFW | T@lk 15:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jfdwolff,
Thanks for the kind welcome to wikiproject medicine. I was browsing wiki tonight and noticed that the food energy article is not within the scope of wikiproject medicine. I feel that it is important to bring a medical perspective to this article. Can this be changed? and if so, how would I propose that?
Thanks,
Enviropearson (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Pain and nociception to simply "Pain" was well received. Have a look at the discussion on the talk page. Would you please make the move yourself? --Robert Daoust (talk
) 14:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Argh, that's going to take me some time. Do you have a spare bot lying around somewhere that could change all those links? JFW | T@lk 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
What links? "Pain and nociception" could redirect to "Pain". What is the problem? --Robert Daoust (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There are 1000s on incoming links, and probably a bunch of double-redirects. JFW | T@lk 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess you are wrong. There is about 900 "What links here" (incoming links), and they would all be changed automatically, double-redirects as well, with appropriate redirection. Is there something that I don't understand? --Robert Daoust (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Popups makes correcting redirects fairly easy, and I don't mind upping my edit count with tedious tasks (also expands my watchlist). If double-redirect is a concern, I'm willing to do what I can to help (since I was one of the people to start this large and stinky ball rolling with my damned MCOTW suggestion - who knew what a can of worms that would be?) WLU (talk
) 18:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL! I still don't get it. I see no need for changing any link anywhere, except in a few redirect pages. Could you give me an example of what you have in mind? --Robert Daoust (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you're asking - popups is a navigation and editing tool that with a feature that will correct all redirects on a single page to a single other page with one click. Double-redirects are bad because they slow down the servers (or something) and the software can only handle 1 automatic redirect. Otherwise it stalls on the second redirect page. Direct links are better in case pages are moved (so it won't create double-redirects) and they're just more elegant. I'm a snob.
WP:2R has more info. Fixing redirects isn't crucial (in fact, we are encouraged not to edit a page just to correct a redirect, but fixing double-redirects is an important, but very tedious part of moving a page, which is why we don't want to split pain and nociception until after we're sure what our destination pages are. Otherwise, every single set of hundreds of redirects will have to be re-done, at a massive cost to Wikipedia's servers (and not to mention my mouse button and patience). WLU (talk
) 20:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Understood. You have been very clear. I was unaware of the double-redirect limitation. So, my only question now is: when or how will we be sure what our destination pages are? I'll wait for a move from one of you. Thanks. --Robert Daoust (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't move over pre-existing pages, so it's up to Wolff or one of the other admins. It's not a huge, huge detail. Wolff, I'm keeping a loose eye on the pain page, so please let me know if/when you move it so I can start on the redirects. WLU (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done it. Now let's kick this monster into some form of shape. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: Request for further editing of Levallorphan
Hello. I have created another article, but this time, it is about the opioid drug levallorphan. Could you please further edit it? :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I had never heard of the drug and therefore am not aware of its characteristics, uses, side effects and contraindications. Rather than creating many one-line stubs, I would really encourage you to do a bit more research and populate the articles' most important sections with well-sourced information. In this case, the drug is fairly old (first reports in 1964, see PMID 14187360) and there should be a reasonable amount of easily-obtainable information that you could use. JFW | T@lk 17:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
PKU
Hi Wolff, I don't have access to the journal in question and was hoping you might... It's about PKU and my edit was mostly to remove the pharmaspam that got dumped in the treatment section. [2] Can you help? WLU (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well done for condensing that. If there are scholarly sources then the NY Times can be relegated as a source. Unfortunately my journal access in my present place of work is not fantastic, and I have no access to J Inher Metab Dis. There are no recent review articles that would be useful to corroborate the BH4 claims. At the same time, PMID 18230057 speaks quite glowingly of its therapeutic potential, although it still seems rather investigational. JFW | T@lk 17:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
PMID 15465508 (Am J Med 2004) is a recent review; again I cannot access it digitally but I could get hold of a paper copy from the library. JFW | T@lk 17:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the resources, I'll try to review them and integrate based on the abstracts and will drop you a note on how successful I am. WLU (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Done I think, I only used one of the two you showed me (the other was too general for the very specific bit I was trying to expand). I also created
PMID 18327672. 'cause I wasn't sure what it said (no abstract) and replaced the NYT as well, usually a very respected source. But I think it's better than the pharmaspam and a simple removal. Thanks again for your help. WLU (talk
) 18:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
pain move
Thanks for the move - hurrah enough talk, down to business! the talk page for the
pain and nociception didn't move with the article - I had this problem before when moving to an already existing page with a talk page, had to ask an administrator to do it for me - but might be missing something ! LeeVJ (talk
) 22:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a look. Listen, please help me clean up the mess generated by this moving about.
I intend pain to be about the personal/clinical aspects, and nociception about the physiology. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Will do, was just letting the dust settle and didn't want to get into editing conflicts which are a pain, was looking at the pain management section of chronic pain re merging the section in pain management ... whilst doing so.. have to leave it in a bit but will check back in tomorrow LeeVJ (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Jfdwolff. You have new messages at Rjd0060's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Benzo article clutter
Please take a look at the Temazepam page. It is now "Temazepam as seen by the coroner and forensic toxicologist", as well as "Temazepam as seen by the KGB and the Soviet psych warden" as well as collected anecdotal references of the kind ("Temazepam causing penile auto-amputation" "J. Transsylv. Psych" - vanHelsing et al.)
I have commented on this on the page without other success than diffamation. This pattern is replicated over numerous other articles. I think it is time for a fundamental discussion of the references reqd for an encyclopedic entry vs criteria for inclusion in a reviewed journal. Also about the fraction of the article to dedicate to abuse and obscure uses. The aggregation of loose leaf incriminating materials constructs associations reminding of the Anslinger drug scare campaign. Associations: Depravity, Crime, Coroners office, Police, Brain damage, testicular shrinkage and necrosis (if not auto-amputation), disformed babies, brain rot, addiction, delirium, psych ward.
The article is more sensational investigative journalism and disinformation propaganda than scientific and encyclopedic, many references too. I believe, that the purpose of WP article is damaged by this kind of writing and inclusion of selected loosely associated, unrelated, spurious, anecdotal materials. Frequently the text doesn't say what the reference says.
Others: Diazepam, Chlordiazepoxide, Clonazepam, Nitrazepam, Clobazam, Triazolam. I have done several bold deletions, to bring up a discussion. The result was, that I am "psychotic, pro-drug, working for the drug company, coo-coo, a stalker and vandal, irrational, to be banned, suffering from impaired judgement due to drug use, a raving lunatic". original quotations. Please take a look. I am really interested in your comment. It becomes a quality problem(The crazy anon. Yes I will see to get an account) 70.137.178.160 (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there are a few issues here. I think the articles you mention have been historically been populated by people with a strong bias against benzodiazepines. However, some information may indeed be relevant from an encyclopaedic perspective. I totally agree that isolated case reports are absolutely ghastly sources and should be included only if they are very heavily cited in secondary sources (quod non).
avoiding original research
are vital here.
The other problem is that as a relatively fresh editor you have chosen an absolute mother of a controversial subject to get involved in. Even if an article is hopelessly biased, full of junk and badly organised, the best results are achieved by long-term collaboration. I would gradually take issue with the most egregious NPOV violations on pages.
Don't expect things to improve instantly
. Rather, there are various approaches:
Discussing first on the relevant article's talkpage, and actioning whatever
consensus
emerges, or
BOLD, revert, discuss
: removing the bad stuff and explaining on the talkpage why - anyone who disagrees will have to change it back but will then need to offer a reasonable explanation on the talkpage.
