User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 18

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

Restructuring a medical topic[edit]

Anti-vaccinationists looks like a reasonable topic to meMidgley 17:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a nice paper. JFW | T@lk 18:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User Midgeley Editing Practices[edit]

You seem to have an issue [[1]] over the description of your friend User Midgeley's editing practices. What exactly is the problem you have with the description "questionable". Are you saying they are unquestionable or are you saying the questions asked are not validly asked? If the latter what are the issues you have with the questions that have been asked so far? If the former, why do you say that? 86.10.231.219 08:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The term "questionable" is about as loaded as it can possibly be. It gives an air of illegitimacy, violation of policy et al. I would strongly discourage its use, especially if you subsequently cannot substantiate which practices you consider "questionable". JFW | T@lk 12:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
User Midgeley does work closely with you. That may influence your view that the practice of reverting edited Wiki pages to restore POV text and then disclaiming responsibility saying [[2]] "it wasn't me" is not questionable. You are of course welcome to your view. There are more examples. I note you do not say in response to my questions whether you say the practices are unquestionable or whether the questions are not valid. Your objection is just to the use of the term "questionable" in relation to your close colleague's editing. 86.10.231.219 13:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
We have never met. This user above has made no useful edits that I am aware of. Midgley 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"We have never met" except on Wikipedia and many times - See "Thanks Adrian" as just one example - [[3]] and another [[4]] and more elsewhere - The Invisible Anon 10:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC) & addition 13:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a wider issue. Thankfully I work very well with most other medical editors, and I work equally well with users such as Wouterstomp (talk · contribs), Arcadian (talk · contribs) and others. I really don't think we should be having a discussion here if your concerns are about edits specifically to epidemiology. I'm very glad you allow me to hold my views. JFW | T@lk 13:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
And the wider issue is? 86.10.231.219 13:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Your use of the term "questionable", and making similar ad-hominems. Accusing Midgley of "vandalism" instead of saying why he could be wrong on Talk:Mumps. But you've become a lot more courteous. Well done. JFW | T@lk 13:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I respect your right to hold the views just expressed, and take note of them albeit without necessarily holding to them myself. The courtesy comment is a rare compliment for which you have my thanks. 86.10.231.219 14:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I try to give compliments for good editing. JFW | T@lk 14:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things poeple wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

re: 86.10.231.219 and epidemiology[edit]

Any idea who 86.10.231.219 is? Did my comment in the epidemiology talk help? Steve Kd4ttc 22:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

GMC[edit]

Saw your note on Talk:General Medical Council. I hope you realise that you were looking at a press release from the vandals, not a newspaper article. JFW | T@lk 22:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That looks like an online article that largely, but not entirely, consists of the press release. I blame the demons of stupidity if I'm wrong. --Kizor 23:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out though. They are advertising an older version of the page that contained libelous allegations. I've given the history a deep clean and protected the page until these ***** go mind their own business. JFW | T@lk 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The pleasure's mine. I did notice that the press release intentionally used a permalink to disregard any later changes, and despite my general dislike of deleting revisions outright I have to respect your elegant wiki-fu. --Kizor 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just to warn you, http://www.emediawire.com/ is a press release site. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It is? So it is. --Kizor 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Probably a light hand is best on this - I suspect the people involved are familiar, and if so they are known to be litigious. The page seems well protected, and there is little benefit to be had from responding to the breathless attacks ... except by noting them and ensuring they are eventually part of the ghost of usenet past for any of them that apply for jobs or attend the orgnaisation they so deprecate for in-depth discussions of their career (as seems rather likely to be the case). Midgley 13:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the content route: expanding the topic with bona fide and widely available information. This has in the past been the most succesful way to drown out disproportionate criticism. I am not responding to the attacks anymore. The next personal attack will land them on WP:ANI. JFW | T@lk 13:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision in the Bible & Brit milah[edit]

