User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Please see what I wrote in Tzadik, and if I only wrote from a chabad viewpoint please add in other viewpoints as well. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Also please comment on the talk page of chabad regarding what I wrote there: I have created a new article that deals with the concept of a Tzadik, and merged the contents of the "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" section into it. Therefore if there is consensus I will be removing the section from here and replace it with a link to Tzadik. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: kashrut/Macht/Johns Hopkins/Lancet/Biblical Archeological Review[edit]

Dear Sir,

Johns Hopkins, Lancet (UK's premiere medical journal), and BAR are all mainstream science. I also see that one person restored what you deleted with no commentary with no comments in the talk page, thus I see no general reaction that the material should not be there. I also offered opposing arguments so it is not POV. I am returning the material to the article. I respect your right to disagree but I do not believe in arbitrary exclusion. I have no desire to get into a edit war. That is why I offered opposing arguments. Please be reasonable here.

Lastly, science is probabilistic and provisional. I would be happy if you found and offered material which falsified/controverted the Macht/JohnsHopkins, Lancet, and BAR material.

ken 16:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Re:Quintiliano H. de Mesquita[edit]

Dear Jfdwolff

Dr. Mesquita is notable by his many pionner contributions to the medical science [1] as for example:

1) A new electrocardiographic classification of incomplete branch block with the discover of 2 new types of bundle branch block in 1948 [2]

2) 1º case of ventricular aneurism pos infarction operated by Charles Bailey in 1954 - Please see the letter by Charles Bailey at[3]

3) 1º case of right ventricular infarction diagnosed in vivo inside new electrocardiographic patterns contradicting the ECG Cavity Theory and confirming the ECG Vectorial Theory of Myocardial Infarction, in 1958 - Please see the letter by Myron Prinzmetal at[4]

4) The Myogenic Theory of Myocardial Infarction, in 1972 [5]. In 1975 Dr. Mesquita received the Ernst Edens prize by the "Internationale Gesselschaft für Infarktbekaempfung" [6]

5) The confirmation of the Prinzmetal’s Theory of Accelerated Conduction, 1999 [7]

Dr. Mesquita deceased 5 years ago. He is being supported by the Infarct Combat Project where I am the actual coordinator

Sincerely yours

Carlos Monteiro

He may be a very good scientist with interesting views, but the theory you are trying to insert is not accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. There has to be a significant following to make Dr QH worth mentioning. JFW | T@lk 19:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

We all know, that there was a time when the vast majority of the "scientific" community thought that the sun goes round the earth. Only the number of protagonists is not helpfull for the decision what´s right or wrong. --RJ Petry 16:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an arbiter in that issue. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Al Andalus[edit]

If you have a chance, would you mind reviewing the current dispute there, and giving your thoughts? Thx. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

re: kashrut material on hygiene/health[edit]

You wrote to me:

"Perhaps it helps if you're concise and limit yourself to 1-2 references. Wikipedia need not be the final word. JFW"

I welcome your suggestion, however, if it is shorter than two things will happen:

One, it will be called non-mainstream science (original research) because it does not have the support of Dr. Macht/Johns Hopkins publication, Lancet, and BAR.

Two, it will be called POV because it does not give both sides.

I believe I was concise it giving both sides of the germaine issues and used mainstream sources. For example, Dr. Macht's study was published in a Johns Hopkins publication and Dr. Macht has a excellent biography.

Lastly, I would appreciate it if further communication was done in the talk section of the kashrut talk page.

ken 20:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aposthia[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aposthia, and the comments by Sirkumsize. Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


If you delete a large chunk of an article, for whatever reason, can you please at least move that chunk to the talk page and copy your reason there. Thanks.