Getting a username, despite what everyone says, is very important to elevate yourself from a potential "
I've noticed that you keep deleting the link to jewishlifeseries... why? SabbaMan (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well... "Keep deleting" is a big word. I deleted it once. Then its owner approached me by email, and I responded on his talkpage. Since then, nobody has advanced any other arguments (e.g. on Talk:Shabbat) why we should feature this link. You are a new user whose first edit was to reinsert the link. That sounds like you are either the same person or someone asked by the first person to help out. Either way, the link has been removed pending further discussion. JFW | T@lk 17:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
..........just kidding :) but I note your braglist is as sparsely scattered as mine for mini-GA and FA icons...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I permit myself an occasional frivolity or expression of frustration (#@$^&*@#). I recently noticed that a lot of what I've worked on could probably become GA fairly easily, so I thought I might as well make the effort. Your trophy box outshines mine anytime! JFW | T@lk 19:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I am always happy to look over medical stuff, many hands make light work and you could probably send a stack through. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
.....Gastric acid looks fun, and hopefully there maybe some references to dispel some urban legends to boot..Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
.......and this is how many folks look this up every day...whoa....Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Aargh, not a single source! Needs work after my exams. JFW | T@lk 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:coin test
Sir,
thanx to write in my talk page.
Sir, i m a final mbbs stuent only. I dont know resources about. I only know that its taught us here in medical college. I cud not find coin test in wikipedia so i add here only. Sir, i surf wikipedia in a java mobile phone.
And dont know hw to write in wikipedia. I just write here. Excuse me if i was make damage in ur page.
Please add resource if u think it should be there.
Thanx Rajnish2002 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC) T@lk
Very kind of you to use your online time to contribute.
You've got to have a look at Talk:Rotavirus in case you have hours to waste and nothing better to do on Wiki :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Chronic fatigue syndrome
Hi, when you are back from break would you give a few sources for your edit? The discussion is here.
Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern about the savant syndrome page. I am concerned as well. I am trying to track down everyone I told about it to see who is doing it. How is the page supposed to improve when there are so few sources on it? But as for your comment on my talk page concerning the lack of multiple sources: Dr Treffert you must realize, has done more for savant research than all the other savant specialists combined (not kidding). The only other even worth mentioning is Alen Snyder (the researcher using TMS in Australia). If there were more competant savant specialists rest assured that I would use their research but at the present time only those two are truly reliable. --Aetoss (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: Withdrawal of membership in WikiProject Pharmacology
Hello. Yesterday, I joined WikiProject Pharmacology, but today, I have withdrawn from the project, but I will continue to do some research on new drugs. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Does JFW drive his little tank over palestinian children? and other crimes against humanity
"The campaign to de-construct the neurological illness ME, to ridicule its sufferers and, in the process, to redefine a growing body of ‘mentally ill’ subjects, began in the mid eighties. The principle character in the British campaign has been Professor Simon Wessely. Over time, however, the ‘psychiatric lobby’ has gathered new adherents and a large, increasingly organised body of combatants.
The psychiatric lobby is now marked by its financial power – over 11 million being funnelled into the network of clinical centres and funding provided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) to carry out the PACE and FINE trials; its roots in major medical research institutions like the MRC and increasingly its links to corporate lobby groups funded especially by the pharmaceutical companies.
The patient, or ‘sufferer’ group which has been forged simply by its opposition to the psychiatric lobby, has inevitably consisted of disparate groups and individuals. Inevitably, because unlike the psychiatric lobby, this grouping has no common ideological purpose nor does it have a hegemonous leadership. Mainly, as well, this group is composed of people who are ill or their carers, circumstances which leave little room for organised campaigning."
Thank you Alpinist, I think I remember why I decided not to feed trolls from your IP range. Your antisemitic comments further discredit you. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
talk
) 08:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Pectus excavatum
Hi, I sent the author an email and hope that s/he will get back some time later today. Thanks for your help. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Not yet. I'll email a few other people later and see if I can turn up with something. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi JFD, PE is coming along pretty nicely with due thanks to the above editor. Anything else you can see that needs urgent attention? Regards, CycloneNimrodtalk? 21:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: ACE inhibitors
Hello. I have created articles on the following ACE inhibitors:
Could you do further research on these articles? :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I jolly well can't! I believe I mentioned to you before that you cannot expect other editors to do your research for you. I'm usually happy to research very specific queries, but I have too much work planned on
WP:PHARM contributors to see if they might be interested. JFW | T@lk
16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Diabetes mellitus
Hi, you recently removed my additions to the Diabetes mellitus page, saying that they were copied from a JDRF homepage and were more appropriate for the JDRF page itself. I am actually on staff at JDRF in the U.S., and I would like your help in incorporating more of our information on the diabetes page. It is true that in fact we are the largest charitable funder and advocate of type 1 diabetes research worldwide... our mission is a cure and we've given over $1 billion to date towards diabetes research. Therefore I feel that a page that discusses diabetes and has a section about cures needs to have some mention of our efforts. Please advise. Rlewinson (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are JDRF staff you ought to read
diabetes mellitus type 1
on logical grounds as well as space considerations.
Instead of using Wikipedia as a way to promote your organisation, we would much rather receive input from experts funded by the JDRF on the actual content of the articles. Given Wikipedia's immense popularity, this would be an extremely useful way of maximising the free information available on the internet about type 1 diabetes. JFW | T@lk 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Io io editor
I'm going to be posting a RFC/U on Io io editor (talk·contribs). Don't know if you're interested, but my sandbox is here. Feel free to add if you'd like, please separate into your own section though. WLU (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
My direct interaction with Io has actually been quite limited. I will refrain from spending much time on that RFC. JFW | T@lk 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Wilson's disease
Hello! I improved the genetics section with the inheritance pattern but I don't think we should expand this section even more. Do you think I could use this link as a reference at the end of the inheritance section? And what about the broken ref No. 4? I can't find it. Do you think we should nominate it as a good article? NCursework 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
We should preferentially use peer-reviewed journal articles. I'll have a look at ref. 4. JFW | T@lk 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Mucormycosis
Hey JFD, i'm currently editing Mucormycosis again, my aim is to get it up to GA status within the next month or so. I was wondering if you could have a quick look and see if you have anything to contribute (as I know you've edited it in the past). Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be rather useless in the next week or so (away from my usual reference works), but please remind me Wednesday/Thursday next week. JFW | T@lk 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
CVST
You're very welcome, glad I could help. Yeah there is no rush on the mucormycosis article, i'll be glad for any help whenever really :) Happy editing! Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Action potential
Hi
Featured Article. Since then, the article has been completely re-written and referenced to the gills. It also does not seem to fail any definite MoS criteria, although there's been a little discussion of how many sections to have in the Table of Contents. We'll also keep trying to improve the article. Nevertheless, if you think it's worth keeping as an FA, now would be a good time to change your vote to Keep; otherwise, now would be a good time to explain what you find still lacking in the article. Thanks for taking the time to reconsider the article! :) Willow (talk
) 18:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
My compliments for your excellent work on that article, and I have indeed removed my vote because my concerns have been fully addressed. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Sickle Cell
Thanks for your comment. I am a RETIRED sickle cell researcher, and am not current with the entire subject. And my work was biophysical chemistry, not so much clinical, although I was the director of the Cincinnati Sickle Sell Center in the early 1990's. If I can, and feel competent now to do so, I will look some more at that article. But mostly, I know things that may now be historical, not current. --Dumarest (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition, i've set up an initial agenda. Feel free to add and remove things as you notice they are fixed or not fixed etc. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 11:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi! I'd received your message on my talk page, which among other things also contained an invite to help edit/expand the Wikipedia Medicine portal. I was flattered and excited all the same. But, I've just completed my MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery), and considering that Wikipedia is so cutting-edge in the freshness of information (in great parts, thanks to inspired efforts by people like you), I find myself somewhat incapable of starting an entire article on my own, and more importantly, completing it gracefully. I'd very much like to make useful contributions to Wikipedia as and when possible, which I consider one of the greatest achievements of the mankind when it comes to rising above traditional divides, and creating something monumental.
I very heartily want to congratulate you on such supreme efforts that you've put in the articles you've been associated with, and thank you, too as knowingly/unknowingly, I must have been one of the benefactors.
I did read something about you appearing for an interview--wish you all the best for it, and otherwise, too.
With your encouragement, I ultimately succeeded in creating an article by myself on
polyclonal response
. Please do go through it if time permits, and also advise me about copyright issues if any (see my talk page for that).