Hello Dr. Wolff: I am wondering how to combine/reconcile these two articles: Circumcision in the Bible and Brit milah. What are your thoughts on the subject and do you have any suggestions? Feel free to commence some merging. Best wishes, IZAK 05:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting one. I suspect brit milah will reflect the Jewish POV more than circumcision in the Bible. Some argue that milah was substantially different in Biblical times, for which no support can be found in Jewish traditional sources. Have a look at the edit history of both pages and see if there are edit warriors who could cause trouble if you were to do a merge. JFW | T@lk 13:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Thanks for welcome, I'm an endoscopy fellow in Toronto. A friend of mine (research fellow in GI) and I will be contributing more to GI articles. Your contribution history is remarkable. -- Samir 09:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Colleague goes by User:Barry_Zuckerkorn here; he's working on a PhD in endoscopy delivery optics. Thanks for the hints! -- Samir 09:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: requests for rollback poll[edit]

I have sought some explanation from you there. If you could explain to me a bit, I would be very appreciative. Thanks, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have. And please don't characterise anyone's views as "absurd". There are ways of getting your point accross without WP:CIVIL violations. JFW | T@lk 21:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, I wasn't uncivil. (At least I never meant to be... perceptions can confuse) I mean "absurd" as in unreasonable, which I am allowed to think. You said, "Rollback without blocking powers is pointless", which is unreasonable in my opinion. There are plenty of times reverting is necessary and blocking isn't. To say there are not cases like this is "absurd", as it clearly is the case. I am sorry if you were offended, I did not mean to seem harsh. I just feel strongly on this subject and get a bit confused at some of the reasons presented. I was honestly seking clarification, and apologise if I did not ask in a proper way. Thanks again. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Data injected into Talk:Epidemiology[edit]

Given the paucity of data in the discussion I thought I'd inject some. Let's see what happens. Steve Kd4ttc 21:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No insults please[edit]

Please do not insult people by assuming directly they are `Haba"d meshi`hists only because they allude to words spoken by the Lubavitcher Rebber zts"l ("+category + removal of Chabad meschichist propaganda (please WP:CITE or go away") . As a matter of fact, I am not. Quite surprised to find such words from you. However, I did add citations to all the claims in this sentence added following the Hiloula of hameqoubal Yits`haq Kadouri zya"a. As a mathematician, let me just add that it would be highly illogical to be a `Haba"d Meshi`hist and still cite the Loubavitcher Rebbe zts"l while saying that `Hakham Kaduri zya"a met the Mashia`h on a day years after the passing of the Rebbe. Yirmiyahou (talk · contribs)

See the article's talkpage. JFW | T@lk 08:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Do see the article's talkpage, changes to the article and answer to your comment on my talkpage. hasofer 09:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Bible verses and chapters on Wikipedia[edit]

Hello Dr. Wolff: Shavua Tov ! It is important that you see the following proposed Wikipedia policy pages and their discussion pages at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of 1 Kings 4 and 5 AND Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text. Thanks for giving this matter your serious attention before discussion is closed and the "policy" is set. IZAK 09:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

HERE's PROOF[edit]

"So it's WP:NPOV you want? Please provide dissenting views with adequate source support, and your wish is fulfilled. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)"

PLEASE SEE THE SAMPLE OF PROOF PROVIDED on Alcohollism discussion page. This clearly establishes that there is controversy and lack of consensus that alcoholism is a disease. The Alcoholism page needs to reflect this fact. Thank you for helping to make Wikipedia more accurate.

I'll have a look. Why did you leave two copies of your message? JFW | T@lk 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I had trouble figuring out how to leave the message properly. Thanks for your patience.

Prostate Cancer[edit]

