User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 13

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

Revert of Gangrene[edit]

Why did you revert the article? I established the no picture version so ppl can read the article without having to see disturbing pictures. --Admiral Roo 11:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

About that dopamine rv[edit]

Specifically, this:

There is also some preliminary evidence that certain parasites can affect dopamine levels in the brain. Some such parasites in rats seem to result in rats which are less fearful of cats, increasing the chances that they will be eaten by a cat, which helps the parasite spread itself. Such parasites may also alter human behavior.

I am not the person who put that there, but that idea has been mentioned by other, more-reputable-sounding people. The parasite in question is Toxoplasma gondii (which is known to infect human brain tissue), the idea, more clearly stated, is that exposure to T. gondii causes changes in personality[1], or even shizophrenia [2] (the fulltext version can be found here or at any of these libraries. Whoever s/h/it was really should have sourced it, though.--Rmky87 20:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

All very good and well, but this is all a bit niche. I had a niggling suspicion it was T. gondii, given that this has a tropism to the hypothalamus. JFW | T@lk 21:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Gefitinib[edit]

No matter how trivial the change, you should always watch WP:3RR. Please don't violate it on something as trivial as a link, rather wait for consensus and then make changes. Thank you! Sasquatcht|c 21:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Consensus? With a pushy anon who wants to push his AstraZeneca stocks? JFW | T@lk 21:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes... you wait for consensus, that doesn't mean he nessacerily has to completely agree but as long as most (remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy but if there are very strong arguments against it and very swek arguments for it, then consensus has been reached). Perhaps you should refresh yourself on WP:CON and remember that Wikipedia is about building community rather than just pushing opinions (whether it be yours or the opposing parties). Again, thanks and just keep in mind in future cases. Sasquatcht|c 00:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm quite up-to-date on consensus, but I think that apart from the opening gambit the process has been fairly straightforward. I'm also up-to-date on building communities, which I've been doing since my arrival on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 16:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't own Astra Zeneca. But I am a patient.
And you, sir, are abusive. Joaquin Murietta 00:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll respond on your talk, Joaquin. JFW | T@lk 16:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I accept your explanation and apology, Jfdwolff. You make many contributions to wikipedia, you are certainly knowledgeable, but I would not nominate you for the

welcoming committee... As a new user, I have a different perspective. Joaquin Murietta 18:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Some advice[edit]

You may want to do another archiving project with your talk page.  ;) --Admiral Roo 17:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


yes, you are right, i am a nephrologist.Hswapnil 20:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing my little formatting error at Gastroscopy. Since you're into medical things, can you please take a look at Reactive arthritis, which I just fixed from a speedy to a stub. I'm no "medicine man", so can you please check my wording, thanks! --Janke | Talk 10:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Shulkhan Arukh[edit]

"it is not the most recent - one could apply this to the Arukh ha-Shulkhan or similar works, which also aim to codify"

but certainly none of those are considered authoritative by anyone, save perhaps the Mishnah Berurah, but even that only encompasses a part of the SA and really doesn't command a wide enough allegiance to be considered authoritative. The SA is of uncontested authority. Nothing since has come close. Mississippifred (talk · contribs).

That is not the point. There are more "recent" attempts to codify the body of halakha. That's why I removed the mention of "the most recent". JFW | T@lk 07:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Myelodysplastic syndrome[edit]


I noticed you did a lot of work on this article, and was wondering if you or another doctor could answer the question I left on its talk page? If there is any possiblity of a complete recovery, it really should say so in the article.