Also, if possible check for factual/grammatical/editorial mistakes.
I'd be glad if you could add some inline references to the article as I haven't had much access to research papers.
Also, could you please let me know how to introduce a link to only a certain section of another Wikipedia article, and not the whole of the article as such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KC Panchal (talk • contribs) 16:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and time with adapting my article "allergic conjunctivitis" to wikipedia; i added wikilinks this morning. I am still learning about wikipedia so any suggestions are welcome and greatly appreciated. Thank you again! --Rskleris (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008
A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Leukopoeisis
I recently updated the page "leukopoiesis" and the page is in an incorrect format. I can't get the page to look correct and I figured that I would ask you for help. I am new to wikipedia and would like to get involved but I am also a medical student with limited time. I love to jump on and check things so I decided to recently start adding material to improve the contents where I saw fit. I looked at the topics that needed work and decided that I could make the leukopoiesis page a little better (although not complete). Please fix the page if you can. Thank you
Orlandoturner (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made some fixes. Keep me posted. JFW | T@lk 06:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at
User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk
) 06:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind being on the list. JFW | T@lk 06:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
I've further slightly modified the article--
polyclonal response
. I've added an improved image with better legibility, and also added a few references ;). I'd be glad if you could find some time for the article, and make a few passing comments (yet again!). After all, it was your encouragement that led me to complete the article which was pending just as a stub for entire one year.
I'll have a look, possibly later today. JFW | T@lk 06:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What a truly awful wikipedian
Hi, Are you in some way connected with the extraordinary entry for "Professor Simon Wessely"? He is a hugely controversial figure in the ME/CFS community and this is not reflected in the article. His entry is like something you would read in North Korea or China eulogising a local government official. The insurance company UNUM, for whom he works, describes him as "someone who does not shy away from controversy." This is not reflected in his entry at all.
This entry is completely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.74.1 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the title you chose for your message demonstrates that you are not here to have an open discussion. If you hadn't immediately discredited yourself, I would have given you a answer along the lines of the one you received from William Pietri (talk·contribs) on his talkpage.[4] I'd start with sources for your erroneous claim that Prof Wessely "works for" an insurance company. And yes, he hasn't chosen the easiest field when it comes to having to deal with opposition; not like learning difficulties or addiction. JFW | T@lk 06:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sulfonylures
I would suggest, since you seem to spend so much time with Wikepedia, that you consider some way to include controversial, but possibly more advanced issues, which do not have widespread consensus acceptance. While you can call my edits soapbox all day long, the SU issue has been apparent to me for about a decade from both considerable clinical experience and published research on the SU agents as a group. Ralph referenced some of this research. With use, SU efficacy declines, C-peptide decreases and insulin becomes necessary to keep the glucose down. My reference to Ralph A. DeFronzo, M.D. comes from a recent lecture he gave to about 30 physicians in San Antonio, at a dinner meeting I personally attended. He bluntly and repeatedly stated, with some clinical and basic science references briefly shown, that any of the attending physicians who ever prescribed a SU to any DM patient must not like the patient very much and wanted the patient to end up on insulin sooner. He also stated that the ADA guidelines were very misguided and that he, along with a few others, we going to lead a revolt against the current ADA guidelines at the next ADA meeting. In response to one physician's question about insurance companies balking about covering the treatments he advised (which excluded SUs, avoided insulin and was far more aggressive than current guidelines), he also volunteered to write letters to insurers on patient's behalf for physicians who requested this. I talked with Ralph, one to one, for another 10 minutes about several additional issues (also far beyond current guidelines/accepted practices and FDA approval) after most others had left. I expect Ralph might be willing to provide references; he is a research, academic and clinical physician, but he is also busy and I doubt he volunteers any time to Wikipedia. I also volunteer little time to Wikipedia, I have too many other major responsibilities to mess with Wikepedia very often. I am a clinician, not an academic, and I do not track research papers and bibliographies. Most medical literature does not promote very advanced practices and is inherently behind the times with respect to the best practices because of differing biases within academic medicine and the slowness of peer review process. While this has its place, I work/attempt to stay 5, 10 or more years ahead of current promoted practice guidelines, as best I can, and believe I am well respected in my community, partially because the patients I see usually do very well and spend little time in hospitals. I commonly implement complex strategies, work to highly educate those I see as patients, including to some extent how some of my recommendations may differ (sometimes greatly) from usual and advise patients to watch like a hawk how what I advise works out. Actually, I remind patients that they are inherently their own primary physician, I and all their other physicians are just advisors and implementers who do not live with the results of most of what they advise and do. I do not hand out bibliographies to patients, they don't care, they largely only care about how much their health improves or declines and much time, energy and money medical treatment costs them. MAlvis (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Will respond on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 06:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I know this is so trivial in the grand scheme of things, but it sure is irritating. Your protection expired, and Utah Educational Network IP is right back to removing the tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Done, no worries. Don't ever worry about asking me - this Utah stuff is a complete nuisance for everyone and needs to stop statim. JFW | T@lk 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This further supports the need for checkuser. JFW | T@lk 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking it might be inconclusive? We have two registered users, one Comcast (if I recall?) IP, one Utah Network IP, and the possibility of different daytime and evening connections? Not sure if we'd get anything conclusive? I've never submitted a checkuser; probably layers of complicated instructions to get through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser can be a bit of a drag, but people with checkuser access can look at IPs used by registered users, thereby being able to demonstrate sockpuppetry if needed. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I put in a reminder to Raul about Coeliac disease awareness for May, and I'll be watching that, so you won't have to ping him again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy. JFW | T@lk 07:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Just checked the timestamps on my contribs: that took an hour of my time. <grrrrr ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
PITA = hindquarteralgia. I remember
WP:TOJO being a complete and utter timesink. JFW | T@lk
06:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ha, well, the checkuser is being completely ignored. That'll teach me to piddle around, trying to help Wiki by watchlisting these silly little articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I know. This is the reason I stopped using watchlists. You may want to approach an admin with known checkuser authorisation if the Utah-based nonsense occurs again. JFW | T@lk 06:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
checkuser is done, all related, but they seem to have subsided, so I'm not sure if they should be blocked now or not? I'm not that clear on blocking policy, since they are not (edited to add not) currently disrupting. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aetoss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry is grounds for indefinite ban. They might just come back. JFW | T@lk 14:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thatcher suggested blocking two of them and warning one; do you want to do that? Blnguyen also offered. But with a dynamic IP, what's the point? They can come right back, no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Leaving one unblocked will hopefully lead to a more constructive atmosphere any may prevent further DIP sockpuppetry. JFW | T@lk 14:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ketogenic diet
Thanks for thinking of me. I got hold of the paper and editorial last night. I'm trying to find a spare hour to write it up. It is a very important development, and I'm glad the UK achieved it -- so much published research comes from the US. Colin°Talk 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It was purely by chance that I stumbled across it. Good luck on working it into the article. I've taken the liberty of fixing the reference style. JFW | T@lk 15:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't spotted that (working down my watchlist). I was just about to correct the "blinded" mistake when you got to it. Thanks. I think I'll go outside in the sun. I can expand it later. Colin°Talk 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just recovering from mowing the lawn... JFW | T@lk 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No good?
I'm new to Wikipedia and I thought linking to that site was helpful. Lo Tov? I came across that site (timetolight.com) when looking for a good site giving me shabbat times. I've used Chabad's in the past as well as Aish's but I found that site to be the easiest and most user-friendly. Can you not add links to external pages like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogold007 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Pneumonia
Thanks for your correction to my citation, still haven't quite got the hang of it ;) Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I still struggle with it if Diberri's tool is offline. JFW | T@lk 05:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Metabolic Response to Trauma Article???
