User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 8

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

Book of Malachi[edit]

Hello, You seemed to have reverted the entire book of Malachi back to the 100 year old Easton's Bible Dictonary comments on the book. You say that an article should not be completly changed without a reason. Well, first of all this article is extreamly short and not informative at all. The Eastons's Bible Dictonary is 100 years old, making it very out of date. There has been a number of advances in our understanding of this text which should be reflected in this update. The article that was posted was complied by a number of Master of Divinity Students who worked on the article for some time, and did not just simply replace the old article, rather it incorporated the old information while adding much to it. Please take a look at the new article and comment on it's contents rather than just dismissing it because it is new. --John Campbell 12:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Arteriosclerosis/Atherosclerosis[edit]

hi there, i understand you'd mentioned that the term can be used interchangably, and you being a doctor as your page said, I could see where you are coming from. But I'm also very sure you know although the terms are often used interchangably - they are not the same; but related. Arteriosclerosis deals more with the endothelial damage, hardening and the deterioration of blood vessels...the term atherosclerosis, in textbooks, academically, deals with the accumulation of cholesterol, fat, sometimes even collagen, calcium in the vessels. Arteriosclerosis provides groundwork for atherosclerosis, just as a carpenter sands the edges of the wood before gluing; without the sanding, gluing alone wouldn't be as effective.

Another example could be the difference between mastication and swallowing, related, but nonetheless different. I have nothing against you, it's just that I feel distinctions have to be made, as there as also students who using Wikipedia for learning and academics. I am not sure what a doctor does in practice; the article on arteriosclerosis is not totally undeserving of credit either. No personal attacks intended.

Question to the learned one[edit]

Am I allowed to sign an article in a non display way: "!--Researched and initiated by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )--! . I add it to articles where I am the sole author. I see nothing against it in the Wikipedia Bible. I started doing it to mark the ones I wrote before I created an account. One user Gzornenplatz removed them saying it was a "vanity". He went through all my articles. I only use it where I have initiated the article and am the sole contributor. What is your opinion? Now I spend time looking for the removal, that I would prefer to spend on research and writing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Emergency Medicine[edit]


Thanks kindly for your interest in the new Wikibook. I'd really appreciate your involvement and help in the early phase. Particularly:

1. Making the *template* as attractive and functional as possible

2. Improving the way I've formatted the chapters (the chapters have to remain the same, but maybe the pages need to be moved or just the layout improved somewhat by someone who's done this before). I took all the empty chapters away and just left the section headings. Then I created a new page listing where chapters *can* go once someone has begun them.

3. I need a little tutoring about how to create tables, how to create dynamic footnotes/endnotes, how to include boilerplate/template text (text which appears on the bottom of every page in the textbook) without re-pasting it in every time.

4. And YES, articles you suggested - with an Emergency Medicine perspective of course - would be much appreciated!



About Wikipedia[edit]

What is it about about Wikipedia that makes it so good? Why it is the GNU Free Documentation License. There happens to be about 3 dozen clone copies of Wikipedia on the WEB, but only one Dictionary of Alternative Medicine. Who ever said that the Project on Alternative Medicine did not succeed? Obviously they did not read the fine print about the GNU Free Documentation License. John Gohde 09:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your point. JFW | T@lk 09:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Check out my user page. John Gohde 08:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No problem'o. It was playing dirty when nice Wikipedian editors deleted Template:CamMenu. But again, no problem'o. It is the GNU Free Documentation License which made the project a success rather than Template:CamMenu. If Wikipedia does not want to claim any of the credit, no problem'o. I have no problems with claiming all the glory in the Dictionary of Alternative Medicine. It was the GNU Free Documentation License which made it all possible, after all. John Gohde 09:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


JFW, you still haven't replied to my comment about hypocortisolism on the hyponatremia page (now in your talk archive). I would appreciate a response, even if just to say that you are looking into the matter. Thanks. Axl 09:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See your talk. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I have been concentrating on some growth hormone, intersex and carb metabolism stuff as promised. The GH stuff is basically "done": do you think enough people would like HGH quackery or growth hormone treatment as a featured article? I tried to keep both intelligible to the lay reader. On the other hand, I am really proud of the nearly finished glucokinase article but it probably requires a little more expertise to understand. I would value your constructive criticism.

