User talk:Jfdwolff

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

Pneumothorax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statins

Your summary sentence for possible diabetes caused by statins is much better than mine. However, as long as the details are carefully layered to follow the summary, and thus be an optional read, what is the harm in giving the details for the savvy reader? I suggest keeping both your summary edit and my details. - Robert Badgett

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

• News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership

• In the news: World watched as Wikipedia shut down for SOPA blackout

• WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto

• Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications

• Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hypertension

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

Disambiguation link notification

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

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

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Cholesterol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thrombosis

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