I browsed wikipedia for an article regarding the 'metabolic response to trauma' and didn't find anything. I am new to the wikiworld and am not sure of the parameters used to decide if a topic is worthwhile. I know there is significant medical research regarding this topic and it is also important and quite relevant to the medical field but I am not sure if this topic would be accepted or wanted by wikipedia. I plan to center the article on the phases of metabolic response that occur after a traumatic event, specifically, the ebb, flow (hypercatabolic) and restorative phases which are understood by science. I also wanted to contrast this response, when relevant, to other metabolic responses such as fasting. If you think I should write the article, what title words would you suggest I use to make it accessible to others interested in learning about this topic? I appreciate your help and guidance. Thank you. Orlandoturner (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If there is nothing in
reliable sources. When the section threatens to outgrow the article, you could consider starting a dedicated article on the subject. What terminology does the literature use? JFW | T@lk
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
talk
) 06:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Zygomycosis (previously Mucormycosis)
A few editors, including myself, have been working on this recently trying to get it to at least a solid B class article. However, we've recently merged two other articles and moved it to the zygomycosis name so it's looking a little messy. I was wondering if you could have any input in aiding us to fix the article? Thanks. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 12:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Got to go enjoy the weather first! But I will try to have a look at this later. JFW | T@lk 12:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Normally, I choose the voters to spam their talk pages and I always leave a message at WP:Med. NCursework 08:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, You wrote "This is part of a larger article series {{Alcohol (drug)}} that should be improved together to avoid overlap and content bloat." If you and your colleagues could look at Alcohol and cancer at some point, I'd be grateful as I've taken it about as far as I can. Spiro Keats (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Will crosspost this on Talk:Long-term effects of alcohol (LTEA) and see where it will take us. The article looks very detailed and well-sourced, so I think we will be using in LTEA only the most recent reviews, and for background refer back to alcohol & cancer. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi JFD, you noted on the agenda that you think there should be a psychological section to the article. I've added a very short section after the neurological section, but i'm lacking any decent peer reviews to use. Preliminary search of PubMed shows hundreds but none really stand out. Any ideas? Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 11:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've borrowed a book that's got a whole chapter on it. Will try my best to improve the section. JFW | T@lk 11:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
PNH
Hello. I have been working in the Catalan version of the article and I have thought that (perhaps) you would consider interesting to mention the main results of this article. Regards. --Tonipares (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You are wellcome!!. And to be honest I am mainly translating your excellent work... By the way, my Dutch is probably even worse than your Catalan, so we shall use this modern lingua franca.
<ref name=hillmen2007>{{cite journal |author=Hillmen P, Muus P, Dührsen U, ''et al'' |title=Effect of the complement inhibitor eculizumab on thromboembolism in patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria |journal=Blood |volume=110 |issue=12 |pages=4123-28 |year=2007| month=December |pmid=17702897 |doi=10.1182/blood-2007-06-095646| url=http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/110/12/4123}}</ref>
POV deletion nomination
The article
Instant-runoff voting controversies has been nominated for deletion. Please consider reviewing it and weigh in. We're having trouble coming to a consensus. Thanks. QuirkyAndSuch (talk
Hello, I would like to add a link on the Carcinoma page for people that are looking for information about this fatal disease. We are supporting a clinical study that may help them find a cure for the disease overall. The web site is located at www.ArQuleStudies.com. My external link keeps getting undone as if it's spam, however, there is a direct coorelation between the disease and our ability to help them find a cure and/or treatment and more information.
WP:EL, our external links policy. I agree that the website is not commercial or biased, but it attracts potential research subjects for three rare forms of cancer. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool to recruit patients for trials, however laudable your research effort. Also please note that I don't need to be reminded that cancer can be fatal, or that cancer research is our only hope of fully eradicating malignant diseases. JFW | T@lk
14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I do appreciate your comments. It is not our goal to go against the Wiki policies and I certainly apologize if I offended you. Would it have been better if we outlined factual information about the study itself vs. adding a link? Maybe information about when the carcinoma study began, when it will end, the research being conducted, the medicine/procedure being tested, etc...? That way we would be provding information that is specific to the disease topic of the Wiki page vs. only a link. Maybe in a section called "Treatments" or "Carcinoma Research"? 68.91.229.36 (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the study in question meets
notability criteria to be discussed in detail on Wikipedia. We very rarely discuss ongoing trials anyway, unless their results are widely anticipated or they are part of a larger body of work in progress. Of course any expertise on research methodology is most welcome, but probably not in direct reference to the study. Best of luck, and I hope this makes sense. JFW | T@lk
20:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
developmental sequence for Type 2
I note that a few days ago you reverted an edit at diabetes mellitus in the introduction which attempted to distinguish between Type 1 and Type 2. Both are not, in my understanding, due to insufficient insulin as in Type 1. In Type 2 the sequence is, as I understand it, development of insulin resistance, increased endogenous levels of insulin to compensate, then perhaps insufficient endogenous insulin via normal control mechanisms which leads to such things as sulfonylureas, etc. Have I gotten hold of the wrong end of some stick here? ww (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean this edit? The point is that diabetes only develops when islet secretion is insufficient, for one reason or the other. I agree that the sequence is a little bit confusing (as it suggests that insulin resistance is the result of islet hypofunction). I need to have a think about that. JFW | T@lk 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm blocked
Hi, JFW. Jpgordon has blocked my regular (shared) IP address due to vandalism from anonymous users. This has seriously limited the contribution that I can provide. Is there any chance for to prevail upon him to lift the ban? Otherwise, is it possible for my username to be "whitelisted"? Thanks. Axl (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
iGuard
I'm new to contributing to wikipedia but quite passionate about the use of real world, observational studies in pharmacoepidemiology - so the iGuard discussion you started seemed interesting. I have some experience using the iGuard patient cohort for research purposes, and would be happy to put some time into getting some incidence rates for common side effects up for a variety of drugs - not sure how this works though, since many of the sources will be observational surveillance based (e.g. iGuard, Wellpoint, Verispan etc.) I'd rather not waste the time adding stuff if it is just going to be shot down. Do you have any advice? Yohimbine (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, looking at the responses on
WT:PHARM at the first instance, because I am not the only editor who has misgivings about using iGuard as a source. JFW | T@lk
05:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Re your comments
Hi there, I understand you message. However, the way the text is couched in the Passover section of this article would seem to be a final ruling. There will be those who may take action based on what's written. This would be wrong & irresponsible. Dyan Westheim (a ranking European authority) rules that if no other matzo is to be found and the sufferer of this condition will not be made very ill s/he must still eat the matzo on the first night. This is in contradiction to the stated opinion. At least people should be aware that it's not a final ruling on the issue. Regards Black Stripe (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Will reply on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 10:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
A new single-purpose account User talk:Harlanjackson has just appeared, making edits on alcohol and health topics. I suspect this account is being used to push a particular POV and I would appreciate your help keeping an eye on him. Spiro Keats (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but the edits generally seem to be bona fide. What POV do you think is being pushed? Is there a problem with the sources he is using? I can't see a definite pattern on casual review of his edits. I agree that he needs to get used to citation on Wikipedia, but that's not an isolated problem. JFW | T@lk 08:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I found out later that it had been archived. Doesn't make much difference now, so I didn't bother changing it. Has the Savant syndrome trouble sorted itself out? JFW | T@lk 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Evidence they're still socking around, but they haven't done anything disruptive, so I've ignored it, and don't have time to try to take that article to a higher level ... spring, garden beckons, etc. :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Better garden gnomes than POV-pushing trolls. JFW | T@lk 21:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've created this stub after seeing the request by Delldot on her review of familial hypercholesterolemia. It's very short with only three sources as of yet but i'll try and expand on it over the week. Feel free to take a look. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added some stuff. JFW | T@lk 06:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help :) Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 08:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Aaawww I don't know....