Thanks, CTOAGN 15:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

IgA nephropathy[edit]

could you take a look at this? i still have to add a few more references, but i fear it has become to heavy to read Hswapnil 18:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


Thanks! I'm enjoying contributing to the community, but I'll be the first to admit that I did not realize that Wikipedia housed such a dedicated group of contributors. Sorry if my format was not correct. I would love to be of any help to the Clinical Sciences project. Please let me know what I can do. --Jfurr1981 07:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Revert of "unsupported assertions" in ALS article[edit]

Hi JDWolff, I had an issue with your reversion of some text I put up to clarify the situation on "stem cell" treatments in ALS. Well, they're my assertions and I am a neuropsychologist with a PhD in ALS. I think you should put them back in because they're an important issue in ALS at the moment. I wish you would have discussed this on the talk page first, as I had requested. I wrote: "In response to both sides of the stem cell debate my own feeling is that Dr. Huang's "treatment" does nothing. This is on the basis of having seen several patients in our clinic who have been there and continued to deteriorate, or in some cases have serious adverse events, as well as a multitude of reports on both Braintalk and Dr. Huang has received a lot of media attention recently in the US and UK so I anticipate that section will be added to over the coming weeks by new posters. It is also worth bearing in mind given the profit to be made from each patient ($20,000), that there is potentially an advertising element to positive spin on stem cell clinics. --PaulWicks 09:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)"

If you would like me to support some of these claims with links to posts on the internet I can do, but there is certainly no peer-reviewed document on pubmed that I can link to, because there isn't any peer-reviewed evidence, which is exactly the problem! Please let me know what you want to do either on my talk page or the ALS talk page.


--PaulWicks 08:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

A good strong source, e.g. professional association or position paper, is good enough. The personal conviction of one physician, however exciting, are doubtful. Just because something involves stem cells does not mean it automatically needs to be included. JFW | T@lk 10:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive...

Here's a position paper developed and written at the request of the International Alliance of ALS/MND Associations. I wouldn't say it's my personal convinction; the directors of the ALS Care & Research centres in the UK are all in agreement. It's become quite a big issue and one of my colleagues, Dr. Kevin Talbot from Oxford, has been doing a talk on quackery. In response to the publicity on stem cells in the UK he wrote this article, an abbreviated version of one of his talks.

The reason it should be included in the ALS article is that Dr. Huang has SPECIFICALLY said that his treatment can work for patients with ALS, and his agents advertise this fact on multiple message boards. In fact, he pays for google ads which show up on boards such as Braintalk. Here is an example thread from BT. I have seen other examples too in the UK.

Forgive me if I seem over-zealous on this, but there are far too few people working positive for ALS/MND. We don't need people like these quacks getting in our way! --PaulWicks 16:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

First off, some of your links are broken.
Secondly, there's no need, in my opinion, to single out treatments for ALS that don't work in an encyclopedia article; you could cite millions of things. The only proven treatment for ALS is riluzole, and it doesn't work very well. The wikipedia is like an encyclopedia; it's not a forum for rebuttal of quacks. While important, that belongs elsewhere. -Ikkyu2 02:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If Dr Huang is indeed notorious there may be reasons for including him. I would expect this to be supported with strong sources, such as rebuttals from prominent neurologists, court cases, Brian Deer-like investigative journalism etc etc. JFW | T@lk 20:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

NPT in INR article[edit]

Hi, it's me again - DWZRC (dead wikipedian in zombie-like revenant condition). :)

I was amused to see that a Hemosense IP address had popped up to promote, sorry, mention, their device in the NPT bit of the INR article. There's nothing, or not much, wrong with this ... in a way. In another way, I removed their ext link and reordered the devices. It's not so much what they did, as my suspicions about their motivation - I mean it's not as if the same IP address has been an enthusiastic contributor to medical articles all over the wiki ... maybe this is OK though. ?

I was also slightly diconcerted that googling them seems to raise a lot more investment references than coagulation ones. Again, this may be a good thing: what would I know, I am only a patient. I'd be much happier about their inclsuion if I knew a lot more about the device, and I am never likely to attain that ...

