User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 33

If you leave messages here, please expect a response from me over here.
If I've left a message on your talkpage, and I'm slow to respond to a reply made there, please let me know.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,

See new section Physical Therapy under Archive 3

I added a new section. unfortunately I inadvertently placed it under archive 3.DoctorDW (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to move it here so I can comment on it. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Below is a discussion I have been having with Cyclonenimrod. I have outlined the reasons his request to you to change the long held title of the article from Physical Therapy to Physiotherpy was not a good idea. Please revert the title of the page to Physical Therapy. Thanks DoctorDW (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You moved and redirected the Physical Therapy page to Physiotherapy. The page has been named physical therapy for many years. It was awfully quick of you to make such a major change. I ask you to revert your move. The world body governing the profession uses physical therapy not physiotherpay. The wiki page should be consistent with what over 100 countries have agreed to. thnks [index.php?title=User:DoctorDW&action=edit&redlink=1 DoctorDW] (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)"

Unfortunately, I will not be carrying out your request to revert the move. Page names should always be what is most likely to be looked up by an individual searching for the subject. The amount of countries refering to it as physiotherapy is far greater than those refering to it as physical therapy. Physical therapy, infact, is almost an entirely U.S-used term which means we're failing to give proper international perspective. This also makes it far more likely that physiotherapy will be searched rather than physical therapy. That said, if someone from the U.S.A. decides to search for physical therapy, they will simply be redirected. It is no big deal. Feel free to contact me if you have any further concerns. — CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 06:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are incorrect. "Physical Therapy" is the adopted term by the World Confederation for Physical Therapy which represents 101 countries. "The World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) is an international non-profit professional organisation founded in 1951. The Confederation is supported by subscriptions from its 101 Member Organisations and through them it represents over 300,000 physical therapists worldwide.

Membership

WCPT is a confederation of national physical therapy associations. Only one national organisation per country may be in membership."[1]

Clearly the representives of over 300,000 PTs worldwide have decided the preferred term is physical therapy and physical therapist. It is not "almost entirely US-used term."

Google "physical therapy" and 19,100,000 hits return. Google "physiotherapy" and 6,650,000 hits return.

Physical therapy is the preferred and most commonly used term. Please revert your edit.DoctorDW (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well unfortunately i'm not an administrator, so I cannot move the page back. If you genuinely feel it is the best option, ask an administrator to move it back. Preferably though, put a discussion on the talk page first as it the original move was discussed and agreed upon. — CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 21:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DoctorDW"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfdwolff/Archive_3"

Please also see talk on the Physiotherapy/Physical Therapy page DoctorDW (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton

Hi, JFW. I see that you are in correspondence with Mr Grundy. Are you working in Southampton? Axl (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I bumped into Paul Grundy online. I work elsewhere. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CA19-9

Nice work on the cleanup. Much better now. I would gladly have done the mechanical work myself, but I was worried about inadvertently changing things factually. Tlesher (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. JFW | T@lk 06:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity Article

The article on obesity needs some clean up. I have made a few comments in the discussion part of things but am not sure how to edit the main page. How would I get access to do that?

Thanks James Heilman MD, CCFP, M.Sc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh649 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified semi-protection and autoconfirmation on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Laws of Noah

The version I was looking at does include legal marriage (different terminology) and also includes castration. My edit was just a revert of what I (incorrectly) thought was a POV edit, my apologies; I have restored the other two. The other one on the list however that I don't see elsewhere is the prohibition on kidnapping, where does this come from? Black Platypus (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and so

Well, you were not helpful, and I am surprised since you have been editing since 2004! Surely you are aware that the vast bulk of Wikipedia articles is lacking citations, references or even recommended works that one may read to substantiate created articles. I'm sure you are also aware that anyone can edit Wikipedia, including the readers, which is how they become editors. Given that the desire to add cited references is not foremost on the minds of most people who contribute, and that neither I nor you have the capacity to reference all the articles that currently need to be, what is a better idea: a) to leave an article unreferenced, and therefore subjected to the {{unreferenced}} template that screams lack of authority to the reader, or to b) include a subtle means for the reader to find such references as may be available online themselves, thus contributing to the quality of Wikipedia, and maybe even inviting another editor to the Wikipedia community.