Pengo 16:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. JFW | T@lk 16:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


hey dude, doing a run of nights, redid choking for you.

did you get any central lines in? how's your daughter? mine (2 1/2) told me that she's a "a big girl now, daddy" this morning! (her photo's at Erich 18:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

mmm well I'm planning to do part 2 next year, so it is possible I may get into some more serious procrastination... keeps me pretty busy so I can't make any promises! you continue to be a wiki-powerhouse... dunno how you manage it! Erich 16:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD: Acu-cell article, images[edit]

JF, the person(s) behind the article you VfD'd has uploaded a bunch of copyrighted images of the company (logos and such). Must each of these be individually copyvio-tagged and listed on the copyvio page? I'm rather hoping you will use you magic Admin sorcery skillzz and make them all go away at the touch of a single button. That is, when the VfD passes. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  22:14:06, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

Yes, please push that magic button and give everyone a rest!

BTW, I am deleting my own article - not anyone else's. I disagree with the criteria (personal agenda by encephalon) used to approve or reject submissions. I have no interest in being associated with a biased user resource such as Wikipedia under these circumstances. Wikikraut

I really wonder why you are responding to Encephalon in this fashion. I reiterate my earlier warnings that the article is set to be deleted, but that blanking is not an acceptable way of undoing an edit. When you originally submitted it (three times under different titles) you released it under the GFDL. It is now part of Wikipedia and not yours to delete. JFW | T@lk 02:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

JF, forgive my responding to a third party on your page. Wikikraut, hello there. I'm sorry that you've felt it necessary to engage in personal attacks. I've made a brief response to your comments on the VfD page.[8] I hope that page as well will not be needlessly cluttered up with fruitless arguments rather than votes. If you would like to respond to me, with either constructive comments or personal attacks, you are welcome to do so at my Talk page. I dislike the cluttering of my online colleagues' pages on my behalf. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  07:16:47, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

Carcinogenesis on WP:MCOTW[edit]

Hi! You showed support for Carcinogenesis, this week's Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker 00:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Jacob Neusner bibliography undeleted[edit]

This article has been restored. Both VFD debates on the article ended with a "keep" result, and therefore the deletion was obviously out of process. At any rate, please don't delete articles which you nominate for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, of course. But the VFD will come back. This page should never have been created, and unless someone with enough background edits it into shape, it has no merits. JFW | T@lk 17:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest the correct think to do is look for a concensus of the deeper issue of what to do with pages-that-aren't-articles-but-are-useful - in this case perhaps enquiring at wikisource as to whether they'd take bibliographies. Repeatedly slapping VfD on until there aren't enough keeps around is nearly as bad as what real politicians do. --zippedmartin 22:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, the only reason it wasn't deleted is because I did not take the time to mobilise some others to vote delete. The page is not useful, it is atrocious. Wikisource would not be pleased. No other notable person has his whole biography on Wikipedia, and prof Neusner is not to be an exception. JFW | T@lk 00:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article was a strain on the eyes, and not very encyclopedic. Had I voted in that VFD debate it would definitely not have been an outright "keep". What you can do without a VFD debate, is to take some of the most notable pieces of work on that list and merge them into the main Jacob Neusner article, then convert the bibliography article to a redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is my point: I lack familiarity with Neusner's works to say with confidence which ones are notable and which ones are not. The original creator, RK, left Wikipedia a few months ago. I will post a request on the talk page for anyone to select the most notable examples of prof Neusner's work. JFW | T@lk 09:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


I would love to see a RfC. He tries this semi-regularly, and it is a pretty sneaky attempt to keep his poorly arugued conversations out of sight. Do you have a few more you've pulled from the edit history to show he has done this multiple times? JoeSmack (talk) 16:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. whoops, sorry about the double post. i got a wiki-error the first time and didn't think it went through. JoeSmack (talk) 17:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, the RfC is necessary. I will give you my full support. JoeSmack (talk) 21:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I've been searching around, and I could use a bit of a hand. Here is my current case against SciGuy. Can you find where this section "slipped" out of the talk page and never made it to archive? [9]. I've combed a couple of times but cannot find it. JoeSmack (talk) 23:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Found it in an archive. My mistake. Here it is: [10]
Here is a new one: couldn't find it using "find" for "Fred2005's neutrality" scrolling through all arhive pages: [11] JoeSmack (talk) 23:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