Nah, bangin' off high powered editing halfway 'round the world is fun (hehehe) anyway, I'll keep at it while you can deal with the talk apge. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Dyan Westheim
Hi there, I heard this from him first hand in his Shabbos HaGodol drosha. He said this year's he's been asked trhis more times than any other year. He said that if in th eunlikely event no other matzo was procured (eg. Oat) and the sufferer was not going to be made so ill, then s/he should still eat the 1st kazais of achilas matzo. As I understand it this is not published but I'll ask around. Either way it's important (& quite powerful) that sufferes should be made aware of this for Passover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Stripe (talk • contribs)
Generally we cannot reproduce oral opinions, as they are not
verifiable. If he is being asked this question frequently, how long will it take for anyone to publish it somewhere? Until then, there is little we can do - unless there are other sources saying the same thing. JFW | T@lk
14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Antihumanism
Dear Mr. / Mrs. Jfdwolff, I just created the article "Antihumanism (Medicine)". ;) What do You think about it ? With kind regards --Geistsucher (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Replied on your talkpage. Agree with other user re. PROD. JFW | T@lk 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight: Physical therapy
Hi, JFW. I recently added some links to some medical articles as an anonymous user. Admittedly I'm a newer user to Wikipedia so if my links were not appropriate I understand, however I believe the content was relevant. Yes they were videos and audio casts, and if there is a rule against that type of content I understand, however some Web users may prefer videos and audio information due to their accessibility needs.
If you can please lift the block and reconsider my links I would appreciate it. Thank you. Please advise. Uwfammed (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Will respond on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 04:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Denny-Brown + Symonds
No problem. I'll try to look at Symonds when I have a chance, though I see that he does have an
Air Vice Marshal. Certainly potential for a 5x times expansion overall, and an interesting DYK hook around the military stuff. David Underdown (talk
If you get a chance, please take another look at aspirin. I've checked out the references, and clarified the sentence on pancreatic cancer (the other experimental, cancer-related references checked out as agreeing with their cited material when I checked them). I am satisfied that the rest of the article meets the
GA criteria, and plan to pass it in 48 hours unless other objections are raised. But I wanted to give you another chance to take a look, since you made some comments on it previously. Dr. Cash (talk
) 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Atheroembolic disease versus cholesterol embolism
My concern is that they aren't quite the same thing. Cholesterol is only a part of an atheromatous plaque; so, I think the term cholesterol embolism is less precise. The bigger question is whether the whole thing should be merged into atherosclerosis.
In any case, I think whichever term should be linked to from atherosclerosis, if it remains separate, as I think it would be fair to say this is a manifestation of it.
Beyond that, there are separate articles for atheroma and atherosclerosis... I'm not sure why 'cause I don't see the difference.
Stepping back the terminology in the area, as a whole, needs a bit of clean-up--if you want to be pure.
But cholesterol embolisation is a rare event even in atherosclerosis. It is usually iatrogenic. If it affects the feet it is cholesterol emboli. If it also involves the kidneys then it becomes AERD. I'm personally quite keen for the whole phenomenon to remain on the same page, preferably my newly-chosen title.
I agree there is a proliferation of articles concerning atherosclerosis. I think atheroma, vulnerable plaque and atherosclerosis can all be merged. Atheroembolism, however, is a distinct complication that should remain separate.
ischemic heart disease
, which in the UK is a container term for all clinical scenarios that result from CAD.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). His edits seem to indicate to me that he wants allow for a weaker control over articles, but what do I know. Why doesn't he stick with his CAM articles? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions
Copyright problems with Image:InterlockingPentagons.png
An image that you uploaded, Image:InterlockingPentagons.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 155.41.160.31 (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You're probably correct. I'll upload a free version that I've definitely drawn myself. JFW | T@lk 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The new version is not great. I seem to have no control over an area of whitespace. We'll see if anyone fixes it. JFW | T@lk 05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Got rid of the whitespace. --Ezeu (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was the one who originally flagged the image. I would like to request that for the sake of test security, the image is removed. While your drawing probably skirts copyright violations, it may be plagiarism and there is no good reason to have an actual copy (or replica) of a test posted on Wikipedia. For the test to be valid, it should not be publicly viewable by anyone. Would you please consider taking it off? Thanks. 155.41.160.31 (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you honestly suggesting that:
An image of two interlocking pentagons, drawn by myself, constitutes a copyright infringement or plagiarism? This is something that children draw in school. It is a generic image, like a five-pointed star in testing for hepatic encephalopathy.
People are going to sit in their living room every day practicing how to draw two interlocking pentagons? And that this will influence test results?
If you have a copyright issue, please raise this on
1. Yes, if the drawing is intended to represent a copyrighted image. A child drawing it in school isn't drawing it with the intention of circumventing copyright law in order to publicize on the internet an image on used in a commercial test.
2. If you're resorting to making things up that weren't said originally, I think my point is bolstered. 155.41.160.31 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine then. You are invited to follow due process if you think there is still a copyright issue. I am not an expert in copyright law, I prefer to m:avoid copyright paranoia, and have no intention of being intimidated.
With regards to point 2, I'm most definitely not making up anything. I took your original post as a warning that the actual file might be copyrighted. I could not confirm that I drew it myself, so I ensured that an original version was uploaded that I had definitely drawn myself. You were still not happy, so I think it is you who is "resorting to making things up that weren't said originally". I have now asked you to provide evidence. If you decline to do so, the issue is closed and I will await the conclusions of the
Certainly a case of copyright paranoia if ever there was one. Anyway, we have, even if near silly in this case, the fair use doctrine.--Ezeu (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with copyright issues, and it's certainly not paranoia. And I don't see any intimidation going on here. The issue has to do with the professionals who pay to use this test, and the assumption that the test will be novel to the patients who take the test. It is actually illegal in around 20 US states to release test materials such as this to the public.
I think you missed point 2 because it seems like you pulled an argument out of thin air: "People are going to sit in their living room every day practicing how to draw two interlocking pentagons?" This just seems to be hyperbole to distract attention from the real issue. Which is that this sets a precedent for anyone to make and publicize their own copies of all sorts of protected tests that are used by professionals to make important decisions about peoples' cognitive functioning. And it sets this precedent without any real important need to have the image published on this website. What good does it do to have a "bootleg" copy of the image on the MMSE page? Because it certainly could do some harm to professionals and the patients they serve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.18.243 (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Stating that someone might be breaking the law is indeed intimidation. You cannot continue to claim
WP:LEGAL
without stating exactly which law ("of 20 US states") is being violated. Speak to the Wikimedia Foundation offices if you are so worried about the law being broken. I am personally not in the United States and not bound by its laws.
Your argument of possible harm cannot be proven, and I continue to reject it on the basis of plain logic. My example of people practicing to draw pentagons was not ridiculous at all, because that is the only way in which familiarity with the test would alter its performance in real time. You are again invited to provide evidence, otherwise please follow due process with regards to the copyright issues and the possible legal infractions.
I will also post a message on
WP:ANI, our administrator's messaging board, to see if other Wikipedia administrators have any differing views on this. JFW | T@lk
05:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You are invited to comment on
WP:IMAGEHELP, where I have posted a request for comments from fellow Wikipedia users. JFW | T@lk
06:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Physical therapy move
We've discussed on the talk page and consensus seems to be that we move the page to
physiotherapy, as that is the name used most around the world. The problem for me as a non-administrator is that I can't conduct that move since the page already exists. I was wondering if you could do that for me and leave physical therapy as a redirect to physiotherapy? Thanks. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk?Sign?
12:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If you deal with double redirects... JFW | T@lk 12:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You want me to deal with them?! Joking :) Sure thing. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk?Sign? 12:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just seen how many DR's there actually are. This might take a while :) Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk?Sign? 12:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I know what I ask for... JFW | T@lk 12:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the move. Any chance I can get the same thing for the talk page at
I've an admin question for you - should UDAcommander be blocked? Have thee a gander here's one where my comments are edited to seem as if I threaten to beat him like a rented mule (actually, it's me reverting these comments) as well as abuse of {{
WP:UAA
.