I just thought I should mention this, and will shut up again now. :) 09:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Raul654 (talk · contribs) predicted a while ago that Wikipedia would be targeted for purposes of advertising or advocacy. Hemosense is clearly quite interested (or one of its employees is) to have it mentioned in the Wikipedia article.
If the Coagucheck and the Hemosense are the only common NPT machines around it would be reasonable to mention them both. I would not even object against having URLs for both in form of footnotes. I would object against long epistles about the machine, why it is infinitismally better than the other etc etc. JFW | T@lk 21:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that. That's pretty much how I see it. I think there is at least one more NPT machine that could be mentioned. I may try and check (remember I am supposed to be doing cold wikiturkey...) It's a slightly murky area - there isn't exactly anything wrong, per se, with what they did - it's their motivation that worries me! (I am aware how ludicrous that sounds. :) ) I was also just slightly worried that it fitted in a little with all I see about investment etc, the fact that the bloke who looks after my INR here hasn't heard of them and thinks they may not be certified for use over here ... and so on. At the same time, they seem to have some eminent people involved and I should resist the urge to rush to judgement - assume good faith - and all that. I don't know, maybe it was a bit early to add it to an enclyclopaedia - but maybe not. I am happier with the way it reads since I re-did it, for now. I think I may just climb back into my box of native earth again for a while ... :) 08:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Seizure (rv)[edit]

(was: Epilepsy (rv))

Hello again! Quick question about a recent revert on the epilepsy article. With regard to reverting, I'm sure you have criteria for reverting; I'm not clear on what they are. The recently-linked article in the epilepsy see-also area (I didn't link it; I just watch what people do to that page) wasn't terrible; it was a decent summary intended for a physician audience, and looked to have been peer-reviewed and pretty NPOV. So I'm just sort of asking why you rv'd it, without suggesting you were mistaken to do so.-Ikkyu2 02:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Er, sorry, seizure, not epilepsy. I'm tired on Friday nights. -Ikkyu2 22:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Categ:Jewish diasp, vfd[edit]

Hi Dr. Wolff, Category:Jewish diaspora has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16. IZAK 04:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Lupus Erythematosus[edit]

I noticed that you reverted this article with the comment for a shorter intro. What is acceptable for the intro then? I think that the statistics on number of people it affects is important. I think I would altogether like to see the part on the name removed since there are so many different interpretations and no one is really sure. Why are we favouring one over the other?

Additionally, the information on epidemiology was removed as was information on medication. Is there any particular reason for this? As for my qualifications, I have a B.Sc Biology (and a B.A. English) and have been living with Lupus for 8 years.

I read the instructions and I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong in this particular instance that would warrant a rejection of better scientific information than is currently provided in the article? Much more than what I changed is actually erroneous, I just wanted to do proper research before changing the remaining false areas.

Thank you --Waterspyder 00:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll discuss this on the article's talk page. JFW | T@lk 06:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


I see your point. It probably was not accurate to describe my contribution as "rewrite." However, does it really matter?--Jfurr1981 06:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is definitely worth mentioning. My feeling about medical articles is to have sufficient basic info for a novice to understand the subject, but enough detail that someone that is part of the medical field will learn something too. Here's something I found from eMedicine (a wonderful website I might add):
"If a patient does not respond to more conventional treatment, namely corticosteroids, IV RhIG, or IVIG, the usual course is splenectomy; but, recent case reports and small series indicate impressive results with the standard dose of rituximab; refer to articles referenced for more information; based on limited information, may be better to possibly achieve sustained remission with minimal adverse effects (ie, with rituximab) than undergo splenectomy."
Glad you liked the expanded version. Sorry for getting defensive. Happy Wikiediting--Jfurr1981 06:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Article Format[edit]

Just curious, JDW, what is the preferred article format for clinical medicine entries (if there is one)? By this I mean, is there an aggreed-upon order for the info: symptoms-->pathophysiolgy-->treatment?--Jfurr1981 18:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Being Away[edit]

I have been away for a little bit, however I will return and be more active again in 2 weeks, right after Sukkos. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I am back from Sydney, I am now in the United States. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