Other than the intensive insulinotherapy article, which was the first revision work I did here before I knew who you were, and the MODY article, which is a specific interest of mine, I haven't especially looked for your medical articles. Any particular magnum opus you'd like me to admire?

I find I like either making small fixes to basically decent articles, or rewriting the whole thing from scratch, but I'm suffering from academic standards disease and have a lot of trouble mustering the patience for the couple of idiots here who think they know a lot more than they do about a medical topic and haven't got the ability to discuss it. Surely you have run into the something similar? alteripse 01:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the Family history (medicine) article. It definitely needed the care of a medical doctor. Courtland

unhealthy vs dysregulation: semantic quibble[edit]

I don't disagree that dysregulation is accurate, but disagree that "unhealthy" restricts to "lifestyle" causes. The word simply means "not healthy," basically the same meaning as "dys-" in this context. It seemed a little "lay-friendlier." Not a big deal. alteripse 20:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dispute at Beta Israel[edit]

Hi Jfdwolff. I'm having a dispute with another editor at Beta Israel. I orginally listed five major poskim who ruled that Beta Israel required conversion. However, this editor has recently insisted that only one name can be listed, that that is "enough". I've recently reduced the list to four names, but he still insists only one name should be listed, and all others left out. Can you take a look at the issue, and perhaps give some comment on your views? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 19:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cervical cancer[edit]

Your edit of cervical cancer is very unsatisfactory. You should not rely on Castelsaque. There are too many methodological flaws in that paper. It simply is not credible. Anyway, it appears that HPV vaccine will soon be available to protect against HPV infection and therefore, cervical cancer. One should not promote circumcision for this purpose.

Since you practice in Britain please read the BMA guidance on circumcision,

and the BAPS statement:

Prevention of cervical cancer is not an indication for circumcision.

The sequencing of sections is also very bad.

Please stop saying that Jakew and I are at war. We are in agreement with this document.

You need to study the "Vancouver format", which is now standard for references in medical documents.

Robert Blair 13:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See your talk. JFW | T@lk 20:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate of you to complain that I have been "edit warring" on cervical cancer. In truth, I made a single edit to counteract a POV edit by Blair. - Jakew 15:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's edit warring all right. JFW | T@lk 22:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I find molecular biology pretty fascinating too. You may be interested in Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, a genetic disorder caused by mutations in emerin and/or lamin. Apart from a mention in muscular dystrophy, I haven't found any other information in WP. Regarding enzymes, do you think a template/toolbox (or any organized format) listing EC #, CAS, size, reaction, Km, Vmax, PDBs, active site, etc might be a good thing? --jag123 20:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Articles on the X and the Y chromosomes[edit]

Please see the new comment at Talk:XY_sex-determination_system. I think we need to remove two of the redirects, and allow Wikipedia to develop one article on the X chromosome, and one article on the Y chromosome. What are your thoughts? RK 22:32, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Message to[edit]

Thanks for the compliment, I suppose I should register finally since I think I'll stay and keep editing when I can. Only I'm actually not a doctor, I'm in high school. I just have a (neurotic at times) obsession with medicine, especially emergency medicine.

Case of Snowspinner Deliberately Destroying An Article[edit]

User:Snowspinner on 13 Feb and on 14 Feb 2005 voluntarily decided for no good reason to destroy the Philosophy of alternative medicine article, one of the Core Project Articles of the Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative_Medicine that was created by this project in April 2004. Snowspinner moved this article to List of topics in alternative medicine in a manner that did not maintained the original links to it. In other words, nothing links to this new article. That makes it a case of vandalism committed by User:Snowspinner, an adminstrator, because the work of dozens of editors in Wikipedia have been deliberately orphaned. I have previously attempted to moved the article back both on 13 Feb and on 14 Feb 2005, but Snowspinner has reversed it back to List of topics in alternative medicine sans cross-links. Further, the Philosophy of alternative medicine article is now showing up as a completely different stub article. In other words, there are two articles physically in existence. There is no rational explanation other than vandalism that explains the actions of Snowspinner.