Hi Jfd. A couple of days ago, I decided to tackle rewriting balanitis xerotica obliterans, as the present article is simply too awful for words. Since it'll take a few days, I've made a start over at balanitis xerotica obliterans/temp, and am gathering references and beginning to flesh out the text. I'd appreciate any input you might have. - Jakew 20:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Once I'm happy with the text, would you mind reviewing it to make sure that everything is medically sound? Also, if you know anyone who could donate a photograph, that would be fantastic (I've requested permission from, but I'm not optimistic). - Jakew 09:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again. Mostly there, now, but I'd like to add something about the features of the disease. Histological features are described here and here, but I would appreciate some help in translating these into lay English. - Jakew 12:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Dhimmi and Ger Toshav[edit]

Please see User:Heraclius latest edits pointing the articles to each other. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

2,013th edit[edit]

I just realized that I have passed the 2,000 edit milestone and this is my 2,013 edit! I have edited 1379 distinct pages.

Request 2[edit]

Hi - just checking that you got my above comment. It may have been 'lost in the noise'. - Jakew 09:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem - whenever you have the time. I've replaced the main article now, so please edit balanitis xerotica obliterans. Thanks. - Jakew 10:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi Jfdwolff

I see you removed the link to Causes of clinical depression. I have not yet read all the material on this particular website, but I was just wondering why you removed this link as there was no edit summary. Thanks. -- > Reply 19:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply -- > Reply  08:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Help with Hebrew[edit]

Hi Dr Wolf: I received the following request. Could you help out please, I am pressed for time (I guess you are too...but stil...) Zai Gezunt! IZAK 10:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC) : "Izak, I created the page on the Na Nach Nachma mantra, complete with an explanation of how it is based on the letters of Nachman of Breslov's name. But I do not know how to do Hebrew letters in Wiki. Judging from your talk page here, you do. Could you add them to that section? Toda rabbah! User:rooster613"


Hi JfdWolff,

Allow me to present myself as the editor of a forthcoming volume in Hebrew on Jewish communities in north west Germany. (Pinkas Kehillot Germanya) In this context, I'm interested in the image of Samson Raphael Hirsch which I understand was uploaded by you in the pertinent Wiki article. Do you have any info regarding the original copyright holder? Do I need special permission for reprinting the picture (in a non-commercial Hebrew)book, seeing that Samson Raphael Hirsch died in 1888?

Many thanks,

Daniel Fraenkel Jerusalem

I must admit I found it on the internet, and surmise that the copyright is likely to have expired. Perhaps looking in the Klugman book (see the page's references) will lead you to the relevant information. Good luck & please let me know if there are any problems with the copyrights. JFW | T@lk 10:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

HappyCamper's RFA - Thanks for your support! :-)[edit]

Hi Jfdwolff! Thanks for your support on my recent RFA. I'm now an administrator, and I just wanted to come by and say a few words of thanks. I really appreciated the sincerity of your comments - it made me smile when I read them!

I hope in the future we could collaborate on a project, perhaps writing an article or performing administrative tasks. I'm always interested in editing different types of articles. If you ever need an extra helping hand, please feel free to leave me a message, and I'll try to help out if I can. Thanks again, and happy editing! --HappyCamper 15:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


I took up your suggestion, and was bold. Took me a little longer than you to spot the individual and so read your comment on his talk page, I'll leave the rest for now and see if he will edit for us :-) David Rubentalk 03:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


I agree completely with your views on categorization. As these stubs were created, I didn't know any category but for medical, knowing full well that it would have to be sub-categorized. If I had known the second or third level category the article had belonged to I would have placed it there myself. Thank you for recategorizing these stubs. I am very grateful for your work. And, I hope to improve as I continue. --McDogm 05:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I will try to be more conscientious in finding the correct sub- and sub-sub- categories. Thank you. --McDogm 05:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


Hee, een onverlaat heeft zomaar een helpende hand uitgestoken, :-). Tsja, als beginnend 'editor' kijk ik nog een beetje de kat uit de boom en moet de precieze gang van zaken nog ontdekken. Wel fijn dat je me een beetje helpt. Heel erg bedankt!