Also, I'm looking for a policy-based justification for linking ISBNs instead of amazon and other sales links. Are you aware of a specific one, or does
It looks like they all got blocked by other good admins. Sorry you've been attacked like that. With regards to Amazon, this is obviously a form of promotion of one bookseller over the other and WP:ELNO covers it sufficiently. JFW | T@lk 19:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Derek Denny-Brown (doctor)
On
Derek Denny-Brown (doctor), 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
Hey there! I've responded in detail to your critique of my edit on the Talmud discussion page. Thanks for your interest! YCubed (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
talk
) 07:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
cerebral venous thrombosis
yes i currently got a message from you about cerebral venous thrombosis. I have this condition. I had it after i had a c-section. Everyday after this event i have lived with sever headaches that are constant. I believe that it is because my ICP is too high and my CBF is to low. The doctors don't know very much about it where I live, but they tell me that I should not have headaches. I do and I know it. Are there any articles that you can refer me to so I could get more information? I have done A LOT of research and found that this is highly possible.
Thanks
Kristina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriskip (talk • contribs) 05:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the article. I made a request for the spammer's site to be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Perfect. Now let's pray they stay away. JFW | T@lk 16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Cholesterol embolism
On
2 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cholesterol embolism, 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
Excellent article JFW; best review of the topic I have seen. Well done.
Have a peek at our abstract at DDW: [6] (I think I sent you it already). My resident is almost done the manuscript; please let me know if you are interested in authorship (which I would appreciate) and I'll send it to you for your comments. Hope you are well JC Petit 00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ketogenic diet (generic)
Please could you comment on this article that our friend OccamzRazor has created? There is a section in Ketogenic diet that says all of what needs to be said at this stage IMO. What is the process for merge/delete? I can't see any reason for the article to exist, even as a redirect. Colin°Talk 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Fetal origins
Yeah, i'm in obesity research. I have published one paper on adolescent life style factors and obesity and one on maternal smoking in pregnancy and offspring obesity. Thanks for the input on the PMID, haven't done this before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magfas (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The LGBTProject and its relation to HIVAIDS
A debate is going here which could use input from editors from outside our project. Thankyou. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult) 12:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not very keen to get involved in this difficult discusison. My opinion (which is always free) is that statistically most HIV positive people in the world are not LGBT (rather, they are heterosexuals living in sub-Saharan Africa), and therefore that WikiProject has no ownership over articles that primarily involve a medical problem. JFW | T@lk 12:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand. I would just like to clarify two things: 1) The LGBT tag is not meant to imply ownership, merely identify any article which involves a significant understanding of LGBT history and culture. 2) I completely agree that African face the highest risk of infection, but that in itself is somewhat of a moot point. Considering how small the LGBT population is compared to our hetero/non-trans counterparts I don't believe there is any medical condition in which the LGBT population could outweigh heterosexuals. However, that does not mean the impact within the community is any less severe. Nonetheless, Thankyou for your consideration. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult) 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
SAH edit
This diff intrigues me but I don't really know enough on the topic to state if it's original research, a lot of nonsense or if a source can be found. Mind taking a look? Regards, CycloneNimrodtalk?contribs? 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not recall Suarez et al saying with so many words that LP is unnecessary. Just today I decided to leave that paper at home as it was weighing down my work bag. There is certainly a small school of thought that considers LP unnecessary on Bayesian grounds (
doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7564.396-b), but this is not widely accepted. Furthermore, LP is usually still necessary to exclude other causes such as infectious meningitis (cells, glucose, protein) and "DVT in the brain" (opening pressure). JFW | T@lk
08:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
References for Barley and rye
"Barley and rye also induce symptoms of coeliac disease.[18] A small minority of coeliac patients also react to oats.[19][20] It is most probable that oats produce symptoms due to cross contamination with other grains in the fields or in the distribution channels.[3]"
The RTF (18) is applicable but the original references are very old.
Q J Med. 1978 Jan;47(185):101-110.
The role of various cereals in coeliac disease.
Anand BS, Piris J, Truelove SC.
It is well established that the consumption of wheat gluten will produce the characteristic mucosal lesion of coeliac disease in subjects who are predisposed to it. The role of other cereals in the pathogenesis of this disease is less certain. In the present study, four different cereals (rye, barley, maize and rice) have been tested by feeding them to volunteer coeliac subjects who had shown good mucosal recovery on a gluten free diet and assessing the effect by serial jejunal biopsy. The biopsy specimens obtained before and after challenge were compared in terms of histology and disaccharidase activity. The results indicate that rye and barley are harmful but that maize and rice are harmless. [Note there is no indication of purity to remove contaminants]
This is the only reference that looks at the clinical pathology. The other two references given (that were reverted were for the followup studies on oats in children and adults, the were both clinical).Pdeitiker (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The two references you added were most decidedly not clinical, in the sense that they did not investigate the response to barley and rye exposure in coeliacs on either symptoms (diarrhoea, tiredness) or villous atrophy. The 1978 study looks interesting, but I agree that it is too old to make any recommendation on. I will instead link to the AGA gluten free diet guidelines. JFW | T@lk 08:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you are confusing two issues. 1. I added two references that as you say were not clinical. 2. I added a sentence following the sentence that discussed oat sensitivity in coeliacs and its two references. That sentence that was simultaneously reverted had two references.
However, most children and adults responded well to a diet supplemented with oats.[1][2]
There were two references for the adult study, I selected the wrong reference, there is a reference for the clinical study also.
I am not confusing two issues at all. I am finally getting rid of some content that has bothered me endlessly for the last few months.
As I have explained in more detail on Talk:Coeliac disease, we need to reflect current scientific consensus in Wikipedia articles. The article wasn't doing that. It was second-guessing the current consensus on the basis of some studies. This creates immense confusion and doesn't help the casual reader of this article.
Can we discuss this further on Talk:Coeliac disease and not be holding a discussion in different areas simultaneously? JFW | T@lk 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I know all too well which articles I have edited heavily but are nowhere close to GAC or FAC. The most important one is obesity, where I've been praying for some help from an epidemiologist and a social scientist. Clearly, those people are as rare as hen's teeth on Wikipedia. I think the "medical" side of that article is not all that bad.
Otherwise I'm gradually pushing some of my old friends to GAC. I haven't made up my mind what to do next. I'd love to do cholesterol embolism, but the literature is thin, there are no images and I have little professional experience with it (a single case, to be exact, diagnosed by someone else). JFW | T@lk 09:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
talk
) 08:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Link to www.thrombosisadviser.com
Sorry for creating spam (in your opinion), but I think this website is a really good resource for information and several downloadable documents about thrombosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.102.167 (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The aim of Wikipedia is to be self-sufficient with regards to information. If you think the website has useful information, then you are invited to integrate this information into our encyclopedia. Also, it calls itself "a resource for patients and physicians". Wikipedia is not just for patients and physicians - it is for the general readership.
You are free to discuss the pros and cons of inserting this external link on
@Jfdwolff: What do you think about a link to this video? It shows very nicely what venous thromboembolism means! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.197.191 (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I say upload it to Wikipedia, after obtaining the rights of course. We shouldn't need to link to outside sources to provide information. That is the whole point of Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Attention, please!
Hi!
I'm contacting you as I was greatly alarmed to see the state in which articles related to the lymphatic system are in:
"The concave side of the lymph node is called the hilum. The artery and vein attach at the hilum and allow blood to enter and leave the organ, respectively."-- sentence from the article on lymph node.
There's no template, figure or text depicting the path the lymph takes from the interstitial fluid to one or more lymph nodes to a vein.
I'll try on my part to rectify expand the lymphatic system articles, but I might be very slow as compared to the degree of effort required, and additionally, my precise knowledge of the terminology involved (though I possess the right concepts) might prove to be insufficient.
Since, I didn't know who to turn to, I let you know about this. I don't know if it would be possible to make the lymphatic system and related article the collaboration of the week on an "emergency basis".