In any case, the findsources template was never created with any restrictions, but its documentation never envisaged another use, which I have created for it. So far as I see there is no need to invent such a restriction in any case. For the record I find it helpful, should I need to cite a sentence or a paragraph in an article, to use the find rather than opening another window on my desktop. I will be putting the findsources template back to the articles you removed it from. Happy referencing--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually looked at the original version of the template, you would see that it was explicitly designed to be used as a comment in deletion discussions. It was not intended to be used in mainspace, and this was made very clear in template talk:findsources last February. It would seem that the right course of action would be to stop and discuss the template rather than engaging in an immediate bulk revert. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment misplaced on an archive

Hi, just wanted to point out that a user seems to have accidentally left a note on Archive 34 instead of on your main talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm aware of it. If the user wants me to comment, he can move the message himself. JFW | T@lk 16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, the issue of Proteopedia has already been dealt with by the people at WP:MCB. JFW | T@lk 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SERM section on the osteoporosis page

Sorry for the mistake on the osteoporosis page. You were right about your comment. I am about to add the paragraph I planned to add earlier today. I would be glad to hear any comments from you. --Korazim (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the appropriate sources, and content reflecting the sources, I cannot imagine there being a problem. JFW | T@lk 20:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temazepam

I have just polished over the Temazepam article. Could you take a look and comment? 70.137.181.232 (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you watching this?

I think he's tested the patience of the project in several countries. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edit warred with that user enough (on chronic fatigue syndrome and Simon Wessely) to not be an impartial voice. Also, I'd rather get urticaria the natural way. JFW | T@lk 17:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: OTM

You certainly may not!

I kid, I kid. Yeah sorry it completely swept my mind today whilst at the library to actually take down a page number, I realised when I filled in the reference. When I go back, i'll get it (maybe tomorrow). Hope you're okay. — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 21:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to own a copy but at roughly £100 per volume it's not really a viable option for this poor college student! Perhaps if I get into medicine, i'll buy a set with my student loan. Anyway, should be going back to the library tomorrow so i'll check then. — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 22:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks again will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh649 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the ketogenic man

Thanks for the barnstar and the congrats. Very much appreciated. Colin°^Talk 08:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Reply to your comments on my talk page

Your explanations on my talk page make a lot of sense. BTW, I would offer to continue this discussion on the osteoporosis discussion page in the future. Replying specificaly to your comments, I would say that: 1. It is neccessary to rewrite the section I deleted according to your offering, i.e. to contain more about how to identify those at risk and what guidelines say about when to give them treatment. Would you be willing to do that? 2. I will add SERM scientific citations proving the concept within a few hours. 3. I am not familliar with the fact that SERMs aree better for axial skeleton than for hips. Do you have a citation for that? Best --Korazim (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just completed adding SERM clinical trails

Myasthenia gravis

I've found a fair bit of information about myasthenia gravis during pregnancy and want to place it in the article. That said, i've had a look and am a bit confused of where I should put it. Any ideas? — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 13:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wanting to improve the myasthenia article for quite some time. I've got the most recent Lancet review waiting on the ironing board until I've got a few hours of uninterrupted time.

Generally, pregnancy improves conditions like myasthenia, but the difficulty is that myasthenic symptoms will interfere with the second stage of labour, and the child may be hypotonic and require respiratory support. Many anti-myasthenia drugs are discouraged in pregnancy (unsure if pyridostigmine is safe) and I'm unsure if plasmapheresis is done in this setting. It is a difficult clinical conundrum. JFW | T@lk 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What i've done is inserted, per Delldot's advice, a section below 'Epidemiology' and above 'Notable people' called 'In pregnancy'. I fully intend to expand that with a bit more detail once I find a few more reviews. Unfortunately the OTM didn't have all that much on the subject. — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 06:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that is the best way, but at least the information you've researched is now available. PMID 17940925 is a recent review on neuromuscular diseases and pregnancy. I suspect the information should be dispersed between "signs and symptoms" and "treatment". JFW | T@lk 16:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was simply a matter of getting the information into the article. I'll move it soon. Thanks for the PMID too. — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 16:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. It appears that article isn't free, so i'll have to leave it to you if you have access? — CycloneNimrod ^Talk? 16:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'll have another look for a free article. JFW | T@lk 17:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Just a quick question. Why would one want to site secondary analysis of the research rather then the primary research?