etiology, causation and association

Dr Wolff, you are wrong in your comment, but perhaps etiology should be spoken for separately from epidemiology. We know the etiology of few cancers, and should not confuse a model of pathogenesis with understanding causation in prostate cancer. The etiology of cancer of cervix seems to be HPV, under the influence of several epidemiologically identifiable co-factors and promotors. If you know the causal etiology of prostate cancer, please enlighten us. If you understand this, you may revert your edit, and retract your comment. User:Bcameron54 20:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll be responding on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 21:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm responding to your message on my talkpage. Firstly, I find your style unpleasant and extremely patronising. I presume you are referring to my informed removal of the phrase "The actual cause, or etiology of prostate cancer is unknown, as for most cancers" [1]. My objections were actually for more reasons than just the ones I mentioned in the edit summary.
Firstly, it is a stylistic issue: it reflects an unwarranted ignorance. "Oh, boys, we don't know what causes cancer." That is a statement that is fully without merits.
Secondly - we actually know a lot about chromosomal damage, oncogenes, tumour-suppresion genes, gene silencing, cancer immunology. But do we know more about heart attacks? Just about as much. It's caused by plaque rupture and coronary thrombosis, leading to myocardial ischaemia. But what causes plaque rupture? Why does a plaque become unstable? Why are the plaques there in first place - what initiates atherosclerosis?
Instead of de facto forcing me to place back that mindless sentence please engage in a discussion that assumes good faith and remains civil. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 22:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not offended by your directness, and I mean to address only the issue. So, tell us about the actual cause of prostate cancer, not about the general pathogenesis of cancer. Or, is it not known? How would you phrase it? Would a reference as the the unknown etiology of prostate cancer (or breast cancer) suffice as verification? It is worth stating the unknowns precisely and directly, so as not to mislead the reader or ourselves into thinking we know something that we don't, and to direct our thoughts towards important unknowns. Best regards, Bcameron54 23:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. JFW | T@lk 16:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Does every condition have an "actual direct cause"? There are numerous conditions where I am confident that we will never find a single etiologic agent. These are simply multifactorial, and only a "final common pathway" explains the illness. In cancer, external and internal risk factors predispose to DNA damage, leading to a mitotic intracellular proteome and lack of normal inhibition. To attempt to capture this well-known paradigm as "etiology unknown" is a misrepresentation, at least in my view. Obviously there are important unknowns, but one should first outline the prevailing theory before pointing out the lacunae in that theory. JFW | T@lk 16:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


I do not share your confidence. Why should mice get a specific cancer clearly due to a specific etiology, but in the analogous human disease no specific etiology will ever be found because the disease has complex genetic pathogenesis and is "simply multifactorial". To say the etiology is unknown is not to insist on a single cause. Peptic ulcer disease (etiology: H. pylori; cofactor: acid - which used to be the cause, remember?; promotors: stress, steroids, NSAIDs), Kaposi's sarcoma (etiology: HHV-8, or KSHV; co-factor: immune deficiency of age or HIV), cancer of cervix (etiology: HPV; promotors: tobacco, other STI's), oropharyngeal and anal cancer (probable etiology: HPV, co-factors or promotors:EtOH and tobacco) and a string of others are past examples of what serendipitous or actively pursued research can produce in the way of etiology where complex pathogenesis had to suffice before. If we disbelieve the existence of etiologies of common diseases of complex and unknown origin, we will unlikely look for them. To deny these unknowns in favour of accepted but inadequate theories based only on existing knowledge is arbitrary, misleading and no more valid than confessing 'unknown'. In articles on breast or prostate cancer, or atherosclerosis for that matter, it would be useful to state the prevailing theories of pathogenesis to which you have alluded, and then include the point about unknown etiology, with its place in conceptual models of pathogenesis. Pathogenesis which you describe is not etiology, but may be included in a 'chain of causation' beginning with etiology and ending with disease, including 'multiple hits' theories. It would be very easy to reference the unknown status of etiology, with concrete historical examples of discoveries, and a point to a good literature on causation in disease as well. Or, until someone makes a stub for a new article, we could settle for 'unknown.' Best regards, Bcameron54 03:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As an analogy there is the point-to-point analysis of critical incidents as performed by managers. Some incidents have one attributable cause (e.g. pilot was drunk, pressed wrong button & crashed plane), but the vast majority are due to failing compensatory mechanisms reinforcing each other, and no single event can justifiably be labeled as truly causative. I think this is a suitable analogy for the discussion we are having, which goes to the heart of many multifactorial conditions. Many forms on cancer will fall into that catagory where it will simply be impossible to pinpoint the initiating event. Cumulative DNA damage by ionising radiation, dietary carcinogens, radical oxygen species as part of chronic inflammation are all contributory causes to many malignancies.

