User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 9

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


Join Wikiproject "clinical medicine"[edit]

I don't mind joining Wikiproject "clinical medicine", thanks for the invite. DrFlo1


Could you help provide an image from the following link


Abetalipoproteinemia & OMIM[edit]

I was following the recommended citation style that is presented by OMIM itself (see I would actually prefer to use the source's preferred citation method when using a record as a reference as opposed to merely putting in a link to the resource. I take it, though, that you object to that, yes? Courtland 22:45, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. JFW | T@lk 06:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

account letter[edit]

Thank you for your letter.I am a Japanese user.I am not able to speak and write English very much,and it is not good my English.So I am going to do my best.I will do to log in here in the near future.Would you like to remember me to you. 13:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I see! 13:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Missing arachnoid[edit]

Jfdwolff and Bryan Derksen, as the first two people with self-described interests in medical articles that I noticed in the page histories of some brain-related articles I just dab'd [take a breath], I thought I might ask you to contribute to an omission I came across. In creating an article on Arachnoid (astrogeology) for the new Featured Article Venus (planet), I came across Arachnoid, which was just a redirect to Meninges, which linked to Arachnoid again. This seemed odd to me, because the other two meninges layers, dura mater and pia mater, had their own articles, however brief. Anyway, I changed Arachnoid into a disambiguation page with three meanings and dab'd the old references into Arachnoid (brain) for about a dozen articles. Could one or both of you create a short article to fill in the missing layer? Thanks. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biweekly special article[edit]

Dear Fact and Reference Check member,

After many months, the biweekly special article has been brought back! The article we will be referencing is Titan (moon). Please do your best to help out!

I'm asking all members to verify at least three facts in the article, and I'd really appreciate it if you could try and help with this. We have about 19 members, so if even 3/4 of us try and fulfil this 'dream', that'll be 45 references!

If you need some information on how to use footnotes, take a look at Wikipedia:Footnote3, which has a method of autonumbering footnotes. Unfortunately, they produce brackets around the footnotes, but it seems to be our best alternative until they integrate the footnote feature request code into MediaWiki. You may be interested in voting for the aforementioned feature request.


Frazzydee| 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for assistance[edit]

Hi, can you check in on Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption for me? There is a factual dispute and I am trying to cite and use the relevant scientific sources, but the other user seems to want to stick to one source. The article's external link is a summary of some of the relevant literature. I have pulled the abstracts, but none of the full text seems to be available. I don't know when I will be able to go to the library to actually check them out. I'll have to warn you, the talk has gotten messy because I have been unwilling to let this guy have his way without providing sources to back it up. Thanks - Taxman 17:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Please report which articles I should review, and I'll try. JFW | T@lk 19:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ablution in Judaism[edit]

There's a question at Talk:Ablution in Judaism; I wonder if you wouldn't mind weighing in? Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if you have a chance, would you mind taking a look at the current debate at Talk:Israel Shahak? Your opinion would be welcome. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The term is un-Jewish. We have no ablutions, we have netilath yadayim. I have stated this on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 19:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Radio Islam[edit]

I've made some major revisions to the Radio Islam page; I was hoping you might look them over. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I'm concerned about the motives of User:Sci guy, who has been heavily editing AIDS, HIV, and other related articles. He's been removing a lot of information. I know you have a medical background.. I'm sure you're busy, but would you mind looking over the articles? Thanks. Rhobite 23:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein[edit]

Dear Jfdwolff,

Since you are an administrator could you revert some vandalism on the Saddam Hussein article. I would do it yet a good section of the article is missing. Could you please change this. Thank you --ChanochGruenman 12:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Messiah article[edit]

I'm having a disagreement with User:Eliezer on the Messiah article; would you mind giving your opinion? Jayjg (talk) 15:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External link(s)[edit]

Enough people told me that it shold always be External links even if there are only one as a matter of policy that it was pretty standard. That appears to be what most people have used over the last year. The Wikipedia:External links article now says singular, but I note that that was only changed on March 18 and the person who put it there was an anonymous user. Based upon the comments on the talk page saying that it should be plural even when there is only one, and there being no contradiction to this elsewhere except by this one anon user, I removed what the anon user said from that page and changed it to what it always used to be. If this is not correct someone else on that page will no doubt correct it or raise the issue for discussion there again. I do know that it has overwhelmingly been links even in singular instances over the year and a half I've been here registered and unregistered. DreamGuy 14:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Noted Talmudist[edit]