Wat betreft Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine zal zeker kijken of ik iets doen kan. Mag ik af en toe je hulp inroepen? Groetjes --Nomen Nescio 22:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jewish texts[edit]

Hello Dr. Wolff: Someone has tried to create a new "Jewish texts" template and has been pasting it on related pages without any discussion. This is a serious matter and your input is needed ASAP. See Template talk:Jewish texts. Thank you. IZAK 05:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hippocampus dispute[edit]

Jfdwolff: there's a dispute over on the hippocampus talk page that has been brewing. A user claims that the hippocampus page is non-NPOV because it only discusses the anatomical definition of "hippocampus" and doesn't include the Greek mythological entry. In response I've tried to explain that the anatomical term is much more widely used today (another user and I both offered up some numbers and examples to back this up). I also created a hippocampus (disambiguation) page that mentions his view, and placed the disambiguation link template at the top of the hippocampus page. As far as I understand wikipedia policy, this is the correct way to do this, and is done frequently (e.g., Bach). Am I wrong here? Can I get some advice? Semiconscious (talk · home) 23:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your feedback. The whole scenario seemed weird to me. I needed a little outside, admin confirmation to convince me I wasn't acting mad. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


Oh, Flemish, is it? I thought it was Dutch. My being Swedish helped, and I talk with the Dutch editors on IRC sometimes, and you see the little difference in this one? Not that I can claim to understand it. Cheese is good, isn't it? :-) Bishonen | talk 21:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi! I'm a user of italian wikipedia and commons (Oks). I've inserted different pictures of drugs chemical structures in Commons and then in en wikipedia. Unfortunately not always i've infomations to completing template box but if i'should find them i'll insert. Now i'll look for incomplete boxes to see what i must add. Hi! 23:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

For drawing molecules i use ISIS DRAW software. You can find at this addres ([[12]]) and basic version is free but you must register.
What's Martindale? A textbook? i don't know it.
Generally i use my pharmacology textbooks (two or three) for pharmacokinetic informations but there aren't for all drugs. There is an italian site which has the tecnical informations that generally are inserted in the boxes with the drugs. I can try to use it. Otherwise the last resource is PubMed ([[13]]). 23:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I see. Thank you very much! 23:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


From Alteripse (talk · contribs) for his Barnstar. JFW | T@lk 23:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Never mind[edit]

Find it less chaotic to keep comment and response on the same page so I have answered here. Will do so from now on. --Nomen Nescio 23:42, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi JFW[edit]

I'm doing well, thanks! I recently began graduate studies in physiology at Georgetown University which is why I've not been around here much lately. How've you been? --David Iberri | Talk 22:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Medicine is still the goal, but it's been delayed somewhat. The aim of this graduate program is to improve my applicaiton to medical school. So many hoops to jump through... ;-) --David Iberri | Talk 18:05, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sixasentan et al.[edit]

Hi. I think you probably know more about it than me. I have put a basic Endothelin stub together, however, and would appreciate any improvements to it. I spent a short while working for a printers with phamraceutical clients - hence my passing interest. I had to ensure that everything in the articles was from public sources, of course! Rich Farmbrough 22:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Category talk:Ashkenazi Jews[edit]

Hello Dr. Wolff: Do you think it's reasonable to "categorize" all the Ashkenazi Jews etc. on Wikipedia? See Category talk:Ashkenazi Jews. Thanks. IZAK 05:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Knee (disambiguation)[edit]