PS: A few of the glaring anomalies might be rectified by me by the time you try to verify them. And, please do go through the
As you may have spotted, I've finally got round to working on Charles Symonds today. Could you review the medical aspects of what I've added? as my knowledge of medicine is as limited as your military knowledge. Info on his study Clinical and Statistical Study of Neurosis Precipitated by Flying Duties (with Denis Williams) and the "Raymond Longacre award for scientific contribution to aviation medicine" would probably help the article if you can trace anything. I've a little more to add, but hope to finish it tomorrow, and we can think about putting it up for DYK, I must have expanded five times from your original stub. David Underdown (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm done I think. In my trawl through The Times archive I found a letter (from someone else) mentioning Symonds's contribtion to the Lancet January 6 1962 on the long term effects of concussion, which may be worth tracing. I've made a couple fo assumptions, that the Harveian oration at the RCp is named after
John Radcliffe (English physician) and that the Sir Arthur Sims who we have listed only as a cricketer is nevertheless one and the same with the Sir Arthur Sims who foudned the travelling professorship which Symonds was awarded for 1953, all of which would stand confirmation. David Underdown (talk
) 10:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well an Arthur Sims was awarded a knightood for "services to medicine and education in the British Commonwealth" in 1950 - I'm still assuming that they are one and the same, so I've added that detail to our Arthur Sims article. i'm going to be away for a few days now, User:Andrew nixon is into obscure cricketers, so he may be able to track down more info, and confirm the connection. David Underdown (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
AF
Greetings!
Just so there's no misunderstanding, in the atrial fibrillation article the sentence that you deleted in the Classification section regarding prognosis was not my contribution. It might have appeared to be because of a quirk in the Wikipedia software. I had only deleted the bullet symbol (asterisk) in the LAF paragraph. What the Wiki software then did was delete the rest of the paragraph then add it back so that it appeared that I had just added it to the article. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that you are editing again, I think that the person who started the GA review should also close it. Snowman (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, snatching a few minutes at work and not really having the time to make some further improvements. But I will go along with your views. JFW | T@lk 13:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
talk
) 07:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a random question
This is really unrelated to you but i'm curious and the reference desk seems to have a disagreement but am I right to think that any condition which impairs mental or physical function in humans can be classed as a disease? I could swear there doesn't have to be external organism involved to make it a disease (although external organisms are often responsible for disease) Regards, CycloneNimrodtalk?contribs? 20:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I checked the updated article on Finasteride and per your question came up with the following reference to the PCPT study:
10. Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Crowley JJ, et al.
Implementation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention
Trial (PCPT). Control Clin Trials 2004;25:
An NCI URL - see http://www.cancer.gov/pcpt
States that the study was stopped in 2003 It appears that the PCPT was a 2003 or 2004 study and not a 2005 study.
ITBlair (talk)!
Per your response the NCI URL lists a bunch of PCPT Publications:
In recent weeks, I have developed an interest in writing a lot of Shabbat-related articles, and contributing to other existing ones. I got so into them, that I divided them into subcategories to make them more organized. Then I got the idea from seeing a template listing related articles at the bottom of all Passover-related pages that there should be one for Shabbat as well. I knew that anyone could make such a template. But I didn't know how.
I asked a Wikipedia-savvy friend for help on how to make one. It took me a while, and I just finished the template {{Shabbat}}, which lists mostly articles from the Category:Shabbat. After adding it all these articles, it revealed to me what was missing from the collection of Shabbat articles, so today, I went and created a few of them to fill this niche.
The Shabbat candles article contains small sections that I copied from other existing articles. The images, likewise, come from these articles. This is just the beginning of what I am hoping will grow into a much larger one. The purpose of the article is to describe not just the physical candles, but the candlelighting ritual and the start of Shabbat. All of these fit together into one article. Just so you know, I made "licht bentsh" redirect to this article, and I created a disambiuation page out of "candlelight" and "candlelighting" since that term has multiple meanings.
If there is anything you know that you feel you could contribute to this article, that would really be great! Xyz7890 (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hareidi Judaism
I am not convinced that you are right not to put the Category Hareidi Judaism for Rabbi Shimon Schwab, since he was certainly a leader of Hareidi Judaism. If he was not such a leader, who was? (Highland14 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 01:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
JFW: I will provide the information that you need in relation to my reply to your recent comments on the breach of copyright subject today here [7] Please confirm that you still require itPosturewriter (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
JFW; Thankyou for confirming that you are aware beyond doubt, that I am not violating copyright policy. I would like you to confirm that unconditionally to finalise the matter in the “Persistent copyright issues” section of my talk page here [8] to prevent other editors from persistently returning the topic in the futurePosturewriter (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
MCOTW
It's incredibly hard to find time to edit Wikipedia, but I always come back in time to change the MCOTW and the other collaborations I maintain. I'll always be around the MCOTW, but if not, of course feel free to change it.
Yes, I noticed it. Let me know please if you edit an article and the genetics section needs some work. NCursework 14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Tasks
"Yes, they are certainly in order after your hard work on polyclonal B cell response. You've worked hard and, more importantly, not given up when things were difficult."Well, I didn't get what you meant by "they".
I agree that there are many bad articles, but I still think that the ones that I pointed out are "extremely poor". Just see lymph for instance. It's no comparison with stroke. Agreed that the latter is a bit more likely to be searched by an average user, but it's at least B-class article. Lymph is just three lines. Likewise, did you go through pancreas? I request you you to at least throw a passing glance. Even that cannot be compared at all with the standing of the stroke article. And, for pancreas I can't even safely say that it's much less likely to be searched considering it's involved in DM, digestion, head of pancreas-malignancies, acute pancreatitis. It's a very good example performing both exocrine and endocrine functions. I just cannot emphasize enough on its significance. Moreover, I don't think pancreas has been considered in perspective of other animals.
Partly, I got shocked by these articles as I had a very good impression of Wikipedia. May be because I'd only come across very satisfying articles— ones relating molecular biology, psychiatry, etc. So, seeing such fundamental topics given such bad treatment had come as sudden shock. Of course I'll recover with time and some counseling (like I'm receiving from you ;) ).
Copyvios, non-reliable sources, new user not responding to talk messages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Full protection for four days. I will explain on Greenspan's talk page. JFW | T@lk 17:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I 'spose you know all the history there, both on and off-Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Dunno about off-wiki, but I am broadly familiar with the
walled garden on autism campaigners initially created by an old friend of mine. And of course I've read Brian Deer's BMJ article. JFW | T@lk
17:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Allergy
The reference cited regarding intralymphatic immunotherapy can be found on www.isiknowledge.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.10.196 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
So you're sending me on a chase? You might want to provide the actual reference. As I said on you talkpage, the last time this was looked at was more than a decade ago, and mainly in cancer. JFW | T@lk 22:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Paradox
My comments on coverage gaps were inspired by
WP:RAUL if you thought my phrasing was witty; I haven't thought of a way to put it that fits into the format there. LyrlTalkC
02:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Osteoporosis
In your removal of my addition, what do you mean by : what are the endpoints? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gciriani (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for returning on this subject. I have entered a new comment a couple of days ago, and I was waiting for your reply before proceding further. Here it goes:
Have you read the peer-reviewed article about the study, which I referenced? It is published in one one of the most authoritative journals writing about bones. What is your qualification? Are you one of the peers who approved the article and now are having second thoughts? Or did you just arbitrarily decide that even though there was enough evidence for the peer-reviewer, there was not enough evidence for you? The study clearly shows an increase in BMD compared to a control group and a group performing resistance exercise. My entry only mentioned increased BMD. I do not understand why you would delete my entry and leave the following one, which refers to the same type of treatment, but with different modalities.
Please let me know the criteria for inclusion (logical please and not arbitrary, and no double standards please), so that I may try to meet them.--Gciriani (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of ways to increase BMD, and we can only discuss the ones that are in widespread use. Please provide evidence of widespread use. Also, do you have fracture rate data? That's a slightly harder endpoint.
Questioning underlying motives is not an expression of
good faith. I urge you to stick to the issues rather than guessing who I am and what I do. JFW | T@lk
22:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's stick to the issues then. Isn't Osteoporosis referred to as a BMD lower than 2.5 sigma? This definition does not entail fracture data: off course any college student of engineering can tell you that increased material robustness decreases the likelihood of breaking the material. Does every entry have to report on BMD and fracture data, or is BMD sufficient? The subsection on Low-level mechanical signals only mentions BMD improvement, it doesn't mention reduced fracture data, and it is also experimental and its use is also not widespread. Shall we delete that too?--Gciriani (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree that "low-level mechanical signals" is not yet widely used. I have deleted it. Thanks for pointing this out.