Our friend User:Eliezer now wants to include Schneerson in the list of "noted Talmudists" in the Talmud. Care to voice your opinion? Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hasid-stub nominated for deletion[edit]

Hi Dr. Wolff: I have nominated {{Hasid-stub}} (Template:Hasid-stub) for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Hasid-stub [1] for reasoning and for your input. Thank you. IZAK 07:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Robert Maxwell[edit]

Hi Doctor: you may want to look at some pathetic "editing" at Robert Maxwell. Thanks. IZAK 08:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)++


I am a misandronist and a philogynist. My interests offend others too easily. I have been told," Charlie, no one understands you, and your curiosity must come from Satan. I feel sorry for you." At "Bible" I added only 3 words, and people went nuts. Thanks, Doc. I don't think being a wikipedian would be healthy for me now. I prefer my privacy. The Greatest Magician in the world, Martin Gardner, is my teacher and friend. But I am certainly not THAT SMART! I'm a grunt and a misfit. 14 Apr 2005

God, protect Wikipedia. Charlie Turek is back. JFW | T@lk 14:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I thought that the two changes I made actually improved the page - even if my style was incorrect. AltSupportThyroid is the best ex link that I have seen. As for the other change it just loops back on itself as it stands today (try it) - not sure what we should do about it... Unsigned by User:Mome-Rath

Usenet groups having their own homepage... Heavens. Wikipedia does not need external links about diseases apart from the following purposes: (1) As references (e.g. FDA data on levothyroxine prescriptions in the USA), (2) When internet-based information has contributed significantly to the public perception of a problem (these are very rare). "Support groups" do not need links from Wikipedia. In fact, many of these support groups push their own bias and implicitly violate WP:NPOV. Since arriving at the project I have been removing irrelevant or irresponsible external links, and I will continue to do so. JFW | T@lk 14:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ - my partner was recently diagnosed with Hypothyroidism, and our immediate instinct was to find information. In all our research AltSupportThyroid had the most relevant and detailed information. I do not think they have any specific bias per se. Have you actually looked at the website? Anyway, as you will understand, I am just trying to add some value (albeit clumsily).

The page still has a redirect back to itself. Unsigned by User:Mome-Rath

I'm not going to fix the redirect now. Perhaps later.
You seem to misunderstand. The fact that a page is good is not enough reason to link to it from Wikipedia. Notability and quality are distinct parameters (sometimes a notorious page is more worth linking than a good one). JFW | T@lk 09:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Modern Orthodox Judaism[edit]

Hi Jfdwolff. The discussion is getting a little heated in Talk:Modern Orthodox Judaism; would you mind giving your opinions on the issues being discussed there? Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chicago revert[edit]

Jfdwolff, the reason I speedied the Chicago article is because I am going to move Chicago, Illinois there. See Talk:Chicago, Illinois for more info. Thanks, Dralwik 23:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Thank you sincerely for the Chicago move. Dralwik 00:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about the redirects. I'm already changing them. It would be a great help if you assisted, too. Dralwik 00:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm already changing the redirects, so the double-redirects should turn up on the bottom of the list as the redirects are deleted. Dralwik 00:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just found and fixed Chicago Illinois and Chicago, Il. Dralwik 00:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's one bad one (several links): Chicago, IL.

All done with Chicago, IL. Dralwik 02:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois[edit]

I am disappointed you facilitated the move, contrary to common US city naming standards, with virtually no discussion or consensus. AFAIK, it has been at Chicago, Illinois for most of the past 4-5 years, like the thousands of other US cities, so such a drastic move should not be made arbitrarily or capriciously. Also, since it is one of the articles with more than 500 in-bound links, it is impossible to know if all double-redirects have been fixed. Niteowlneils 00:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New "Sefer-stub" vote for deletion[edit]

Greetings Dr. Wolff, another stub {{Sefer-stub}} has appeared concerning Sefer! and so I have gone to the efforts of proposing that it be deleted, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Sefer-stub [2] Please vote. Thank you. IZAK 10:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Meforshim and rabbis[edit]

Hi, please see discussion at Talk:Meforshim, and see RK's recent edits about Rabbi at [3] thanks. IZAK 07:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jaundice and Cancer[edit]

Thank you for your message and the explaination.