Hello Dr. Wolff: Could you please expunge Category:Bobover rebbes and Category:Bobov hasidism. I have created the CORRECT Category:Rebbes of Bobov and Category:Bobov Hasidism instead. Thanks. IZAK 04:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. JFW | T@lk 04:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks so much! IZAK 05:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


Levity<g> - Nunh-huh 06:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

good job[edit]

good job blocking User:JakeLarsen more than 3 hours would of been better but still good. --Adam1213 Talk+|WWW 14:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC) - part of the counter vandalism unit

A quick note[edit]

Hi - I just thought I'd inform you I'm about to drop a lot of medical articles from my watchlist, including Myocardial infarction. If there's an issue that arises in that article for which another person's view may be desired, bring it to my attention and I'll try to offer my input. (I simply have too may things in my watchlist right now, so I'm trimming it down a bit.) I'm sure there are others watching that article anyway, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of this. Mindmatrix 18:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbReq against Jguk[edit]

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jguk and date notation. Humus sapiens←ну? 00:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


Can you please update the copyright information for this image? If not, it will soon be deleted. --Duk 20:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


I noticed some very POV language at Lyme_disease#Treatment:

Traditional treatment of acute Lyme disease usually consists of a minimum two-week to one-month course of antibiotics, preferably doxycycline (two 200 mg capsules a day). Effectiveness of this treatment protocol in eradicating the infection continues to be controversial, due to the scientific fraud involved in the CDC's testing criteria. CDC staff are interest-conflicted and own European patent Number WO9324145. All involved knew the only reliable way to diagnose borreliosis was with genus-specific flagellin (p41 or 41 kD). Patients are rarely, if ever, false positive.

I was considering just deleting the NPOV phrases, but since this has to do with American/European medical issues, and since you've helped out on that page in the past, I wanted to ask for your help and advice before making those deletions. --Arcadian 16:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor[edit]

For what it's worth, I've taken notice of the idiocy you're having to deal with in the Talk page. I'd jump in if I thought it would help, but I'm afraid it would just add fuel to the fire. Cheers! Edwardian 04:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

DuQuette and Ben Clifford[edit]

Dear Jfd, How do you know that "Lon Milo DuQuette" and "Rabbi Ben Clifford" are a same person? What is your reference?

Best Regards. User:Sepand

In general Wikipedia does not have seperate pages on pseudonyms. It is quite obvious that Ben Clifford is a pen name / imaginary character. Looking at the title I wonder how serious the "Chicken Qabbalah" actually is, as it sounds more like a reference to chicken soup. In addition, "Lamed" is not a common Jewish name, and "Clifford" is not a Jewish name at all. JFW | T@lk 20:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

cleaning up[edit]

I think you made a good call removing the "pop culture" references from diarrhea. Joyous (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif An Award
I award you the Barnstar of Tireless Contributor, for your large body of work and for the quality of your contribution in medecine. Fadix 01:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm copying this to my barnstar holding pen on my userpage :-) JFW | T@lk 02:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The pleasure is all mine. In my Wikipedia pantheon list you are. :)

Medicine category[edit]

Oh, ok, sorry. What categories would you suggest for brain trauma related stuff? neurology I guess? Thanks, Delldot 04:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


Zeg, niet om het een of ander, maar die grapjas op de SSRI-pagina heeft geen hart onder de riem nodig. Sommige mensen zijn nou eenmaal niet gevoelig voor normale argumenten. Groetjes. JFW | T@lk 11:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Om eerlijk te zijn, vind ik je niet helemaal onschuldig. Ik denk dat het beter is om geen sarcastistische opmerkingen als "Calls his friends at the Censorship WikiProject to boast of his achievement" te maken. Maar dat is op zijn hoogst een klein misstapje, vergeleken met Shibidee. Misschien had ik beter niets kunnen zeggen. Hoe dan ook, ik realiseer me terdege dat het niet eerlijk is om jullie beiden over een kam te scheren, maar ok gokte erop dat je het wel kon hebben.
Het moet een hels karwei zijn om de WP pagina's over medicijnen vrij te houden van speculaties en ik bewonder dat je dat probeert. Ik ben vaak blij dat ik vooral aan de wiskunde pagina's werk, waar we minder last hebben van POV- en original research pushers.
Weet je trouwens een goed boek over het menselijk brein voor iemand als ik? Ik zoek iets wat begrijpelijk is (mijn voorkennis is ongeveer VWO biologie), maar niet te populistisch. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome...[edit]

