User talk:Jfdwolff

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

Source on electrolytes - Structure of electrolytic Solutions - 1959[edit]

Hi, Jfdwolff! I have seen your edits from early January this year at Electrolyte wikipage involving a rather old source. I want to ask you if you can access the presumably offline text of the 1959 source mentioned in the title of this section edited by W. J. Hamer, especially the page 97 and its surroundings, chapter authored by E. Glueckauf, regarding the derivation info concerning the formula mentioned on activity coefficient#Concentrated solutions of electrolytes. Thanks.-- (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure which source you are referring to. I didn't insert it and I have no access to it. JFW | T@lk 15:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
There are at least two sources involved: one by Hans Falkenhagen that you have objected to in January and other that I'm interest in accessing it by Hamer and Glueckauf. Can you access the second one? If the second you cannot access, how about a third source such as, also by Glueckauf Transactions of the Faraday Society.-- (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think any source older than 10 years is going to be of limited value to a scientific article, unless it is used to illustrate historical content. JFW | T@lk 11:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your view about a limited value to a scientific article where the source is cited for a formula or equation which does not expire!? Or does a mathematical equation indeed expire (in your perspective?) If I want to add in that article more details about the derivation of that formula, aren't the 1955 or 1959 mentioned sources by Glueckauf no longer useful to this purpose of providing background to a scientific equation?-- (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course, for new derivations/developments of new equations based on previously proved ones more recent sources could be used, but firstly must be spotted and accessed in order to used or inserted in articles. An equation derived earlier can be used in new developments if one sees the proof steps contained in older sources, proof steps that still hold no matter how old are the sources that mention them.-- (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I've noticed the Falkenhagen 1971 book's presence in Conductivity_(electrolytic)#Further_reading for quite a while.-- (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
For instance, how do you view the status of the following research article from J. of Phys Chem, has its content, mathematical in nature, expired or not?-- (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I am not a physical chemist so I am not necessarily the best arbiter. In medicine we are continually discovering that previously held views (or even entire equations) need revising in view of new evidence. It may well be that the field of physical chemistry hasn't undergone the same kind of change, but I doubt it. To be sure about it, it is better to use a recent secondary source (see WP:PSTS) rather than guessing whether a certain concept is still current.
This is where I'm going to leave it. Apologies for being unable to help any further in this matter. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Apologies except. I've just noticed during this day a very interesting wikiessay on User:Jytdog#Essays that underlines the contrast between physico-chemical knowledge which is rather easy to handle conceptually and close to mathematical style and complex biological systems representations especially human physiology where is harder to make valid inferences due to incomplete info about metabolic networks and other aspects which limit the application of biological (biochemical-biophysical) knowledge to medical diagnosis issues.
Of course in medicine, as someone pointed out about the sayings of ancient Menodotus, there is a type of supreme and categorical convictions which needs to be avoided in order to keep the intellectual honesty. On there other hand I see there are wikiarticles like physiome and mathematical physiology. It has been a nice conversation, perhaps we can continue it in some other context like, say, one linked to evidence-based medicine.-- (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that dogmatism is unhelpful in medical practice. I am not sure what it has to do with our discussion about possible outdated sources. JFW | T@lk 08:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It can be said that dogmatism is contrasting with the continual discovery that previously held views (or even entire equations) need revising in view of new (empirical) evidence. Among these extremes of total dogmatism and total belief revision (which assumes that every ten years or so knowledge reset/restart from zero occurs), there is certain knowledge that is never subjected to change, no matter how much further new empirical discoveries and theoretical developments appear. For instance geometric theorems like Pythagorean theorem are never obsolete. In this context I'm very surprised by your statement that entire equation need revising! Can you mention a specific example of an equation (related to medicine) which needed revising? Or perhaps some misunderstanding sneaked in here in the sens that the need of revising is not the same/identical with no longer valid? Revising can also consist in extending to a more general case, isn't it?-- (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not hugely interested in a debate about epistemology. The general premise is that it is POSSIBLE that an equation may have been revised on the basis of new experimental data. This is why recent sources are mandatory, and this is not the place for an exception. JFW | T@lk 14:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course the epistemological aspect is just tangential. The usefulness of recent sources consist mainly in highlighting possible recent developments in research, at least in some fields of scientific investigation which are more inclined towards the theoretical aspect like math/proof-based sciences such as theoretical physics and chemistry. Older and more simple equations can be treated as special cases and approximations to more recent developments. Or perhaps older developed equations can be incorporated in new developments as proof steps in proof sequences leading to the new development. The ratio of theoretical vs experimental also counts in the necessity of using more recent sources. I think that the necessity of more recent sources is less mandatory in fields with slower development of novelties such as the field of my interest from which this discussion has started. Of course there is another rather pragmatic aspect, the access to (newer) sources by those who want to add content in wikiarticles. I notice that in this particular case the access even to an older source is rather problematic.-- (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Jfdwolff. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Was this spam[edit]

You reverted the addition of an external link on the Moses Sofer article with the edit summary "rm ref spam". The fact is that the editor added this material to only three articles, and the title of the link includes the name of the Chatam Sofer (who is the same as Moses Sofer). I think this link was possibly relevant, and surely not spam. Perhaps you could consider this again? Debresser (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Debresser Classic example of someone adding different works by the same author to multiple articles to attract attention to them. That is no different from spam. It happens frequently in medical articles. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but if the work is relevant, and just a few links on well-chosen articles, then perhaps that is a valuable contribution. If it is, then it is not spam and we shouldn't mind that it attracts attention to somebody's work. Again, I am not saying it wasn't spam, but the test should be objective. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Debresser Adding links to articles to "External links" is almost always spam. The added value to encyclopedia content is almost non-existent. I think the editor who added the links is probably the author of all three papers added to the Chasam Soufer, Yaavetz and Noda Biyehudo articles. In a perfect world we would make a huge effort to turn subject experts into fully fledged Wikipedia editors who actually contribute content rather than dropping references to their own work into articles. I have never succeeded at doing this either in medical articles or in other areas.
You are entirely in your right to reach out to הלומד מכל אדם and see if you can develop him as a Wikipedian. JFW | T@lk 10:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You too are Dutch?!? Debresser (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]

Hypo and hyper-[edit]

I'm sure that as an expert you don't need to be told the difference between these two extremely confusing prefixes but Wikipedia is designed for ordinary people and is NOT a medical textbook. Your comment that it would need to be applied to all such articles is no argument at all. Maybe it should be. It is quite easy for a non-medical person to not even notice that they've got the wrong prefix and in something like thyroidism they could come away with entirely the wrong message. Chris55 (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Chris55: It is widely accepted that there is a lot of confusion over "hypo-" and "hyper-" and this even extends to normal conversation because they sound very similar when pronounced in a normal fashion. That does not mean we need hatnotes on all these articles. You are free to form consensus (e.g. on WT:MED) to the contrary. I do not need to be reminded that Wikipedia isn't a medical textbook. JFW | T@lk 21:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I would have thought that the fact that they are regularly confused is good a priori grounds for providing a hatnote. Wikipedia style is to be bold in editing not to wait to form a consensus on every edit. Can you show me that there is a consensus not to provide headnotes? Chris55 (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I oppose. Covering the tops of articles with all sorts of terms that are similarly spelled or pronounced is not what we should be doing IMO. The article should begin with what the article is about. What the article is not about can go latter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)