I have a couple of observations: 1. Would it not be correct to classify Jaundice (and some of the other signs) as "signs" rather than a "symptom" of malignanant disease? 2. Presuming we want to treat Jaundice as a "symptom" (ie. something reported by the patient) it is more likely to be reported as a systemic manifestations - conjuctiva, nails, skin etc.

The *cause* of jaundice is likely to be a *local* liver pathology (as pointed out by you), but the resulting "symptom" is systemic... Am I making any sense? Nazli 12:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


I'm having a debate with User:Stevertigo at anti-Semitism. Would you mind weighing in with your opinion? Jayjg (talk) 21:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Based on User:Patrick Reynolds comments and edits [4] [5] I think he can be permanently banned as an abusive sockpuppet; what do you think? Jayjg (talk) 22:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Female "rabbis" in Orthodox Judaism?[edit]

Hello Dr. Wolff, RK is now "building a case" for the beginnings of lady "rabbis" within Orthodox Judaism. See what's happeing at Rabbi and Talk:Rabbi, you may also want to contribute more information to this important article about rabbis in general. Thank you and have a Chag Kosher VeSameach! IZAK 08:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opioid abuse[edit]

Guttlekraw (talk · contribs) is removing all references to the term "drug abuse" on Wikipedia. In so doing, he has modified direct quotes, references, journal articles, books, and biographies. In attempting to combat this, I have merely countered with adhering to policy, such as citing sources for any claims he disputes. I was not trying to make a statement "scientific" by including a PubMed citation, but to demonstrate that sources can be cited for specific claims, in this case the fact that opioids can be abused for their euphoria-producing properties. Please check Guttlekraw's contribution list, as I would like to enlist your help on this matter. When you have time, could you pop in to Talk:Drug abuse and check out the discussion? We are debating whether or not to merge and redirect drug abuse to substance abuse. While the terms tend to be used synonymously, I would like to focus on keeping the two pages separate if possible, with drug abuse describing the medical, legal, and social aspects, and the history, as well as the known effects on the body; the substance abuse article should focus on psychology, etiology, behavior, mental health, and treatment. Also see the brief outline I have posted on the talk page. Another good reason that these articles should be separate is due to size. Any criticism is greatly appreciated. --Viriditas | Talk 22:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. User:Guttlekraw has reverted my most recent changes, so the current version of substance abuse and drug abuse are not the working versions. Would you mind taking a look at the history? I have moved most of the content from drug abuse to the Talk:Substance abuse article for merge, as I will be following the outlined proposal for new content that I left on Talk:Drug abuse. --Viriditas | Talk 15:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

חג כשר ושמח! --ChanochGruenman 12:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lung articles[edit]

There are two unmatched Encyclopedia Britannica articles here: Lung Congestion and Lung Infarction. The opening of the EB articles can be read at Can the first reasonably be redirected to Pulmonary edema, and do we have an equivalent for the second? Thanks David Brooks 17:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Actually EB has two hits, a main article: "lung congestion: distention of blood vessels in the lungs and filling of the alveoli with blood as a result of an infection, high blood pressure, or cardiac insufficiencies" and a section of Cardiovascular disease. I'll makeThanks for making the link. Yes, I saw the interesting links in your medical search page!
and thanks for asking; the disc gives no pain now and I've been strengthening my back, so it's about time to remove the joke from my userpage. David Brooks 21:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do we need the new Template:Judaism?[edit]

Hello Dr. Wolff, please see the proposed Template:Judaism and its talk page about the question/s if it's needed at all. Thanks. IZAK 06:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Use of "conspiracy theory" in article titles[edit]

There's a debate (and vote) going on at several articles regarding the proper titles; in particular, certain editors want to remove the words "conspiracy theory" from any of them. If you're interested, you'll find the relevant talk (and votes) at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories, Talk:9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, and Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. Jayjg (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, also, Merlinzor (talk · contribs) aka (talk · contribs) appears to have a particular fixation on Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs, Catholic-Jewish reconciliation, and the use of the term "Reverend Cantor". Would you mind looking at his recent edits and giving your opinion? Jayjg (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

IMAGE REMOVED The information regarding the term Hazzan which was added today, was received from a school of Cantorial Studies, and from practicing cantors who have been cantors for decades. Cantors, or "Reverend Cantors" as more notably used in Europe, are more than just singers. Along with Rabbis, Cantors are the Jewish clergy, and in the Conservative and Reform movements they are ordained ministers. This meeting was deemed so important, that the Israeli government was even involved in this meeting.