Meanwhile, I'm a bit hesitant to label a disease: "CAUSE - UNKNOWN" because the reader will make the same "mistake" as me, namely to confuse cause with mechanism. They will get the impression the subject has not been studied well enough. JFW | T@lk 16:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Dear Dr Wolff Here is an immediately accessible reference from a credible source (only the latest of very many), which I believe lives up to Wikipedia policies on verifiability. It supports the reasonable statement that the etiology of prostate cancer is unknown, that pathogenesis is distinct and complex (but inextricably intertwined if you wish), and that there are needs for much further study. With your blessing, I may compose a paragraph on etiology for your approval, then to add to the article on prostate cancer. Thank you for your input.

Frontiers in Bioscience 11, 1388-1413, May 1, 2006

Prostate cancer epidemiology

Ann W. Hsing 1 and Anand P. Chokkalingam 2

1 Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20852-7234, 2 School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, 94720-7380

ABSTRACT

Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer among men in most western populations, and it is the second leading cause of cancer death among U.S. men. Despite its high morbidity, the etiology of prostate cancer remains largely unknown. Advancing age, race, and a family history of prostate cancer are the only established risk factors. Many putative risk factors, including androgens, diet, physical activity, sexual factors, inflammation, and obesity, have been implicated, but their roles in prostate cancer etiology remain unclear. It is estimated that as much as 42% of the risk of prostate cancer may be accounted for by genetic influences, including individual and combined effects of rare, highly penetrant genes, more common weakly penetrant genes, and genes acting in concert with each other. Numerous genetic variants in the androgen biosynthesis/metabolism, carcinogen metabolism, DNA repair, and chronic inflammation pathways, have been explored, but the results are largely inconclusive. The pathogenesis of prostate cancer likely involves interplay between environmental and genetic factors. To unravel these complex relationships, large well-designed interdisciplinary epidemiologic studies are needed. With newly available molecular tools, a new generation of large-scale multidisciplinary population-based studies is beginning to investigate gene-gene and gene-environment interactions. Results of these studies may lead to better detection, treatment, and, ultimately, prevention of prostate cancer. http://www.bioscience.org/2006/v11/af/1891/fulltext.htm

Best regards, Bcameron54 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews[edit]

Hey, Jfdwolff. I've been making some edits to the Ashkenazi Jews article, and am concerned that another editor there is trying to misrepresent the findings of various genetic studies. Since you have a medical background, I was wondering if you might keep an eye on this article. Jayjg (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems it's mainly about Koestler and his fairly misguided revisionism. I've weighed in on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 16:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

big reversion in anti-vaccinationists[edit]

Was that intended, or did the version that had a totally disputed tag in it come back?

A 'lot of changes wnet away and the tables are ugly again. Midgley 18:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't avoid horizontal rules[edit]

Why? This kind of nit-picking edit is liable to irritate people out of proportion to the benefit it brings. What if I revert you because I don't agree with you? Are we going to get into a revert war over this kind of silly thing, after our wonderful history of collaborating to improve articles like epilepsy? -Ikkyu2 16:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No harm done, I am sure; I was more wondering what it is about HRs that you don't like. I have liked to use them to set off the categorycruft at the bottom of the page. Ikkyu2 17:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Lay an eye on Talk:neurological examination when you have a moment. Ikkyu2 08:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Kosher tax and User:72.25.75.250[edit]

Hello. I initially reverted the edits by User:72.25.75.250 at Kosher tax after glancing at the edit history. I've since done some searching to check on the accuracy of his correction. It seems his edits were correct; I've edited the page to reflect what I found. Please feel free to check my changes; I'm not an expert on the topic, and since you'd reverted this user in the past, you may be an interested party. Cheers :)

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 05:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Advice re:86.10.231.219 requested[edit]

The anon who posts from IP address 86.10.231.219 wrote the following on the request for deletion page of anti-vaccinationists:

This page is being used as part of a POV war by a group of medical contributors - a partial list found here [[5]]. It is their latest tactic. They are at present hoovering up numerous Wikipedia pages containing information they do not agree with, dumping it here to marginalise it. A recent example which is a safety issue and is not "anti-vaccine" but a concern to protect infants and children worldwide is the demand for the complete removal of the mercury neurotoxin thiomersal/thimerosal from childhood vaccines - see [[6]].