I have removed a very long discussion from (rather than with) Jerzy (talk · contribs). If he doesn't like my interpretation of speedy deletion guidelines, he can WP:RFC me. JFW | T@lk 21:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support![edit]

Dear Jfdwolff, thanks for your vote of confidance at my RfA. I'll try hard to make the soggy mop proud! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I still think my vote on your username being a flame retardant was rather witty. JFW | T@lk 12:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support[edit]

Hi, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was pleased to see so much support, especially from people such as you who I do not know very well, if at all. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


If anyone should stop it's you. Prayer fit's all the requirments to be a superstition you should reinstate it, unless you can come up with some evidence that it is not a category:superstition--Baphomet. 11:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

See talk:prayer and the discussion on CFD. JFW | T@lk 11:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Preview is your friend![edit]

Watching through cdvf ;-). --GraemeL (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user[edit]

Dear user JFW I have read your discussion with User:Baphomet. and so I request, if possible, your aid related to this subject:

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment & please do forgive me if my above words on this subject seem too hard. --GalaazV 00:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


I left my comments there, and I reverted the cat. HKT talk 06:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


Dude. I only just saw the star, thanks. Mindlessly blundering through articles would have been a more accurate description however. It's pretty weird though, it never showed on my list, even though I could have sworn the pg was watchlisted. Anyhoo, MCOTW is on break this week, which is good. Coincides with plans nicely. Okay, later buddy—encephalon | ζ  10:39:05, 2005-09-05 (UTC)


"Please pick a pub that will let me have my own sandwiches."

Well, yes, I wanted to go to the Royal Oak, get the upstairs room booked for us and then we could do what we want! Maybe next time... cheers! LoopZilla 12:17:37, 2005-09-06 (UTC)



Just a quick note to remind you of the London Meetup this coming Sunday (the 11th of September) that you signed up for (as 'definite', but it's always good to check ;-)). It's at the Archery Tavern, just next to Lancaster Gate tube station, from 13:00 (BST) onwards.

Looking forward to seeing you there.


James F. (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Facticious disorder[edit]

Thanks for moving it back. I got thinking about that later and I was debating whether or not to move it back. There is some debate as to the capitalization of disorders. I appreciate your input and am always open to constructive criticism. Also, I will move Somatization Disorder back to Somatization disorder for the sake of uniformity. Psy guy (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Somatization disorder has been moved and the link to Facticious disorder has been altered for uniformity. I haved intended on asking this on the talk page, but I haven't wanted to do the work for it yet but I'll ask you: do you think the by proxy variations of Facticious disorder need to be discussed or have I just not found them yet? Psy guy (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Rosicrucian article[edit]

No need :) I'm going for weekend, it seems the article needs work, next week. Anyway, thanks for your attention and have a nice weekend. --GalaazV 05:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Baphomet's back[edit]

WholemealBaphomet (talk · contribs) is back with a new POV fork: God Myth. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Myth for more details. HKT talk 17:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


I've responded to your comments on Template talk:DiseaseDisorder infobox. It sounds like we may be pretty close to a consensus. --Arcadian 14:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I've responded to your comments on Template talk:DiseaseDisorder infobox. --Arcadian 17:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Please respond to the most recent comments at Template_talk:DiseaseDisorder_infobox#Diseases.2FDisorders_vs._Signs.2FSymptoms. Or, if you're satisfied with the status quo, that's okay too, but the reason we're having this discussion is because you were complaining that you weren't being consulted enough, and that's why you were reverting additions. So please either counterpropose a format for listing the ICD codes symptoms such as Ataxia that addresses your concerns, or indicate that you're satisfied with the way things are now. Thank you for your time. --Arcadian 18:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls[edit]


Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 11:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jfdwolff,
Thanks for joining the project. Can you verify that the subcategories in the medicine list are suitable? I would like to make sure that no important sub field was left out and that there are no unrelated entries. Thanks, APH 06:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Up your alley?[edit]

Thought you'd like to peek at this...Medicine that is harmful and ineffective. KHM03 20:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your edits to Childbirth. While I understand and appreciate the point of view that we should avoid scare-mongering, I think that some folks sometime want to take that so far that they end up glossing over and simply omitting any discussion of its real risks, which is unfair to the readers in a completely different way. I appreciate your helping to maintain a balance there. Thanks again, Nandesuka 07:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Vibrational Medicine[edit]

Dear JFW, I have found the following book last year and thought it also might be of some interest to you Sir: It is called Vibrational Medicine: The #1 Handbook of Subtle-Energy Therapies (ISBN 1879181584, Bear & Company: 3rd edition, March 15, 2001) written by Richard Gerber, a physician/internist with the Charwood Medical Group and medical degree from Wayne State University School of Medicine [14]. For more info on Vibrational Medicine book: index, contents [15], comments, costumers reviews [16] and also if of interest an interview with Dr. Richard Gerber: Interview - part one & Interview - part two. Thank you, --GalaazV 00:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC) Please, allow me to just present here a bit of the author's introduction to this new paradigm in Medicine:

The current practice of medicine is based upon the Newtonian model of reality. This model is primarly a viewpoint which sees the world as an intricate mechanism. Doctors conceptualize the body as a type of grand machine which is controlled by the brain and peripheral nervous system: the ultimate biological computer. But are human beings really glorified machines? Or are they complex biological mechanisms which are in dynamic interplay with a series of interpenetrating vital energy fields... the so-called "ghost in the machine"? This book is an introduction to a new viewpoint of healing that encompasses an evolving picture of matter as an expression of energy. This new field of healing, based upon the Einsteinian paradigm, is called vibrational medicine.

Despite Dr Gerber's qualifications, I doubt this would be supported by mainstream medicine. Energy-based healing was not invented by Gerber - it is the principle of acupuncture and many other modalities of CAM. Unless you can prove he has a large backing, I doubt Dr Gerber would merit mention on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 18:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your words, with which I also agree. Yet, as I see it - and as I had already the opportunity to explain in the "Alternative medicine" discussion page - the author doesn't create any new "Alternative medicine" branch, but tries to construct, through a more scientific explanation of existing principles related to the body and the universe (studied in esoteric systems and practiced in some degree in alternative medicine), a bridge between mainstream medical science and milenary (or older) alternative medicine practices, based on scientific models (for instance the "Einsteinian" E = mc2:), which he calls "Vibrational medicine". I would see his conceptions as an attempt to show to the academic conventional medicine deeper understanding about CAM, its wider potentiality in healing (not just curing) according to him and a few more authors and "healers", and to present methods capable of being applied in practice by medical communities. That is also the reason why I thought it would be Ok to introduce it into "CAM" and "Alternative medicine" sections related to discuss these matters; but not forcing it in any way (it is enough to had the opportunity to present it according to my own point of view in the discussion page and here). Another person who tried also to present work, new paradigm, based on similiar conceptions, but instead from the field of Physics, was Ms. Elsa M. Glover (Ph.D.), deceased 2003 in her main work "Science and Religion" [17] --GalaazV

People who try to introduce new medical systems on the basis of theories of natural science are best qualified as "pseudoscientists". The present system of medicine, however Newtonian, does not recognise most principles of "vibrational medicine" (apart from the obvious uses of vibration such as lithotrypsy etc.) I may have been incorrect in classifying it as CAM/alternative. Vibrational disruptions also figure extensively in systems related to geopathic stress, generally considered pseudoscience by orthodox practicioners. 11:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


JF, just a heads up in case you haven't heard. DR has just been discharged from hospital; was in the ICU, so sounds like it was serious.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  01:05:49, 2005-09-13 (UTC)

Bmicomp's RfA[edit]

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Please help[edit]


Looks like I'm guilty of a "GFDG Violation" in my additions to the Hangover page. Have read the materials on GFDL but am still in the dark. How did I go wrong and how can I avoid the problem in the future?