You are quite correct that fracture data are not always present for osteoporosis treatments, but they need to be widely used to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 12:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry to bother you with this, but I've put polyclonal B cell response on FA assessment. As I'm totally unaware of the FA procedure, I'm a quite worried about one of the referee pointing out that the article does not meet the summary style requirement for FA. Since, I've been the only person looking after the article for so long, I might not be able to give it the "detached look" so much required for further improvements. The comments for the assessment are here.
I'd be very grateful if you could go through the article once and make some edits or some recommendations.
The article I created on the diabetic cardiomyopathy was completely written and edited by myself. I was planning on fixing the references, however, due to the large amount, that will take some time. I just wanted to have the whole article out, and then work on the references slowly. I will try to insert a couple of sentences before each paragraph that would be less technical. However, the general target audience of such an article would be college students in some sort of science field, wouldn't you think that would fit their knowledge?
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
talk
) 08:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Again... use of news sources
I left the following reply on my talk page but thought I'd leave it here as well in case you don't get to it.
Thank you for the feedback and thank you for directing me to the informative Wikipedia SignPost. I have been trying to learn to use Wikipedia well and appropriately, and to be a good contributor.
While I appreciate your due diligence, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of my additions to Wikipedia entries. My sources are entirely verifiable and pass the standards written in the "Reliable sources" section. Newswise and Eurekalert and other online information resources other than Wikipedia contain useful reference material. I don't see anything in Wikipedia suggesting that it allows only citations to academic journals.
The articles on Newswise come directly from the studies' authors or affiliations. They are not "news items" written by journalists for journalism publications but are source material directly from the institutional bodies or organizations conducting research. In addition, they provide greater detail than the abstracts provided by PubMed, including quotes from researchers. They are perfectly suitable for Wikipedia users to verify that the information in the Wikipedia entry is complete and accurate.
Isn't the point of an online encyclopedia is to have access to the LATEST credible research and information on a given topic, as opposed to a "stagnant" textbook that provides general knowledge? I assure you, I would never purposely add anything to Wikipedia that wasn't verified by legitimate, peer-reviewed sources -- unlike several of the entries I've come across in my years of reading Wikipedia. In fact, I think I'm adding something truly useful for the knowledge-seeking public.Craigsjones (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I will respond on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 06:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Move please
Zou je iets willen doen aan meneer Image:Noonan.jpg? Hij staat een beetje in de weg van een afbeelding op Commons... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: I left off the stuff about FAS, FAS was not well defined in the primary paper, except as the "death receptor" and it apparently is only involved after other gluten activities have taken place indicating an inevitable apoptosis of epithelial cells.Pdeitiker (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: I did not put any of the downstream activities of IL15, this will be done on the graphics for Gluten immunochemistry if plausible.Pdeitiker (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a look but I suspect it may be a tad on the technical side for this clinician of little brain. JFW | T@lk 06:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Temazepam
I am currently trying to strip down the temazepam article, removing unrelated, tangential, erroneously cited and unrelated references. Currently every second word of the article is death, amputation, coroner, respiratory depression, police, smuggle, crime, mafia, KGB, etc. (The same as other articles of the same authors)
I also try to get the pharmacology etc into a usable shape, removing dangling in vitro experiments, mouse brain slices etc. as well as anecdotal evidence and the patient who injected it into the eyes, after, both legs were amputated. However I have almost been lynched for that, and been accused of vandalism and working for Roche. Kindergarten.
Your input would be much appreciated. 70.137.161.241 (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for letting me know about the MCOTW. What did you mean by record time? I'm not aware of the practice. I thought the topic keeps on changing every two weeks.
One more thing, wouldn't it be better to rename the collaboration as "Medical collaboration of the fortnight" as we've been keeping the articles for 15 days?
At the risk of seeming too pestering, would you be able to go through polyclonal B cell response once? Am asking as I'm not sure if you missed my message in this regard above.
Even though it's my suggestion, I might not be able to contribute as much to lymphatic system article as I would have liked. Would be able to look at it properly at the end of this week.
About ascending cholangitis am not sure how useful were my contribution, and you seriously need not thank me as Wikipedia is open to all, and I would have any way made contribution if convinced that my intervention could improve an article.
Regarding polyclonal B cell response, it's not the factual or conceptual issues that require attention, but language, formatting and grammar (as pointed out on the nomination talk page.
Hope, going through the polyclonal article, your immunology-understanding will shed some of its rust ;-)
That factoid has no reference, so I have no way of
verifying its veracity. I am not aware of any experiments along this line. Have a look at the reference desk - you might get hold of someone who knows what he's talking about. JFW | T@lk
Can you explain your criteria for a notable external link, i.e. what makes an external link notable? I do not understand why, for example, an excerpt from a translation of Nachamnides' commentary is not relevant to an article on Nachmanides.
Thank you.
Chumashteacher (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I replied to your answer on my talk page. Please reply. Thanks
Chumashteacher (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Online first
I'm really not sure if it is a good idea to refer to papers that have not yet been published in print. When you added PMID 18535026 to multiple sclerosis I had to manually update the citation template. Papers that have not appeared in print do not yet get the scrutiny (e.g. rapid responses) that printed papers get. Do you think we could remove your addition until the paper is printed? JFW | T@lk 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I am not familiar with the scrutiny process. Remove it if you consider that it is not trustworthy.--Juansempere (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yiddish sentence
Hi Jfdwolff,
Sorry for disturbing you, I'm Renard from the Hungarian Wikipedia and I apply to you on User:IZAK's advice who claims you have a familiarity with Germanic languages and can read Hebrew letters. Could you please solve the meaning of the following Yiddish sentence?
...ין זעעלען ענגעלריין, מאהנע דיעזער שטיין
(It's written at the bottom of a plate in the synagogue in Pápa. The first letters are missing, see the picture here)
Hmm. My Yiddish isn't great, but I will ask someone I know who might be able to help. Please remind me in a few days. JFW | T@lk 13:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jfdwolff, have you found a solution? Renard de hongrie (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your and your helpmate's effort. Renard de hongrie (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Radon therapy
Hi Jfdwolff, if this is not an appropriate place to ask a question, please delete this message.
On the Arthritis Talk page I've answered your questions.
On the Radon therapy page there is the shablon stating that the article is not neutral.
Would you please remove that shablon?
I've just stated the facts that radon therapy is used in those places. There is no bias, in my view.
If there is any bias, please explain it on the talk page of the Radon therapy page, and I will remove a questionable material.
The facts itself, that radon therapy is used in those places, are not questionable.
They are just facts. How beneficial is radon treatment is another matter entirely, and that is not discussed in the article.
Also, if objectivity and neutrality requires to state that radon gas is radioactive and harmful, I will gladly write a section about it. Please advise me if that is necessary. Thank you. --Mikevilkin (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
On Talk:Arthritis I asked for reliable sources. That means information from academic sources, not an unpublished article. I am in little doubt that people use radon therapy for arthritis, but I need to know how commonly (from a reliable source) and what evidence there is for its use. JFW | T@lk 18:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I wondered if I could ask a favor. I've been reviewing Mental status examination for GAN, but I'm kind of stuck. I don't feel like it treats the subject with enough depth, but I don't know much about it, so I can't tell for sure. I don't know if much has been written on it as far as real-world context; the article's currently mostly an overview of the exam itself. Do you know much about the exam? I noticed you mentioned on the talk page that you might give it a review if you had time (not that you have time now, what with SAH at FAC...). Maybe you could give a second opinion or point me to someone who might help? Thanks much, delldottalk 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The whole point of the MSE is a general impression of a person's mental health. I totally recognise the format of the article - that's quite the same as they way I learnt in medical school.
I will look at it in more detail when the FAC at SAH and the GAC at ascending cholangitis are sorted... JFW | T@lk 20:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
PMID 16669961. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
)
PMID 17190763. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
Done now. JFW | T@lk 12:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