...and I'm sorry if I wasted unnecessary server resources on my clumsy edit.

As for my signature, is it considered improper to include a link to my personal web site, as I have done?

Also, I checked "Raw signatures" in my user preferences, then tried to place a link to my "my talk" page, but the supposedly linked text was not linked, but showed as bold text. Is this because I have not yet created my user page?--
Mark Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY 15:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

leukocyte alkaline phosphatase[edit]

put redirect to AP on LAP page, added info on LAP to diagnostic section of AP. jeez, is anything on medlineplus public domain? Triggtay 19:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a medical student in the United States. The breadth of medical info on wikipedia is amazing (I see you've had a lot to do with this).Triggtay 23:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


Out of curiosity, why did you revert the content on Burping by anonymous editor Ziggurat 20:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Reminder[edit]

Dear Jfdwolf,

I am terribly sorry, I did not realize that I had not been signed in. I greatly appreciate your reminder and for that I honor you with the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. If you find this unnecessary, please let me know. However, if you accept, I will award you with it when we meet again. Whether or not you accept my reward, I do give you thanks for that information.
With Thanks,

A new portal[edit]

Hello Jfdwolff! I left a message on your user talk at the Dutch Wikipedia. Hope you can join us. Best regards, gidonb 20:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment requested[edit]

Doctor, I saw your comments in Talk:Pneumonia regarding the list that used to be there and wondered if you might care to comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prominent proponents/opponents of LASIK or Talk:LASIK. Thanks! Edwardian 19:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Negative studies in medicine[edit]

I just started negative studies in medicine and have added it to the clinical medicine collaboration. I figured you may have some additional insight into this topic! Thanks. Andrew73 03:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Very impressive wiki-resume, Sir!

I'd like to ask why you think the link I placed on obesity was spam. It offers users a calculator to see if they are obese, overweight, normal, or underweight, among other health calculations like BMR. It's a helpful tool and it's free.

Also, I'd ask for your assistance in the obesity discussion where I'm trying to convince a user that excess calories lead to fat.

Thanks JM

Thanks JFD for supporting me placing a pic of myself on the Obesity article. Just trying to help out... =) - Boochan 15:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Rabbi Yitzchak Kaduri[edit]

Shalom! Please look at and correct fresh start of Yitzchak Kaduri. Yours five

Wound Healing not part of immune response?[edit]

Why not? Don't the same cells that belong to the immune system also trigger cell division and healing? PiKeeper (talk · contribs).

The immune system plays an important role, but wound healing is not "part of" the immune system. Your jejunal epithelium protects you from invasive organisms. Does that mean that absorption of nutrients, which also takes place there and is dependent on immune support, is also a function of the immune system? JFW | T@lk 07:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


Hey Jfdwolff - What are you talking about?! Before I added the "Antioxidants in the Mangosteen fruit" external link, I looked carefully at the other external links there. There are 4 other external links there, ALL OF THEM with Google Ads staring in your face! HowStuffWorks even has a HUGE popup window asking people to go to a SHOPPING SITE! Please try to be more circumspect and fair before removing an external link. User:FlipOne