Many thanks. David Justin 17:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan Eybeschutz[edit]

Please look at the chages made to the Jonathan Eybeschutz article by For now, am leaving wording as is for others to view.... > Fintor 06:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka's RfA[edit]

I just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I'll try my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Nandesuka 00:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch.png[edit]

Jfdwolff/Archive 12 — In case you aren't aware, there has been a significant change in policy. Images that do not have proper copyright information may be deleted within 7 days of uploading. I am bringing this to your attention, because you have uploaded an image, Image:Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch.png, which does not have any copyright information. If you do not insert any copyright information within the next few days, this image may be deleted. If you have any questions on how to insert this information, please visit my talk page. Ral315 21:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC) I saw that you said it was "probably" public domain, but it would be good if you could confirm this and remove it from "possibly unfree images". Ral315 23:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

In order for it to be public domain, we need to find out who the artist was. If the artist died before September 19, 1930, it's public domain. Otherwise, the artist still has full rights on it in some countries (including the U.S., I believe). If the artist did die before Sept. 19, 1930, then put {{PD-art}} on the page. Ral315 16:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to look in the biography, which reproduces the image. JFW | T@lk 17:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Myocardial infarction and Angioplasty[edit]

For obvious reasons, I had a look at these (still rather tired during the day -> sleep -> insomnia). Saw you have heavily worked on these. I untangled risks of angioplasty on the MI page and added new sub-section on the angioplasty page. WP not place to frighten people off proceedures by listing all possible side effects, but some mention seemed appropriate. I perhaps have biased objectivity as to appropriate level of detail to go into, so your review (revert if required) appreciated. The 'Best Evidence' site is a simplified version of the BMJ's 'Clinical Evidence' and seems a good place to direct patients who insist on doing their own internet research... :-) David Rubentalk 03:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)



My comment about the overdiagnosis of athetosis is anecdotal, but is based on the anecdotes of at least three consultant neurologists working at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London.

I don't feel particularly strongly about its inclusion, but I feel the article is most likely to be read by medics, who would find it useful. I would rather see it removed than watered down into something that general physicians will not learn from.

Regards, Dubbin 20:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The anon you were reverting on Breastfeeding[edit]

Regarding the anon you were reverting on Breastfeeding, you might want to see this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Banned editor User:Robert Blair editing again. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Immune System[edit]

Hi Dr Jfdwolff, I was the one who overlengthen the introduction to this article. In going through its history page, I saw this edit summary: "09:20, 21 September 2005 Jfdwolff (that was too long and very much lay language; this is shorter and more to-the-point)".

I definitely agree with you that the introduction was too long, exceeding the recommendations of Wikipedia, but yet I did not know how to shorten it. You did a great job!

However, I do not agree with you on the other point: "very much lay language." Wikipedia, as I understand it, is a community portal for the lay people, and not a specialty platform for the medical profession. In that it is for the lay people, all articles in Wikipedia should be tailored to the level of the target audience, and be written in lay language. As a matter of fact, this article is so technical that I bypassed it so many times, after reading the first few sentences. The language is so unlike that of another medical-related article, entitled "Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder".