I'm not involved in this. Could you please stop. A cantor is not Jewish clergy because there is no such thing in the first place. JFW | T@lk 22:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Jews as a chosen people[edit]

There are some interesting edits being entered by an anonymous editor at Jews as a chosen people; you might want to take a look. Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Will every shtiebel get its own Wikipedia article?[edit]

Hello Dr. Wolff, take a look at this new addition Congregation Tiferes Yisroel, I am not sure every obscure shtiebel on this planet is deserving of its own article. It may contravene Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider, and I think it's more of a Wikipedia:Vanity page, what do you think? (I am also asking User:Jayjg.) Thanks. IZAK 05:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Zvi Block notable enough?[edit]

Hello again Dr. Wolff, please see article about a Rabbi Zvi Block submitted by a new user. Is every last rabbi on Earth going to get their own Wikipedia article? Is this one "notable" enough in your opinion? Your views please. Thanks. IZAK 05:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Seen Ibbur?[edit]

You may want to edit Ibbur. IZAK 06:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Lithuanian School of Kabbalah[edit]

Hello, I just finished editing User:Fivetree's new entry about Lithuanian School of Kabbalah, but I do not know what to make of it really, and I cannot help but wonder if it really can be placed in Category:Orthodox Judaism. Is it too much self-promotion? What do you think? IZAK 05:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Water fluoridation quotes[edit]

Hi, Jfdwolff. I read it and feel sorry we have very diffent opinions on What Wikiquote is and is not. Your review on our VFD and archive will be appreciated, and I don't think after reviewing those discussion, you keep your opinion to transwiki that submission to Wikiquote. Thanks. --Aphaea* 10:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Litaim kabbalah[edit]

Shalom! Contact me at MSN: AOL: tkadmon YahooIM: fivetrees ICQ:50416037

Happy admin anniversary[edit]

Happy admin anniversary! HKT 22:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Oral contraceptive[edit]

Hi, could you look at the changes recently made to Oral contraceptive by an anon,, while not all technically incorrect, the user is using the page to push a POV. I'd like another opinion before I revert the changes. Thanks --nixie 06:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


Please review the "Biblical" article Abif. Thanks. IZAK 05:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Oral contraceptive[edit]

I do admire your attempt to remove the npov tag from this article. I predict it might hold for about 10 minutes. The user is what seems to be called here a pov-warrior for a pro-life-stance. This IP is also changing 'gay rights' into 'socalled gay rights' whereever he or she finds it. The IP does this almost around the clock. I put the npov-tag on some of these articles because no-one (even though there are several people on Abortion for example) can keep up with a (maybe paid for) revert-war like that, which is also pointless. I have also researched if there are other ways to deal with the problem, other than the NPOV-tag, but have basically not found anything other than that problems like this are common and annoying. Banning for breaking the three-revert-rule I guess is useless. Page-protection? The IP is hardly able or willing to communicate on talk-pages. I hope removing the pov-tag will work. But honestly, my prediction: Assuming we could actually find a solution on the pill-page, and IP talks on talk page, which is not likely, the next day IP'll put in something synonymous of 'abortion is murder' or the like and start another revert-war. But lets try. I just removed it. --Fenice 23:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who put up the pov-tag initially instead of reverting (But yesterday, before I removed the tag I also restored the pre-IP version, containing the description of the pearl index). The IP virtually does not use anything but reversals. After being asked to use talk pages several times by several people the IP does reply to talk sometimes but gets frustrated very soon and turns back to reverting. The basic alternatives it seems to me are pov-tag or revert-war, (see also abortion: IP spent a night or (a day probably) reverting the same phrase over and over again, against about ten or so other people.
In my mind it should only be placed on a page when there is a reasonable antecedent on the talk page to show what the difficult points are.
Then what can be done? What do you think? As I said, I know that a blocking for 24 hours would be possible - I just don't think it'll help, it'll delay the problem for 24 hours. Protecting the page: from what I see, the person hardly ever talks on discussion pages and is not even pretending to be willing to find a consensual version. I think that the pov-tag is a valubable sign to the reader that there are problems on this page and we are working on it. Right now IP is busy on Abortion so the problem on Oral contraceptive may have cleared up for while.--Fenice 06:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Abif VfD[edit]