The list that was referred to in ref 1 included my Wikipedia home page. Therefore he is stating I am conspiring against him. I don't take this person seriously given this comment and others that have indicated he feels there are medical conspiracies, but it seems that I should report this unwarratned assertion to someone. However, it is just so goofy I don't know if it is worth troubling the Wikipedia admin structure. What do you think? Steve Kd4ttc 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The proper thing to do Steve is contact me on my talk page and talk about it for a resolution. But what happens, I find you here talking to JfdWoolf, and about me. There is nothing in what I said to bear the allegation you make. But here you are talking to JfdWoolf claiming it does. So why are you here making such an allegation and why did you not raise it with me first? And even though I did not make the claim you suggest, if it had been made, which it was not, here you are bearing it out. The Invisible Anon 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, 86.10.231.219, you are placing allegations on your userpage that suggest there is a conspiracy, clique, cabal or whatever you want to call it. Given that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, it is completely normal for editors to involve others in difficult discussions. No policy is breeched this way. If you look at the editing patterns of controversial articles, there are usually groups of editors involving each others to maximise neutrality and fair coverage.

In my experience, making allegations of a cabal are completely counterproductive and are actually a form of ad hominem. Instead of addressing the issues, you are attacking the messengers. It is a sign of unhealthy editing and will in the end lead to WP:RFC and other dispute resolution proceedings. I would strongly suggest you remove your attacks from the userpage, especially those aimed at editors that have only contributed to the discussion in a completely honest and reasonable fashion, such as Kd4ttc. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Paranoid ranting isn't it? (in an entirely lay/general sense of the meaning) Midgley 13:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. They are quite helpful. Steve Kd4ttc 16:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgley (talkcontribs)

I previously discovered that this user and 81.111.172.198 are from geographically proximal areas and show a similar pattern of editing. See Talk:Mumps. I'm starting to wonder whether RFC/RFAr can be avoided at all on this matter. JFW | T@lk 02:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I was following along on some of the various debates regarding immunization and looked at the Whale.to page and came across another editor I hadn't seen. When I went to the talk page User_talk:Tearlach I was saw that user was trying to explain to the anon of 86.10.231.219 that the long posts were detrimental. Actually he really said it quite well. The quality of the writing no doubt comes from his literature background. Kd4ttc 04:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm coming round to your view about the harassing effect of these repetitive lengthy posts. I've no idea if it's a tactic or if 86.10.231.219 really believes that this is engaging in reasoned discussion. Whatever, the overall effect is highly disruptive: a chill on discussion toward consensus. For instance, who is going to have the mental stamina to get involved in Talk:Anecdotal evidence#Request for Comments? It's easier to let things lie because you know you're going to get slugged with another annoyingly tangential essay every time you dispute something. A quick search of user conduct RfCs shows that complaints about filibustering crop up quite frequently. Tearlach 17:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I really enjoyed that slap in the face explanation. Kd4ttc 18:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

One vote for you[edit]

Hi Jfdwolff : Please see Spelling vote at Talk:Yitzchak Kaduri. Best wishes,--Shuki 01:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Wikipedian Chazanim[edit]

Hello Dr. Wolff: Can you believe this: Category:Wikipedian Chazanim ? I have thus nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 5#Category:Wikipedian Chazanim. Thanks. IZAK 20:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

template creation[edit]

How do you create, or put forward a request for a box template like this one?

{{Template:phase of matter}}

I would like to sum up a lot of topics in fusion power (which I have been working on) into something neat and tidy, rather than what I have created so far, this:

See also[edit]

This is fairly informative, but looks cluttered and unsightly. I need advice. - mastodon 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Demerge Lazy Gun article[edit]

Hi. I've been expanding and (I hope!) improving Against a Dark Background, as part of my campaign to improve and standardise the articles on Iain Banks books in general. The part merged in by you on Lazy Gun now looks rather out of place. I was thinking of reviving the Lazy Gun page. Do you have any thoughts on this? Guinnog 16:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your reply. Basically I don't want to delete the good (but limited-interest) content about the Gun, but don't think it belongs on the (greater interest) AaDB page. Does that make more sense? Guinnog 22:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, thanks. I do think that the Lazy Gun 'deserves' an article of its own. There is one other science fictional device in AaDB I'd like to write an article on. Guinnog 19:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Links to pictures[edit]