Since you are an administrator, I am requesting that the Philosophy of alternative medicine article be put back together again back in its original condition before Snowspinner started editing this article on 13 Feb 2005. John Gohde 00:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've responded on Talk:Alternative medicine (He's posted this several places), but the short form is that the article now at List of topics in alternative medicine is not an article on the philosophy of alternative medicine. Instead of scrapping the content, I moved it to an article that actually describes its content, and started a stub on the philosophy of alternative medicine. Snowspinner 00:11, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
See [1] for a discussion. I have also reported it in Vandalism in progress under 14 Feb or current. -- John Gohde 00:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing to say in this matter. JFW | T@lk 07:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Banned again for no reason?![edit]

This is really sick. Simonides and Zero instigated four out of nine Admins to ban me from editing all Judaism articles for a full year. Worse, they did so on the very articles on which I and others have the most success cooperating!

Josiah, JayJG, JFWolff and I have very different ideas about Judaism, yet we obviously have been able to work on these Judaism articles.

It is a gross violation of Sysop and Admin power to create rules that apply to only one person, and to no one else. By definition, when Wikipedia Admins engage in such behaviour, they are violating their own mandate, and thei "rulings" have no authority and are not binding.

1. I am not involved in any flame wars. So why the year long ban? Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when they were NOT in a flame war.
2. I am not involved in any revert wars or edit wars. So why the ban? Not a single Wikipedia was ever given a ban when they were not in revert for edit wars.
3. The supposed problems are in articles in which the articles HAVE ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, long ago! So why the ban?
Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when parties amicably came to an issue. It seems that some Admins are enraged that our system actually worked, and parties peacefully worked out their differences. What kind of hateful people think that such a positive result is grounds for a year long ban?
4. I repeatedly take week-long (or longer) Wiki-breaks to let things cool down and allow other people to have their say without any problem. So why the ban?
5. I have taken many contentious articles OFF of my Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want, rather then engage in multiple arguments. So why the ban?
6. I have asked for and successfully used mediation when necessary. So why the ban? The action to ban me was taken behind my back, without informing me, and proceeded based on false assumptions - and potentially deliberate lies.

I have e-mailed Jimbo Wales and others about this very issue previously; they were all unable to come up with even a single instance of this ever happening. Ever. The entire ban is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and we should not allow four people with a vendetta to wreck our whole system.

We are unfortunately dealing with a small number of people abusing their Admin power out of some sort of personal vendetta. If it happens to one person, it will happen to others. What steps should we take next to initiate disciplinary action against them for these serious violations?

RK 20:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC) (Robert)

Cervical Cancer[edit]

"Ooooh, I'm really scared now."

Congrats on the way you are handling the POV pushers. You comment above made me laugh . Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alien culture[edit]

Teresa's interprettation of my remark as given on User talk:RK was exactly correct. In my opinion, your characterisation of RK's past behavior was nearly the opposite of the facts. We can disagree on that; the AC will make its decision. I'm sorry you took it as an attack when it was intended only as a robust disagreement. --Zero 11:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RK's appeal[edit]

On RK's talk page you wrote "Danny and various other users have protested to the arbcomm for this very lengthy and quite unnecessary ban." Where did they protest this? Can you provide any links on the evidence page please? Is there anyone else I should ask for evidence? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen the tirade that Dissident made against me today? he repeatedly called me a terrorist! I think that Zero, Dissident and the others have some kind of obesession. I can find no rational reason for their explosive attacks.RK 21:36, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

You had written "Seriously, I'd love to give evidence in your ArbComm case, but most of my attempts to have your ban shortened were conducted with Danny over IRC. This is not admissible as evidence, I fear. "