Gut Voch, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abif. Thank you. IZAK 06:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Oral contraceptive[edit]

Really - how come it is so important that this article stay without NPOV-tag? Jfdwolff - I will not do these pointless discussions with IP any longer. I will quit working on this article. If an npov article absolutely has to stay without tag, I really don't care any more.--Fenice 15:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The only remaining contentious issue is the pearl-index (it is not called pearl-index in the text, but that is the number that is quoted in the text under correct use). Still, I cannot deal with this (at this moment in time). I will not write on oral contraceptive, and probably most related subjects where IP is contributing, for a while.
Also, because after I stated that I'll quit in oral contraceptive|talk the Ip started a vandalism rant (making at least two obviously vandalistic edits on Intact dilation and extraction) and got a grip on himself/herself again soon. I must have triggered something. It was quite harsh of me to just stop the discussion, but it would be taking too much of a toll on me. I will leave this up to others, I am not retreating grudgingly. I am convinced this is the best solution.--Fenice 18:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't bite the newcomers[edit]

From Talk:Hepatocellular carcinoma: What Wikipedia needs is a well-written clear outline, not just of frontline research but of basic principles such as staging, histology and prognosis. That's very nice: are you actually going to do this or just remove anyone else's contributions? And since you've set yourself up as a veteran here, perhaps you ought to reacquaint yourself with Don't bite the newcomers and lose the supercilious attitude. --Calton | Talk 14:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Riposte on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 15:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


Hello, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish Renegades. Thanks IZAK 15:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your help with this article stub -- much appreciated! Jbetak 07:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yehudei sheqolenique[edit]

Yehudei sheqolenique, ever heard of them? Can you look at and verify the article at all? Thanks IZAK 10:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


It's myself, checking my employer's IP. 15:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if you need it, but try giving these two links a shot:
Gemal's Spy:
Reverse IP lookup:
Cheers! Jbetak 19:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jbetak. I was trying to see if my employer has only one or multiple IPs. JFW | T@lk 19:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


I noticed on your welcome message you put a link if they want their edits reattributed. That service has been suspended. I thought you might like to know. Howabout1 01:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Aargh, thanks mate, I've changed it. JFW | T@lk 22:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


Vos macht ir Doktor Velvel?: Please contact User:Humus sapiens who wishes to start a Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel See his request below. Thanks IZAK 07:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi IZAK (and everyone else here :), Do you think it's time to create Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel similar to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/India, Wikipedia:Wikiportal/New Zealand and other Category:Wikiportals? I'm writing this here because it was you who made those wonderful templates and we don't have a portal yet where we could communicate. What do you think? Humus sapiensTalk 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi Humus, it's only me here, but I will pass your message on to "everyone". Yes, your suggestion is excellent, it is certainly time for what you describe, but I have no experience with Wikipedia portals, and if you know how, go ahead and start an Israel portal and I am sure editors of Israel-related articles will support you and join in the effort/s. Behatzlachah. IZAK 05:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jfdwolff, consider youself invited to WP:WNBI. Spread the word. Humus sapiensTalk 09:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Alternative claims of Jew, Judaism and Israelite and Alternative Judaism[edit]

User:Sirkumsize is suggesting these articles should be merged with Jewish denominations; I thought you might want to comment. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I am exasperated at the thought. Good luck though. Someone with that username is likely to be pushing a POV. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you could comment on the relevant Talk: pages? Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Linking dates in references[edit]

Indeed, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates Rich Farmbrough 21:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Taboo meat and Unclean animals[edit]

Have you seen these articles? Do you feel comfortable with them describing un-kosher animals as "unclean" rather than "unfit"? Jayjg (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't actually thinking of changing the article names, but rather I was concerned with the text, which translates "fit" as "clean" and "abomination" as "unclean". Clearly these are poor choices of translation reflection a flawed understanding of the terms. Wouldn't it make sense to clean up the text? Jayjg (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