Dr Jfdwolf, I hope that you can agree with me on this, and I look forward to reading more "human" medical articles, LOL. (Yes, doctors are inhuman, they are superhuman, so to speak.) — PM Poon 23:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Obesity again[edit]

Well, I don't mind, but I'm not sure the first thing people want to see when they open that page is a naked fat guy. If you want to move it to the top, go right ahead. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


Hi Jfdwolff! May I direct a glance to the article Ouabain, please? I've seen your edits in the history and therefore know, that you've already spend some time in this. I'm a german cardiologist taking part in the german WP for about one month now (user name JHeuser). While keeping an eye on the german article on myocardial infarction, I came across "RJ Petry", who keeps on discussing his view of the use of Ouabain in MI. He is a "Heilpraktiker", if you happen to know this german term, and has "published" a book on this theme in 2003. I would like to let you know, that apart from him (who is not treating patients with MI), I definitely know NOBODY in Germany favouring this kind of therapy. Have a nice day!

Fastest response I ever got so far, THANKS!

In Germany there are 2000-3000 physicians who are using orally administered ouabain in the prophylaxis and therapy pf angina pectoris and myocardial infarction. There is a bundle of (in part double blind) clinical and pharmaco-dynamical studies (mostly in german language, not listed in pubmed) and many articles about this topic. JHeuser - like noone else - is not able to know everyone and everything. So his last sentence is only a documentation about his horizon regarding this special theme. I doubt if he had read my article which I have indicated on the german ouabain ( = strophanthin) side or my english version on this page. Altogether (including the topics for example "ouabain as a new hormone", "stimulation of the sodium pump", and "history of ouabain"), my book has 1380 references and has got a commendatory preface of Prof. Hans Schaefer (Heidelberg), who was "no nobody" in the international world of medicine. The quality of my work and the topic that he knew very good was crucial for his decision.

An interesting pharmacodynamical double blind crossover study published at pubmed is Belz et al. 1984, in which orally administered ouabain had approximately the same effects like nitroglycerin. Another one with intravenous ouabain which had a positive influence on the time patients could perform a bicycle ergometry until anginal pain began (unfortunately without abstract in pubmed): Sharma B et al.: Clinical, electrocardiographic, and haemodynamic effects of digitalis (ouabain) in angina pectoris. Br Heart J. 1972 34:631-7. --RJ Petry 17:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

How often do I need to tell you that published studies are not guaranteed a mention in Wikipedia? I'm starting to get tired of arguing with you. JFW | T@lk 23:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Please would you be so kind and indicate me when you have told me that published studies are not guaranteed a mention in Wikipedia ? I can´t remeber and think that I read this here for the first time ! Furthermore I don´t try to mention this studies above on the "ouabain" side, but only the true sentence, that there are 2000-3000 of physicians in Germany who are usinmg oral ouabain in angina pectoris and heart infarction. And with the background described in my aricle I think that this is worth to be mentioned. Why are you against the passing mention of the possibility to solve one of the important medical problems ? Did you read my english article ? Or are you too tired to read it ? *blink - without negative energy* Besides: Could we please communicate on the discussion side of "ouabain" ? --RJ Petry 19:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Anxiety (disorder)[edit]

A new user has merged the Anxiety and Anxiety disorder pages since they were marked with merge templates, even though the opinion on the talk page seemed to be against the merge. As you appear to have posted on the talk pages a bit, I was hoping you could take a look at the merge and see if it needed to be undone or not. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Middle Eastern deities[edit]

I thought you might be interested in Template:Middle Eastern deities. Jayjg (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of study of nicotine's effects on sepsis[edit]

On August 12, 2005, I added information about a study published in Nature Medicine concerning the effects of nicotine on sepsis in rats. You deleted my addition with the comment "please spare us animal studies". Did you delete this on the basis that animal studies are not always borne out in humans or on the basis that you object to animal studies for ethical reasons?

Epolk 16:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


Hi: My name is Tess and I work for a global independent research firm in New York. I am interested in hiring you for a Wikipedia editing project, based on your technology and medical experience and expertise. I attempted to email you through your user page. If you received it, please read it over and contact me with any questions. If you did not receive this email, please let me know and I would be more than happy to tell you more about this project. (You can call 512-651-1797 or email Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon! Tess - Gerson Lehrman Group 19:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've responded by email. JFW | T@lk 22:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)