I suspect that simply stating this, as such, on the RFA page, counts as evidence. Some people are under the mistaken impression that everyone wants me banned for a year from editing all Judaism-related articles. In fact, the people calling for such a ban were not editing Judaism-related articles at all. The anger and calls for huge bans came from Zero, Simonides, and the banned Mr Natural Health (who has now reappeared.) Ironic, since they were not editing these articles themselves; they wanted me banned out of spite. They somehow convinced the previous Arbitration Committee that the everyone working on the Judaism articles wanted me gone, which as far as I could (and can) tell was not true at all. In fact, once we got the WikiProject for Judaism articles up and running, the amount of cooperation between all concerned reached an all-time high. While it isn't right and just, people are just assuming that I am engaged in non-stop flame wars with all the people editing Judaism articles, when in fact the opposite is true. Despite fairly normal discussions and disagreements, less heated than what I see in my own synagogue adult-ed classes (!), we all get along well and have produced some great articles. I put up as evidence the fact that all the new Judaism articles I created were put onto the WikiProject Judaism page. More than a sign of good faith, it is the highest level of Wiki-cooperation for people to ask for others to review and edit their work. And others did the same. For some reason the previous ArbCom committee acted as if they very opposite were true. As such, any words from you or others about this would probably go far in correcting the misperception. RK 18:42, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)


Please see the new comments at Talk:Chabad Lubavitch, and the changes I made on the article page. Someone had edited the article to make it look like David Berger's book was on the receiving line of heavy criticism, but in fact it is generally accepted as accurate. Also, the article should offer a bit more in regards to the Rebbe's teachings that he (or his father) may be God incarnate. Chabad supporters seem to be trying to suppress such discussion. RK 21:36, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Zero[edit]

JFW, Zero is attempting to have me banned, and he has now stooped to full blown dishonesty. I am disturbed by Zero's attempt to confuse peopel by lying about recent contributions to an article, and by personal attacks on me by "messianic Jews". Zero writes:

He is inserting a claim (alleged to be a report that someone says that) Chabad Lubavitch is "developing into a new form of Christianity". RK knows this to be factually false (Chabad do not believe in Jesus Christ, the most that could be conceivably be claimed is that they are adopting some features common to Christianity). RK also knows that Lubavitchers would regard this false claim as exceedingly offensive. But it's his POV and POV pushing is what he does

This can be proven to be a deliberate lie. Please do not take my word on this. Contact JFWolff immediately. Zero's behaviour constitutes harassment. It is a fact that many historians and scholars of Judaism have been writing about how various Jewish factions have developed into forms of neo-Christianity, including the Donmeh, and now a faction of Chabad (Lubavitch) Judaism. This is very well-known in the field. Zero's disingenuously claims that the existence of this body of scholarly research is only "alleged", which is a provable lie. Entire books have been written on the issue, and scholarly journals have articles on it. Also, Zero attacks bizarre claims that no one is making. For instance, neither I nor anyone else claims that Chabad Jews worship Jesus Christ. That is just silly. Essentially, he is angry at me that I am here at all, and is counting on the entire ArbCom being totally ignorant of the facts. This is not merely acting in bad faith; this is a deliberate attempt to pervert the entire process. Again, do not take my word on this. Please contact JFWolff immediately. RK 18:59, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I know...[edit]

My evil twin took over me temporarily... Ta bu shi da yu 00:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Muhahahahah! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rabbi Hirsch in Orthodox Judaism[edit]

Would you mind taking a look at the latest edits by User:SHASHAZ in Orthodox Judaism? Jayjg (talk) 14:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RK's edits to Chabad Lubavitch[edit]

Would you mind looking over RK's latest edits to Chabad Lubavitch? They seem a bit repetitive and have a polemic flavour, and some of them are not that well sourced. Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

O.K., I cleaned them up. We need some sourced stuff from the Lubavitch side there as well. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we should lean on User:Truthaboutchabad to defend his heritage. JFW | T@lk 00:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV edits?[edit]