VfD you might be interested in[edit]

I just came across a VfD I thought you might be interested in: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Victor Beck. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all[edit]

I'm not going to modify Obesity until I ask you...Don't you think "human beings" is in place there? "Humans" sounds like it's out of a science fiction...--VKokielov 04:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not so much worried as I didn't want to unmake a conscious correction on your part without asking you first. --VKokielov 16:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Biblical Patriarch Dynasties[edit]

Hello Dr. Wolff: Can you help tidy up Biblical Patriarch Dynasties please? Thanks. IZAK 19:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

What are you trying to achieve? JFW | T@lk 20:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I think it should just be put up for VfD; it's pure original research by Zestauferov. Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Steroid hormone receptor[edit]

Can you provide additional (possibly online) reference that confirms steroid hormone receptors use one of their zinc fingers to form a homodimer? One would expect a leucine zipper or a helix-loop-helix to play such a role. Please answer in the article or its talk page. --Eleassar777 21:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Steroid hormone receptors and Zn fingers? I have absolutely no idea, but I thought the Zinc finger was just the structural motif that aided in DNA binding, and does not actually determine dimerisation. Correct me if I'm wrong. JFW | T@lk 21:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. I asked you about this as I saw you started and have been frequently editing the article "Steroid hormone receptor" that explicitely says: "Steroid hormone receptors are found in homodimer forms. They have two Zn-finger domains, one of which binds DNA, the other one connects the molecule to its pair in the homodimer." As I doubt this is accurate, I will correct it (if necessary) as soon as I find a reliable reference. --Eleassar777 07:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Eighteenth century persecution of Polish Jews[edit]

Hello, Dr. Wolff. I was wondering if you could provide some input at Talk:Abraham ben Abraham. Thank you. HKT 02:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hebrew Bible verses[edit]

Hello Doc: See the verses in Category:Hebrew Bible verses with the two samples so far: Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2. Is this the way the Torah verses should be "presented"? (Compare with the verses in Category:New Testament verses.) At what point should the classical teachings of famous meforshim be inserted, and in what way and how much? The time to decide on this is now, because at this stage the "project" is still being "formed" by User:Neutrality alone. Thank you. IZAK 02:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The whole lot is ripe for Vfd. Incidentally, I also think all numbered articles from Category:New Testament verses are VFD material. JFW | T@lk 15:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI -- I revised Genesis 1:1 in line with my view to keep it. Thought you should know, I'd like to hear your thoughts about the changes. HG 17:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Rambam picture[edit]

Is the new one better? --Tzadik 21:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

A question about links being removed[edit]

Hello. I run Anxiety Zone and yesterday I added a link under "external links" to several of the articles related to anxiety disorders and this morning I discovered that they were all removed. However, I see several prominant sites who have had their links there for weeks now and they are still there. Why were mine removed and what can I do to get them back up there?. I can't imagine that someone though the few links I added were "spam" and I apologize if anyone got that impression. The links I added to the articles were very relevant to the site to which I linked them to. Anyway, I love WikiPedia, I use their content and follow the license rules to a tee and I would very much be interested in being relinked if at all possible and hope I hav'nt offended anyone (I sure did'nt mean to anyway).

Responded on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 06:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

To Dr Wolffe... I read your response and appreciate your views but with all due respect (and from a pure user perspective) I actually like the external links as long as they are related to the article in a direct way and might be of some benifit to someone like me who wanted to go further in my research. For example, let's say that I suffer from Generalized Anxiety Disorder (which I in fact do) and I come to WikiPedia and read about said condition. The next logical step for me might be to look for a support group to join where I could get help and if there are several such links in the external links section, that purpose has been well-served. Certainly, I can appreciate that WikiPedia is not the place for Viagra ads or other such spam but the few links I added recently were completely legitimate, highly relevant and I would very much like to reinstate at least one of them. Is this possable?. I think it would be a fair, equitable and reasonable thing to allow me to do in light of the fact that so many others have been doing the same thing and as long as WikiPedia does'nt become one big link farm, what real harm is there in it if people find it useful in some way?. User:anxietyzone