Rather than adding URLs to your pictures collection, Wikipedia would benefit much more if you would licence some under the WP:GFDL so they can be inserted inline into articles. Would you be willing to do this? JFW | T@lk 21:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hardin MD's reply to JFW: I'm in charge of the Hardin MD site. Very few of the picture links on our pages are to pictures that we have rights to (mostly public domain CDC pictures, many of which I've already seen on Wikipedia pages). The value of our site is that we link to pictures on other sites, not owned by us, many of which are not found by Google image search, and are difficult to find. Eric | T@lk

JFW, how does that fit in with the usual policies and guidelines re copyright? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is the fact that Eric inserted external links to his site. That site contains links to offsite images. No copyright problems. I was not aware that Eric did not own the copyright, because I initially asked him if he would be willing to release the material in question under the GFDL. JFW | T@lk 05:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does everyone put the links at the top?[edit]

Re: your edit of the Asthma page, I put the AAAAI link at the top for alphabetical reasons. I found no guidance on proper link adding etiquette in the help pages, so alphabetical seemed like the logical choice. Begging the Doctor's pardon, but doesn't that make the most sense? If I'm out of line, please help me out here. Scott 05:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer to "adding 'commercial' links"[edit]

Since I am not a wikipediholic, I hope this is going to work and you are actually going to receive this message. I am not sure if you have gone to the website I have been adding to sites that I do consider relevant for a society of interventional radiologists.

CIRSE is a non-profit organisation, so I am definetely not doing this out of any type of commercial interests. I have added the page to sites like the one about radiofrequency ablation because I think that people who are about to undergo a procedure like this one would like to read up on it and our site provides additional information about the procedure as well as a docotor-finder, which might also be extremely relevant to some people.

I have responded on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 17:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Meshichists[edit]

I highly suspect that User:Rebyid is a sockpuppet of User:SPollen770, who recently tried to put up a link to his own meshichist website on the Chabad page - but you reverted it because of self-promotion. The second username was created today, and he put the same link up on the same article. What do you think should be done? --DLand 21:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Cystic fibrosis on WP:MCOTW[edit]

Cystic fibrosis, which you voted for, has been selected as the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker 04:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you, "JFW" for your Warm Wiki Welcome. Thank you also for pointing out the typo in my email address - the webmaster for that site has very promptly responded to my request for a correction. MEagenda 10:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks from me too, for the warm welcome you gave me -- and for being so forgiving of my mistake in inadvertently breaking all the 8-bit characters on a page when I was trying some disambiguation (perhaps appropriate that it was the page on Constipation!). I didn't expect wikipedia to be so friendly, and thanks for the encouragement. BrownHairedGirl 12:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

New Template:Juddom[edit]

Hi Dr. Wolff: Gutt Voch! Please see the newly-proposed Template:Juddom which strikes me as odd and redundent for now. Please add your views at Template talk:Juddom. Thanks. IZAK 13:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Anti-Vaccinationists[edit]

I did explain my edits, and specifically marked what I contested. However due to the unorthodox markup and references used in this entry, when I used the {{fact}} tags, it broke the formatting on the page. As evidenced here. WeniWidiWiki 21:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the talk page is untouched by you. Please collaborate first, and insert annoying tags later. JFW | T@lk 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

IAHP[edit]

Hey, Jfd.

I could use a hand at IAHP; I seem to have gotten myself into a revert war. Could you look at my last edit and the subsequent by User:Jollygood, and let me know how you think I ought to proceed? As I see it, the user in question keeps removing my contributions to the article. Ikkyu2 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Left a note on the article's talk page. JFW | T@lk 08:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Chabad link in Minyan Article[edit]

Hello, Jfdwolff, I would appreciate your comments/opinions in the debate I am having with Eliezer here: Talk:Minyan#External_Links. Thank you. -- Avi 17:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Two revamped articles[edit]

I've rewritten two articles completely, and would welcome your feedback - cytokine and autoimmunity. Many thanks, --Balaji 18:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Re Hamodia[edit]

Just out of interest, did an article of your hand recently feature in the English Hamodia magazine (about hunger & famine)? JFW | T@lk 19:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it did (there goes my cover). I write and edit for that newspaper frequently. Yoninah 22:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome[edit]