Hi Jfd. Just read your evidence at the Robert Blair case. I know that you and I have disagreed in the past, but I was puzzled to see you suggest that I've introduced POV to cervical cancer. I've really tried to keep my edits neutral, though I admit I've been less than totally patient on occasion. Are there any particular edits that you would identify as POV? I ask because I am genuinely concerned, not because I want to pick a fight with you. Thanks. - Jakew 20:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Jfd. I'm not an angel, but I do my best, and I'm glad that you don't think I've been POV pushing, at least on the cervical cancer article. Could I ask you to alter your evidence on the Blair page accordingly, please?
I do understand your viewpoint on the subject. I'd be a lot happier if circumcision didn't keep trying to work its way into every conceivable article (I have a private semi-serious bet with myself over how long before a page on Jet engines is affected...). I personally think of myself as pro-informed-choice rather than pro-circ, but I love the science, and find it frustrating to see it misrepresented. Certain individuals would apparently like to see a facsimile of embedded in Wiki. While cirp must be commended on their research, they have only a small fraction of the 3,200 articles listed on PubMed under "circumcision". Yes, I do think that there are benefits, but I also recognise that epidemiology is far from 100% accurate, and caution is definitely called for. I see our role as reporting the facts, rather than forming a decision for the reader.
I've typed enough, probably far more than you want to know! Thanks again. - Jakew 23:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Please check out the article on Tzimtzum: I have just cleaned it up a bit, but I'm concerned that I've taken the article further than appropriate...

Fintor| talk March 1 08:36 UTC

Chabad article[edit]

Truthaboutchabad has brought some source to the Talk: page there to prove his contention that all Hassidim believe their Rebbes are "one with God". Would you mind taking a look? Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at the talk section of [[chabad]--Truthaboutchabad 00:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for asking. Yes, I'll pull some old brain cells out of the freezer to defrost and crack open some books. In particular, I have available the two volume set "Myology" and the three volume set "Metabolic and Molecular Basis of Inherited Disease" which together should cover about anything we'd want to say in Wikipedia on the topic ... at least for a start. Courtland 18:32, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)


Please, when you tag something {{notenglish}}, make a note at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. It's analogous to VFD. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:45, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

glycosylation vs glycation[edit]

Terminology question here. I saw both articles and a distinction being made between the two. The distinction makes sense (enzymatic vs non-enzymatic) but is not observed in clinical practice. I have been reading the diabetes literature for nearly 30 years and glycosylated hemoglobin was the topic of my first research publication in 1978. While I have heard the term "glycated hb", I have never heard of the distinction. All the experts at the annual diabetes research meeting (ADA scientific sessions) ignore the distinction. Is it accurate to say that some scientists have tried to introduce this distinction in the terminology but it is largely ignored by scientists and physicians? Do you observe the distinction? A google search says glycosylated hemoglobin is preferred over glycated hemoglobin by 3 to 1 (I actually expected a greater disparity). I am considering editing the two articles to explain this usage discrepancy. What do you think about it? alteripse 17:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bible edits[edit]

User:Jcbos thinks my latest edits to Bible are, as he put it "pure lies" that "NEED" to be reverted. Could you take a look and see what you think? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An RfC is a good idea, but that doesn't seem to be stopping him from reverting my Bible edits and referring to them as "vandalism". Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hoi. Ik was een week of wat terug begonnen om op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia "Christelijke" voor "Bijbel" te plaatsen in de eerste zin van het artikel "Nieuwe Testament". Sinds 14 maart loopt er een stemming op de overlegpagina van dat artikel. In de discussie werden weinig argumenten aangevoerd om "Christelijke" te verwijderen. Ik verwees bijvoorbeeld naar de engelstalige, franstalige, duitstalige Wikipedia waar overal wel Christelijke voor Bijbel staat in het artikel over Nieuwe Testament. Kennelijk om mijn argument te ontkrachten is Johan op de engelstalige Wikipedia gaan pogen om "Christian" te verwijderen. De kwaliteit van de discussie op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia is dat er deelnemers aan de stemming openlijk de vraag stellen "Is er dan een andere Bijbel dan de Christelijke Bijbel?" Je gelooft je ogen niet als je het leest. Ik ondersteunde mijn pleidooi met een verwijzin naar het artikel Bijbel op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia - toen er nog een kop in dat artikel was met "Hebreeuwse Geschriften" of "Hebreeuwse Bijbel". Het mocht niet baten. Het artikel "Bijbel" werd snel herschreven tot een christelijk artikel met de openingszin "Voor een behandeling van de het heilige boek van de joden, zie Tenach", waardoor de gemeenschappelijke basis volledig dreigt te verdwijnen. Uit je pagina maak ik op dat jij een ruime interesse in judaisme hebt. Hoe beleven joden of mensen met een ruime interesse in judaisme het woord Bijbel? Hoe beleef jij boven omschreven acties op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia? Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