Dr Wolffe I think that is more than fair. I will go ahead then and add not more than two links (one under 'Generalized anxiety Disorder' and the other one under 'Panic Disorder') and limit it to these two if there are no further objections. It truly is a shame that so many bad apples spoil it for those of us who are legitimate so I think we agree there, no doubt. Thank you again for your time and help on this matter. User:anxietyzone

POV IP[edit]

I added my signature and some comment, and I believe you have to add your signature in this section: 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute, because it needs two signatures.--Fenice 09:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You erased most of my comments - which of course make the most sense in context. But you wanted me to post them out of context. No matter, I complied - and now I hope you will do me the courtesy of responding to my very specific replies. For instance, Fenice is wrong about PBA, for example, yet that is a basis for this inquisition. Pleasae rspond to each of my comments. It seems only fair since you have labeled me as somehow disruptive. 05:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I explained why I did that. The format of WP:RFC is such that comments will be out of context. "This inquisition" is because you were disruptive on cervical cancer - this was noticed by various other editors apart from me. I have no interest in your dispute on PBA, but it strikes me that your approach annoys so many different people. I will only comment on matters that involve myself. JFW | T@lk 10:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you offer advice on the birth control pill entry, please? The Pearl index info posted is simply sicentific data from various established respected pro-contraception sources that informs about the effectiveness of the pill. It now has a NPOV dipsute marker - and there has really been no reasonable explanation offered for it being there. How do you suggest getting it removed - or do you think the marker is valid (why so)? 05:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am learning the protocol here. I apologize for any legitimate concerns I have caused, and trust you will continue to notice that I am sincere in trying to be an honest broker for factual information. At present I see that I have so riled Fenice that she is unable at this time to engage constuctively. I will try to be as gentle and polite as possible, but find it hard to tolerate her penchant for presuming facts or rational views that break her paradigm are automatically dubious. I appreciate your efforts to moderate and, again, apologize for any legitmate concerns. What happens with the Req for Comment page? I have learned from that process, however inquisition-like it may be. 13:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One clinical use of gene therapy[edit]

The results of the first Clinical Trial of Gene Therapy for CF in Scotland were announced on 1 March 1997 (Porteous et al, Gene Therapy 4:210-218 (1997)).

Repeated Adeno-Associated Virus Serotype 2 Aerosol-Mediated Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Regulator Gene Transfer to the Lungs of Patients With Cystic Fibrosis* 23:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool, which hospital uses it? JFW | T@lk 23:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have not done the research but my impression is that this therapy is for home use (or outpatient). The target tissue is the epithelial cells in the lung. Clearly this is a temporary solution since the cells turn over quite frequently and also this treatment does not improve the function of other cells in the body, but it does help alleviate the build up of mucus in the lungs. 00:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to explain cystic fibrosis to me. My point is that this "treatment" is still utterly experimental, and that I would object against placing gene therapy in the Category:Medicine until this is accepted in the way bone marrow transplants and surgery are. JFW | T@lk 00:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to patronise, you were the one that asked the question. It is not utterly experimental, that is an exaggeration unless you call phase two and three trials utterly experimental. I may be pedantic but utterly experimental would imply they are still using an animal model for testing. Personally I don't care but it seems to me you are using a definition of medicine that is overly retrictive. Why can't medicine be a large umbrella that includes ethics as well as clinical trials. David D. 01:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I just looked at the pages and subcategories in the medicine category. Why not just move it down a layer into the medical research subcategory? Surely that is better than removing it completely. David D. 01:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi jfdwolf, I noticed you did move it into the research category, possibly before I suggested it here. This seems like a good fit and much less controversial. I agree we do not want to get the 'BBC News enthusiasm' bug. David D. 17:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hey, you asked on my talk page what my background is. I'm a grad student studying coagulation (specifically I'm working on computer simulation of the enzyme kinetics), so I know a decent bit about platelets, but more about the coagulation enzymes. I've been glancing over the pages a bit for the past couple of days, and I'll continue to do so. I know how useful I find various pages of this, so I hope to make it more useful to others. Wsloand 01:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One other thing: you reverted my II to IIa change on the Blood template. Saying that II is thrombin is inaccurate, so it should either say IIa or Prothrombin. Wsloand 01:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I like that change. I know that Thrombin is the more important of the two, it just didn't sit correctly as it was. Wsloand 01:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redlinks to Scientists[edit]

I'm not entirely convinced about your removal of the wiki-links to the individual scientists in Oxytocin. Yes, I understand that it may be unaesthetic, but I think it is useful because:

(a) Potential for expansion. (b) The existence of redlinks themselves gives useful information - i.e. it informs the readers that the researchers involved are not notable for anything else. Not wikifying is ambiguous - maybe these are significant personalities that we've just forgotten about.