I've responded on your userpage. Wikipedia is not a Mangosteen juice brochure. I couldn't actually care less about the Google Ads. JFW | T@lk 21:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Jdfwolff - I read your message in My Talk and realized you obviously have NOT checked out even a page of IT IS NOT ABOUT MANGOSTEEN JUICE - IT'S ABOUT THE MANGOSTEEN FRUIT AND ITS HEALTH BENEFITS, INCLUDING ANTIOXIDANTS. I think you just relied on the URL without checking the website out itself. It's pure content about the Mangosteen.
And the only way to benefit from all those fantastic antioxidants is by buying it, uh? Just provide pure content to Wikipedia, and keep your URLs to yourself. JFW | T@lk 00:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
You do sound pretty mean for a "doctor" - even a supposed intellectual.:-( The main purpose of the website is to educate, not to sell (or a Mangosteen juice brand would have been loudly touted all over the website), so I don't understand why you said what you said. You've said Google Ads are acceptable to you. Well... Also, the natural plant compounds in the Mangosteen are well-studied and well-documented in scientific circles. Please go to (a well-known non-profit site used by scientists, researcheers, doctors, etc...), search for "xanthones", "xanthone", "mangosteen" or "garcinia mangostana", and you'll be... well, flabbergasted. I point this out to you only because I detect wonderment (to put it mildly) or sarcasm (rather bluntly) in your words... And let's be civil, please... Never, never try to drive people away just because... It's not good for the soul (or spirit, if that's what you prefer). Peace...
Oooh, here we go lecturing on morals and civility. I know what PubMed is. And I know there are unbelievable amounts of science being churned out on a daily basis, including stuff about the antioxidant properties of the mangosteen. And so what? Does that give you the right to paste URLs all over this wiki? No. Just be good and do something more useful. JFW | T@lk 00:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
You may have noticed I already acquiesced to having the external link taken out from the Antioxidant topic (and in a couple of other places) prior to this rather interesting conversation, so the subject of the URL placement is pretty moot. I don't question your "goodness", too. I just noticed the rather abrupt manner you've expressed yourself (you sound almost condenscending). I repeat --- the external website you're so adamant about is pure content about the Mangosteen, plus the Google Ads, which you have no problem about. But I've let you have your way. Peace...

My abrupt manner is at sheer vexation how you have repeatedly missed the point: Wikipedia does not need links to "pure content" - Wikipedia itself is pure content. If you are the webmaster for the site you have been promoting, you are free to licence the contents under the GFDL and to make Wikipedia better. Have a lovely day, or peace... if that's what you prefer. JFW | T@lk 00:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

... And I'm even more vexed that you should say "Wikipedia does not need links to 'pure content'". There are literally millions of "External Links" on all the Wikipedia pages which "enhance" Wikipedia's value, and why "content sites" links are generally allowed in its pages throughout. I'm really surprised by your statement, but will not be abrupt, nonetheless. Peace...

You are right that the project is drowning in useless external links. Content sites are great as a reference, but less suitable as unspecified externals. Whatever. JFW | T@lk

Links to "content sites" do "enhance" Wikipedia's value. You, of course, are right about their varying levels of suitability. I still do think, though, that the website you took out as an external link ( probably would have satisfied your relevance criteria had you taken even a brief look. Anyway, good exchange, doc. Peace...

Meningitis page[edit]

Many thanks for your feedback, and for considering my input. I was not aware of Wikipedia's medical disclaimer, as I am fairly new to the site (but still an upcoming fanatic). Funnily enough, I came across it while looking for information for a self-diagnosis. Turns out I have a Subconjunctival hemorrhage. Not meningitis (phew..)

I also see that as well as being a very knowledgable doctor, you are an administrator (the first I've met) and - not that I feel I deserve it - I was wondering how I would know when I am ready to become one myself. I am young, and have contributed on a few pages (althought the more I browse, the more insignificant I realise it is) and I have become curious as to the process of administrator selection, and the manifestation of their powers. This is just a query, please dont make me an administrator - I am not at all ready for the responsibility.

Thanks again, (now how do I sign this damn thing..?) mastodon 01:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)