According to this page], the original title of Orvilles Heimkerr was Flight. I don't find anything obvious online to show that it was published in English, though.... - Nunh-huh 04:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yep, we're relics<g>. Shem's only really commercially successful work was House of God, so I'm not surprised that he has some manuscripts that are not published in English. But not-published-in-English-yet-published-in-German does seem peculiar! I think an e-mail to the publisher probably would reveal the rest of the story... I've been out of touch with the fracas at Talk:Medicine, but I note that one of the participants seems to have a problem with authority, both there and on the English wikipedia mailing list. I've been embroiled in difficulties at allopathic medicine - though I'm not sure it's worth the frustration...<g> - Nunh-huh 04:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Userpage rv[edit]

Hi! Just a note to say thanks for the rv on my userpage. JeremyA 04:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


De deblokkering is in elk geval geslaagd, getuige deze reactie. Ik wil toch niet dat je het beeld houdt dat ik een vandaal ben of zo. Ik ben met de beste bedoelingen aan de aanpassingen begonnen en ik had eigenlijk helemaal geen problemen verwacht. Mijn werk op NL.wikipedia is geen 'gedonder', wat het wel is, voornamelijk:

  • Het schrijven van artikelen, waaronder heel uitgebreide, zoals:
  • Het verbeteren van artikelen en zonodig het voeren van discussies om tot consensus te komen. Discussies ga ik niet uit de weg, aangezien ze zo nu en dan noodzakelijk zijn om te komen tot een goed artikel.
  • Het 'wiki' maken van nieuwe artikelen van onervaren gebruikers.
  • Het aanleggen van interwiki's en het categoriseren van artikelen.
  • Het vertalen van artikelen van de ene naar de andere wikipedia.
  • Het bestrijden van vandalisme en het controleren van wijzigingen door IP-adressen. Op NL.wikipedia is het mogelijk een wijziging als 'gecontroleerd' te markeren.

Ik zal mijn best doen op de Engelse wikipedia te handelen zoals dat hier gebruikelijk is. Ik was vannacht toch wel enigszins geschokt, aangezien de blokkade op NL.wikipedia echt ongehoord zou zijn en dat je dat op NL volgens de Nederlandse reglementen strikt genomen zelfs je moderator-status had kunnen kosten. Jcbos 14:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I have clarified at Talk:Lesch-Nyhan_syndrome#Accuracy_concerns -- Curps 23:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mystery Book[edit]

Hi there. I saw your question on the reference desk and decided to do some researching. I'm not sure how helpful the following will be, but here is what I have found: you were pretty much right, translated the book's title is "Orville's Home Coming" and it seems to have been published by Droemer Knaur, which seems to be based in Munich, Germany. The book seems to be different from Shem's other books, but the protagonist is also a physician. From what I read, the book does not seem to be as good as House of God, at least in the eyes of people who have red Shem's other books. A terrible translation to English gives this description of the book:

Why into the distance curve, if so near is appropriate for property? If Dr. Orville rose would have obeyed the proverb, many around and erring way would have remained saved for it. Calculated its nut/mother forces the eternal way runner to his luck. Columbus drove outside, in order to discover America. For Weltenbummler Orville however sounds to "Columbus" differently: It is the name of its ungeliebten hometown, to which it must return, wants it the inheritance of its wealthy nut/mother to begin. Widerwillig follows it its dictation and discovers thereby the most valuable at all: the love. After House OF God and doctor Fine succeeded to Samuel Shem again an astute and einfuehlsames book.