Yes, it isn't neccessary, but I think the benefits outweigh the losses. --Fangz 17:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See your talk. JFW | T@lk 18:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cardiovascular disease[edit]

Hello, Doctor. Thanks for helping me fix up this article. I tried rewriting most of the article. I don't know if you can do anything with the "Risk factors" section: I would rather not have a bulleted list in general, but do you think there are too many to list in paragraph form? Probably, unless we split it up into classes of factors. Also, feel free to reorganize the list. The research section, too, I just jotted down whatever I could think of late last night; that could definitely use more work, and I'll add to it later. — Knowledge Seeker 18:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, there are areas where bulleted lists are useful, but I think it would be better to explain rather than list, if possible. I'll play around with reorganizing them; add or remove any factors as you see fit. I'll take a look at both obesity and endothelial dysfunction. The latter should definitely be mentioned, but I'll look into it a bit more first. Obesity looks pretty comprehensive already but I'll see if I can add anything (I'm only about to start my intern year, so my knowledge isn't as advanced as yours). — Knowledge Seeker 18:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cause of Appendicitis[edit]

Dear Doctor,

Just wanted to let you know that I've responded to your comments on the Appendicitis discussion page.

(Sorry, I'm a new Wiki user, so I didn't know about "watchlists". This message was probably unnecessary)

Best regards,

Jonathan Isbit

Naming of organic compounds with prefixes[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you just reverted my move on p-aminobenzoic acid. I was modifying this in accordance with the policies of the Chemistry Wikiproject, to be found at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Capitalization_naming_convention. This is done because we class this as a name beginning with A rather than with P. Is there an alternative policy on naming chemical substances in the biomedical field that comes into conflict with this? If not, can I revert this back? Cheers, Walkerma 05:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for fixing that. By the way, are you active on the Drugs Wikiproject? If so, could we get your views on how the Chemicals Wikiproject and the Drugs Wikiproject should work where they interface with each other. Take a look, for example, at paracetamol, which is a page we have begun to work on. We have our templates and standard formats, but we don't want to conflict with the standards for the drugs project. I will start a section on the project talk page on this. Thanks again, Walkerma 14:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)[edit]

I noticed that you reverted some of User:'s additions and warned him about spamming. Thanks. Links for that domain have been added to many articles several times before (see the bottom of my scratchpad for details). Rl 11:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello there,

In regards to me being warned about "link spamming" - I found the tone a bit offensive. I was adding the articles as support for the topics and was unaware that this would be a problem. See Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.

~--Hlarson 00:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Israel or Palestine for the region?[edit]

Hello Dr., please see the heated discussion at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah#Israel or Palestine for the region? over revisionist attempts to eradicate mention of (ancient!) "Israel" and "Judah" entirely in favor of "Palestine". Please add your views. Thank you. IZAK 11:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Plantar fasciitis reversion[edit]

I noticed that you reverted an addition of an external link for the Plantar fasciitis article. I assume you did it because it seemed to an ad. I looked at it myself and I didn't think it was too objectionable, and I thought it contained some good information. I have the ailment myself, but did not put the link in the article. What is your objection? Thanks --Rogerd 00:43, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Cancer category[edit]

I saw your comment at Category talk:Cancer. Could you give your input on what should happen to this category? --Mike C | talk 14:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admin nomination[edit]

Weyes, in return for your dedicated and level-headed RC patrolling I have nominated you for adminship. Please leave a note on that page whether you accept the nomination, and answer the standard questions on how you will use your adminship. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've declined it, but the vote of confidence means a lot to me. Thanks. --W(t) 14:27, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Thank you for your support[edit]

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 14:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision POV pushing[edit]

I'm afraid one of the anti-circumcision activists has become, well, active again, and has been trying to promote the rather bizarre idea that circumcision is vivisection. See, for example: [6], [7]. You might want to add these two articles to your watchlist. Jayjg (talk) 17:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)