Thanks for the welcome on my User talk page. I'll be sure to check out the links you mentioned, sounds great. AFGriffithMD 23:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That's quick! Welcome indeed, and let me know what you think about MCOTW. JFW | T@lk 23:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Blood groups[edit]

I'm contacting you regarding what I think is an error in the "Blood type" article because you are a physician and I am not, and I'll defer to you on this point. The "Compatibility" section is incomplete, I believe, because it would only be true if it were referring to the compatibility of packed cells with the hypothetical recipient's blood. In the U.S., blood is separated into packed RBC's, plasma, platelets, and other blood products, and giving whole blood is unheard of now. I'm AB+, and as I understand it, anyone can have my plasma, since it doesn't contain any anti-A, anti-B, or anti-D, but I can't receive any other type of plasma. Therefore, the compatibility for packed cells and for plasma are somewhat backwards. Please, let me know if my understanding is correct, and I'll change the article. BrianGCrawfordMA 00:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You've got a point: plasma would contain enough antibody to generate a mild haemolytic reaction. This is why FFP (fresh frozen plasma) is crossmatched. JFW | T@lk 00:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for merger CE with AD[edit]

There is a debate both over WP's house-style of using AD/BC or CE/BCE and now a request to merge CE with AD. I think the historical description on the emergence of the CE term and the arguements for & against are perfectly valid as information within an article in wikipedia, and is quite different to whatever house-style WP itself adopts by consensus. The information in Common Era is far too long to merge with Anno Domini, but I think is well (NPOV) written & informative and should therefore be retained by wikipedia. Please see merger discussion Talk:Common_Era#Merge_with_AD.

I lack the hebrew to determine what is used in the hebrew wikipedia (or for than matter the language skills for the arabic or chinese wikipedias). So far the merge & anti-CE/BCE postings seem largely from Western Christian contributors (hardly surprising given that this is English Wikipedia), who perhaps need help in seeing the issues from other cultural viewpoints rather than as a perceived unecessary attack by polically-correctness (see my comments in the merge votes about my own views on appropriate choice of terminology depending upon the article topic matter). David Ruben Talk 03:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have done the utmost not to get drawn into this discussion. In my view, BCE/CE is neutral terminology and should be favoured. While desirable, there is no need to merge, as long as the articles have their own specific content and frequent cross-references are made. JFW | T@lk 13:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Searching[edit]

Thanks for encouragement on haematology edits. I am quite new to the wiki and I am still learning editing facilities. For example I would like "alloimmune" to search to the "alloimmunity" page.Snowman 18:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A Thank-you[edit]

I appreciate your having taken time to acknowledge my efforts, Jfdwolff.
Drphilharmonic 00:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there[edit]

I hope you're not feeling too beleagured over at Simon Wessely, I'm sitting back and keeping schtumm for now since the POV pushers have decided I'm the Antichrist. Feel free to email for moral support :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

dear jfdw[edit]

i've noted your comment on the parkinson's page with appreciation. i'm not an md, but if you return to my comment there will see what my other qualifications are. as to a medical collaboration of the week on pd, i'd enjoy it. there are other topics that my morbid heart warms to as well--dementia, psychosis, depression, tuberculosis, the history and evolution and cultural meaning of infectious--especially epidemic--diseases; i'm a just a bundle of fun, but i can do writing and research. in hopes of an afirmative, b davids

chida[edit]

you're right, I accidentally ticked the minor edit box, the superstition bit still needs a rewrite, I am sorting it out as we speak. --Talmid78 21:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Halacha[edit]

Hello Dr. Wolff:Gut Voch. Please see and add your views to a very serious discussion at Template talk:Infobox Halacha#This infobox must carry a warning. Thank you. IZAK 05:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

CML[edit]

The symptoms of CML and the description of acute phase of CML is not very correct. *Most of patient presented in chronic phase with thrombocytosis, not thrombocytopenia.

  • Though it is Myeloid leukemia, this stem cell disease can get into acute lymphoblastic leukemia, too.

Steelshark 06:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)steelshark

Okay... but why not?[edit]

Why not move them like that? Random the Scrambled 11:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: I figured out why, and I figured out that you were talking about the article and not the talk page... Sorry.