I believe you can get a copy of it in English off of, but I am not 100% sure. Sorry I couldn't be of more help - happy reading! --Nadsat 00:23, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that you can get an Amazon copy, see [2] Josh Parris 03:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ritva/Rashba naming conventions[edit]

Hi Jfd, please give your opinion at User talk:IZAK#Ritva/Rashba [3] Thanks IZAK 06:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jewish views of astrology[edit]

Hi Jfdwolff. I'd be interested in your views on a disagreement I am having there with User:RK; see Talk:Jewish views of astrology. Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbormon page added to![edit]

Well, I've re-worked the Arbormon article, and you may want to check it out... I don't know if I've shown strongly enough whether it's notable enough, but would you consider changing your vote based on the revision? Wakuseino 23:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

X and Y chromosome articles[edit]

I have expanded and updated the X chromosome and Y chromosome articles. RK 01:11, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)


  • On my talk page you wrote: Given your professional background, will you be doing some neuroanatomy stuff on Wikipedia? It's all very basic at the moment. Parkinson's disease could also do with some help.
    • I intend to, but I have just dipped my toe in the water so far (see, for example, the article I started on one of my favourite neuroanatomists). However, I am busy writing papers at work at the moment, so I have been trying to avoid science in my free time :-)
    • oops, I forgot to sign this message. JeremyA 23:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I believe that those places where I put external links they were relevant informacional non commercial links.--Eliezer 00:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have also reviewed and I have not found that I have done anything wrong. Please explain to me why you have reverted my edits. --Eliezer 00:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine[edit]

Hi, JFW. Please look at orthomolecular medicine. There appears to be an edit war between Snowspinner and John Gohde. Can you intervene, please? Thanks. Axl 08:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for correcting the medical explanation of Diabetes.

I spend most of my time adding categories and cross links, which other people do not do enough of.

I am surprised that there was no Category:Diabetes until today! Is this disease rare?

Tabletop 09:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


If possible, could you please take a look at the current edit war going on at Nazarene? There are a couple of anonymous editors, apparently associated with a modern "Nazarene" group, who wish to radically re-write one section into a version which another editor and I see as an advertisement liberally laced with original research. The differences are clear from the edit history, and the discussion is on Talk:Nazarene. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you could get involved in the Talk: page that would be helpful as well; they just seem to keep reverting, with no other meaningful comments at this point. Jayjg (talk) 18:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ritva & Rashba[edit]

Jfdwolff, I encourage you to revert the articles on Ritva (rabbi) and Rashba (rabbi) back to Yom Tov Asevilli and Solomon ben Aderet. I agree with you that the articles should be written under their proper titles (The majority are, with the exception of the Vilna Gaon and some others). I think that we should keep all names of Rabbis as proper as possible, and we should try to refrain from labeling them under their acronyms or we should have a poll among all the members of WikiProject Judaism to decide what we should do. Thank you --ChanochGruenman 23:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Don't do it man, I promise to be good! :-) Seriously, thanks for your kind words. I might do some anonymous editing, and maybe make a few posts to the mailing list or WP:AN. Apart from that I really gotta move. God bless and all the best mate. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your HIV test comment[edit]

You recently added this comment to HIV test

An HIV test is a blood test used to diagnose the presence of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that causes AIDS.

If there is a single test used in the UK to diagnose the presence of HIV, it would be helpful if you specified the test. In the USA, unconfirmed positive ELISA results are not reported, because about 80% of repeatedly positive ELISA cannot be confirmed by Western blot. I have read that Western blot is not used in the UK is this correct?

Different countries use different criteria for interpreting a Western blot so a positve result in one country would be negative in another.