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh649 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hostory of BMI

I just figured that the history of BMI is on the page relating to BMI. I do not see how having it on the page related to obesity adds to the article. Just my opinion. If you have strong feeling that it should be retained no problems replacing it.

Agree completely that systematic reviews are a better level of evidence. They however are not available for many topics and other forms of evidence must be used.

Also in the section on health effects. Wondering if we should divide it into subsection. One on mortality, one on morbidity, and one discussing the obesity paradox ( ie the literature which shows why decreased mortality in certain patient populations with higher BMI's )

Jmh649 (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean bulleted list

Yes bulleted list is what I mean not subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh649 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Well I am starting to getting into Wikipedia and this is a lot of fun. Today I added my first picture. A few questions about copy right of pictures and what documentation should be provided. I took a photo with a camera of a knee off of the x ray monitor at work leaving out of course the patients information. This I presume can be provided as is?

For pictures of patients I will put together a form giving me permission to take and use there photo. Have you put anything like this together?

And how about taking graphs, charts, and photos from journal articles or from web pages such as those of the WHO, NIH, etc?

Many thanks for the guidance. James --Jmh649 (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Symptomatic

I have nominated Symptomatic, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symptomatic. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lupus

Diff - this seems persistent so you might want to bring it up with the specific editor. Also note that User:TimVickers edited in response to a request from me. It's not discussed on the talk page that I can see, is it elsewhere? WLU (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

message. Does not appear willing to let the UVA go, and there's no real discussion on the talk page. WLU (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, please, let's talk about your constant removal of my references to UVA1 phototherapy....

An effective "off-label" treatment which is slowly but steadily gaining acceptance uses ultraviolet UVA1 radiation - long UVA wave lengths that do not promote sunburn and which actually block inflammatory immune factors by promoting apoptosis (cell death) in T cells. Several studies, both in the U.S. and Europe, have shown that UVA1 phototherapy lowers disease activity in SLE.

it'll well beyond the experimental stage...how many references do you want? this method is being used off-label today (which by the way is how the vast majority of drugs used for SLE in US are being employed)........what's holding up wide spread use is the lack of low-dose (6 joules) UVA1 equipment ...the UVA1 devices they use today for skin disorders crank out 130 joules....the low-dose equipment is being planned/made as i type this....i know 'cause i'm working with a medical device manufacturer to develop his stuff...and by "working with" i mean volunteering my time & experience...

i can understand pulling references to the 2004 book i published on this subject, "Lupus Underground," but not the method...

by the way, i've posted the most important parts of that book as password protected PDFs which people can read for zip ...you can access that info here: http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/LUpdfs.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.35.45 (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps - your "Clearance deficiency" info nicely explains the UVA1 action, but it is unproven, yet you've been able to post it ...why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.35.45 (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are promoting an off-label treatment that you've written a book about. That means that perhaps you ought to review WP:COI before you proceed. Mind if I call you Anthony? Anthony DeBartolo (2004). Lupus Underground: A Patient's Case for a Long-Ignored, Drug-Free, Non-Patentable, Counter-Intuitive Therapy That Actually Works - UVA1 Phototherapy. Hyde Park Media. ISBN 0-9763428-0-4.

I have asked you to provide evidence (e.g. from a medical journal) that this treatment is in widespread use. We can't just mention all treatments being used off-label for lupus, because they are numerous. Someone's personal website doesn't really qualify.

I have not inserted anything about "clearance deficiency". That must have been another editor. I will review it, and if necessary remove it. JFW | T@lk 15:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

promoting, no .... informing, yes. i've been using this therapy for 5 years with great success...and i'm not alone.

"We can't just mention all treatments being used off-label for lupus, because they are numerous." .....first of all, i doubt the accuracy of that statement - and second of all, it's not like you'd run out of space... as i pointed out in an earlier post which you also removed, there are only 3 drugs approved by the FDA to treat lupus - the majority used are in fact used off label...yes, yes, i know you want to be an international site, but the FDA is a major player, so why go out of your way to avoid them.?

as i said, UVA1 is not in wide spread use for lupus...it's in wide spread for use for a few skin disorders (it's approved by the FDA for that) - that's why it can be used off label... as i also said, it won't be used widely until the equipment is produced...that's happening now... both patients & docs now using it are employing converted tanning equipment.

if you want, come up with another heading under 'treatment' to include UVA1 ... if you don't want to call it off-label, call it 'promising' or 'INVESTIGATIONAL' as the new york times health guide does - http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/systemic-lupus-erythematosus/treatment-for-severe-sle.html but call it something....by the way - who are you? - do you have any ties (grants, etc) from the pharma industry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.35.45 (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a tool to promote one treatment over another. I do not dispute that there is empirical support for UVA1 use in SLE, but at the same time you have been unable to show me that this is as widespread as - for example - hydroxychloroquine or even cellcept. It would be thrilling if a non-pharmacological treatment for lupus was found to be so effective that it could reduce the need for immunosuppresion and its inevitable problems. But would you expect to open an encyclopedia, and find a section that rattles off all treatments being investigated for a condition?

I do not have ties with the pharma industry. Again, having a conflict of interest does not disqualify you from editing, but there are some general caveats that need to be borne in mind. Please let me know if this is at all unclear. JFW | T@lk 16:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note how MEDRS deals with newspaper articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Reliable_sources#Newspapers. The NYT is not a good source for anything except UVA being an investigational treatment, but a better source would be pubmed journals that discuss the investigation. WLU (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you look under the entry for the chicago fire of 1871, i believe you'll find a theory of it's cause posted by me - in the form of a couple of articles i wrote for the chicago tribune....this is theory, not proven fact - in an encyclopedia! i don't see any difference.

i also don't see why the use of UVA1 needs to be 'widespread' to be included here...i would think the fact that it exists at all would be reason to include it in any encyclopedic entry about SLE - at least one that hopes to be comprehensive & of value.

as for my book, i don't see how anyone can even suggest i'm benefiting by posting a link where people can read it for free.... including "Appendix B -- A Reference for Lupus UVA1 Research, 1987-2003" http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/lupuslight/LUb.pdf (password = lupuslight)

have you even bothered to look over all of the controlled peer reviewed research that has shown this method to be both safe & effect? if you're looking for a non-pharmacological treatment for lupus to get excited about, do some reading man - it's here....i was able to stop both prednisone & plaquenil with the use of UVA1.

if nothing else, UVA1 needs to be included under "Treatment research," since what many of the trial drugs are attempting to do, we already know UVA1 does. will you agree to that? if not, please explain why, and offer some detail...thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.35.45 (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1871 Chicago Fire? Interesting. Except that is a theory on an event that has passed cannot be tested (as is not falsifiable). In the lupus case the theory is perfectly testable, and until such trials have been performed the treatment remains experimental.

COI is not just about benefit in monetary terms. Please read the policy, then criticise it if you wish.

It is not my task to "look over all of the controlled peer reviewed research" to support a theory that you are advancing.

The "treatment research" section wasn't discussing any specific modalities under study, and frankly I found the whole paragraph a waste of time (e.g. when is stem cell treatment coming to lupus).

I suggest you continue the discussion on Talk:Systemic lupus erythematosus, so that other contributors can participate. JFW | T@lk 16:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding photos and graphs to the page on obesity.

I have come accross some graphics that would be good for the page on obesity. They pertain to obesity and morbidity / mortality. Not sure about adding them due to copyright. These two are from Uptodate. But the data was derived from the NEJM.

http://www.uptodate.com/online/content/image.do;jsessionid=4884F820FA324C1D57ABFDD8E23978D1.1002?imageKey=card_pix/obesit1.htm&title=Obesity%20and%20mortality http://www.uptodate.com/online/content/image.do;jsessionid=4884F820FA324C1D57ABFDD8E23978D1.1002?imageKey=endo_pix/rel_ri1.htm&title=Rel%20risk%20disease%20increase%20wt

I am sure you have uptodate but if you do not let me know and I can send you a one month trial. Doc James (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Well to tell you the truth. I just cannot spell. If google didn't corrent my mistakes I wouldn't be able to get anywere in life. Does wikipedia have a spell check for editors?