Incidently, the makers of both kits (ELISA and Western blot) specifically state that their tests are NOT to be used to diagnose HIV infection. This removes any legal liabilty from them.

Finally, if there is evidence that "HIV that causes AIDS" where does it appear in Wikipedia? or is there an link in Wikipedia to it?

Does the NPOV means that this statement should be "authority X claims that HIV that causes AIDS"

Sci guy

HIV test[edit]

I did not say there was no evidence. I asked for a link to it.

Frankly, I do not know what the HIV test article is intended to cover. An abstract would be a useful start.

I would prefer to group the tests according to type, antibody, antigen, nucelic acid and move the CD test to the T cell article. We can them discuss how each test works and what is measures.

Frankly I think all the technical detail is important - but not relevant to someone who just want to know if blood sceening makes it safe to have a blood transfusion or whether they should consent to a HIV testing program.

Actually when I looked at the facts, I relised the safely of the blood supply depends on excluding high risk groups from donating. If you read Weiss's original paper you will see that that about 30% of AIDS patients would not be excluded by the current blood sreening algorith. We depend on them NOT donating!

Paradoxically, the lack of transmission of HIV by blood transfusion may be strong evidence that HIV does not exist. I have no intention of adding this agruement to Wikipedia

Sci guy

Thank you for your support on HIV blood screening[edit]

Hope the commnents I added to my user page are helpful to you.

Don't waste your time looking of references to "HIV causes AIDS" there are none. It was a press misquote of the US Secretary of State press confernece in 1984, she had a cold on the day and her voice was hoarse!

I can live with the current UNAIDS position "HIV is the underlying cause of AIDS"

The current Gallo/Montagnier position (since 1991) is HIV alone is harmless but with cofactors yet to be identified AIDS will develop.

I prefer to see evidence. I have sat through too many semiars and grant applications - listening to scientists talk about their pet theory - show me the data!

I expect the UNAIDS/WHO will soon move towards "HIV is factor contributing to the development of AIDS in populations without adequate, food, clean water and sanitation" and perhaps ultimately to "HIV tests are markers of immune system dysfunction in populations without access to adequate, food, clean water and sanitation". Incidently, this also accurately describes all the original AIDS cases in New York and San Francisco.

With the AZT patent expiring next year, we can also expect to see the last of this drug - which has already killed too many fearful, foolish people. Have you watched any people on AZT die? The first time a saw one I thought he was dying of cancer/chemotherapy - and ten years latter the doctors admit the early high doses of AZT killed them!

Incidently, the side effects of Protease inhibitors could all be eliminated if the drug was given as a suppository - this has been known for a decade! But the marketing boys prefer tablets.

Sci guy 19:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blood products[edit]

This issue remains highly controversial. In the US sources of potential HIV infection are not used in the manufacture of blood products. In most countries the Red Cross uses donations that test ELISA positive for manufacture of blood products - "waste not want not" ;)

In The UK most blood donors who test ELISA positive are told:

"False Reactions: All laboratory tests can produce 'false alarms', the technical term for this is a 'false reaction'. This is a positive result in the screening test, which, on confirmatory testing is shown to be negative. False reactions are a recognised complication of all biological tests and are perfectly normal. They are of no significance for the health of the donor."

This is from their own website!

The problems with clotting factor for hemophiliac is now known to be caused by impurities in US sourced product, which have now been elimination by an extra purificatipon step in production. This protein impurity (not HIV) was causing the false positive test results in hemophiliacs - many of whom died after being given AZT.

All this is extensively documented in the published scientific literature - and openly discussed at AIDS conferences. It is not in dispute Sci guy 03:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please do not refactor my talk page without discussion. If your responses embarass you (which they should do, because your position on HIV is cynical in the extreme) you can politely ask me to remove them. JFW | T@lk 14:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I am sorry that I do not understand the word "refactor". From the Wiki guidelines, I understood it was my responsiblity to remove "talk" comments after an issue was resolved. Sci guy 14:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Is this about you? Kosebamse 10:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)