Jump to content

User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Future Treatments > Rheumatoid Arthritis

Hello Jfdwolff,

I would like to know how a randomized placebo controlled trial on statins and their therapeutic effect would be considered "crystal ball" material? I agree that perhaps Connor et al paper (2006) does make some speculation, but their data was primarily showing that among all statins, simvastatin had a stronger effect than atorvastatin. Ilhamhafizovic (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A controlled trial is one thing. Widespread adoption is another. I will comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis. JFW | T@lk 06:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thanks for adding the citation for Streicher's Purim quote, Jfdwolff. I appreciate you having my back. :) 118.100.87.104 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that there was a good secondary source there in the past, but someone must have removed it. Satinover's book is still not perfect but it certainly beats havnig no source at all. JFW | T@lk 08:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Vaccine in Ph 3 clinical trial

Hi, you reverted my edit of the Sanofi vaccine currently in Ph3. After I think about it, I do agree that the section 'Prevention' is not a good place to put it. In the section 'Research', second paragraph, there are description of vaccine development and timing of commerical launch. I think that will be the appropriate place for the Sanofi vaccine. Your thoughts? Thanks! Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Oops! I meant the vaccine for dengue.Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that "Research" would be the best place to discuss this. I don't think, however, that there's any point mentioning a particular product or manufacturer until there is a high-quality secondary source (see WP:MEDRS) that supports claims as to its efficacy. Vaccine trials take very long as the number needed to vaccinate is high in most cases. We ought to be cautious about trying to make predictions, especially about the future.
Could I suggest we continue any discussion on the subject on Talk:Dengue fever? JFW | T@lk 09:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Thank you.Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

Pneumothorax

Hello, I saw you undid my addition of sections on the differential diagnosis of pneumothorax and mesothelioma. My point was that this is a diff dx that needs to be considered -- how would you suggest I correct this to make it accurate?

Some study has been made of persons with mesothelioma also presenting with pneumothorax.[1] The differential diagnosis of spontaneous pneumothorax as opposed to malignant mesothelioma is often considered when conducting a differential diagnosis of persons with a history of asbestos exposure.[2][3]

Thanks much, Gofigure41 05:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)

A couple of comments. Firstly, you should be discussing issues with articles on the talkpage associated with that article; in this case it would be Talk:Pneumothorax. Secondly, you are asking me to expand the article using sources that do not meet the criteria set out in WP:MEDRS. Thirdly, clearly most cases of mesothelioma, it itself a rare condition, do not present with a pneumothorax; we are therefore trying to discuss a rare event amongst more common causes - a problem with WP:WEIGHT. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Aha. I am still relatively new at all this and thank you for your patience. I will review WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT and move my comments to the talk:pneumothorax page. I see what you are saying in general and thank you for your time.Gofigure41 16:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)
Great. JFW | T@lk 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Category:Medical informatics

Category:Medical informatics, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Karl.brown (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy vs. Graves disease ophthalmopathy

I don't know if you have any expertise in this, but since you're the only doctor I know on the site, I thought it wouldn't hurt to run it past you. When you have a moment, can you please take a look at the discussion here and verify that the change and the reasoning make sense? It seems like a benign edit, but as you know, I spend a lot of time on CFS articles, which has made me a bit wary of this type of change. :) – RobinHood70 talk 20:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Have commented. Thanks for the heads-up. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Long time no see

Hey Jacob, long time no see! Thought I'd revisit Wikipedia and try and start editing again, perhaps a little slower and less frequently than I used to, though! Anything new here or in WikiProject Medicine which I should be aware of? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Neurological examination

Hi. I wonder if you might reconsider removing those video clips of neurological examination. Unless there are concerns about their accuracy, I think they provide something text alone cannot offer: visual demonstration of a routine. I won't be pushing on this, but just wanted to let you know my view. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a personal web site with Youtube videos and loads of ads. It is authoritative only because it was made by someone who studied neurology at the Cleveland Clinic. JFW | T@lk 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
You're right. It's too dodgy a source. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I was curious if the administrator is a neurologist and/or if they have any question as to the accuracy of the content of the above mentioned link (www.NeurologyExam.com) with the videos (which is notably different from any of the other external links). Additionally, the website is free, listed by the World Federation of Neurology (http://www.wfneurology.org/neurology-for-non-neurologists), and Creative Commons licensed. Additionally, the website is used by current Cleveland Clinic neurology staff (as well as residents) to teach medical students as well as private corporations in the U.S. and Canada to teach non-neurologists the neurological exam. As the creator of the website, I'm happy to remove the Google Adwords links (they don't cover the cost of the website anyway). I didn't even realize the link, which was previously posted for years was removed until others who often use it, complained to me. I appreciate the support of Anthonyhcole above (though I don't know this individual) & would be interested to know how he used the site. I originally created the site to help ER docs do a better neuro exam to help expedite care & create more appropriate referrals. I hope this is viewed as an important enough, and unique enough, resource accordingly. I appreciate any and all comments. Craig Brooker, M.D. Board Certified Neurologist of the ABPN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrooker1 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether I am a neurologist, because I was simply interpreting Wikipedia's guideline on external links. In general, the number of websites that we could add to any page is potentially endless, and we'd be doing the job of Google or DMOZ. When an anonymous user adds links to external sites, especially when these are not official sites of organisations, and even more so when they are supported by ads, there is a reasonable presumption that someone is simply trying to plug their own page for attention or even money-making. We've had plenty of this on the health-related articles of Wikipedia. Hopefully you understand my perspective.
At the same time, I agree that videos of neurological examination (and possibly of other neurological entities such as the epilepsies and of movement disorders) would be useful in articles. I am happy to reconsider the link in the neurological examination article. Perhaps you would consider uploading the videos under the appropriate license to Wikimedia Commons, so we can place them in the relevant articles? You'd be doing the project an enormous favour. JFW | T@lk 09:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to reconsider re-adding the external link to www.NeurologyExam.com. I've since removed the Google Adwords links. I do recognize your position is not always an easy one to negotiate and appreciate you volunteering your time to make these types of resources better. I've thought previously about doing some videos for movement disorders and will try to expand my site accordingly with time. I fear giving too much info on seizures and even functional exam findings is probably more problematic than beneficial simply because of the amount of pseudo-seizures and other function pathology we see. As far as Wikimedia Commons, I have to say I wasn't familiar with that resource previously so thank you for passing it on. I'll have to look into that further (though it looks like there are currently only 60 videos total???). Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrooker1 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. JFW | T@lk 07:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So I'm adding the link back now per your permission. Cheers and thanks again for your hard work. Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrooker1 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it is not my permission that is needed but consensus that this edit is useful. I have rephrased the link title somewhat, in keeping with the external links guideline. JFW | T@lk 06:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Dengue edit

Hi, I'm not very experienced, so I'm just wondering if news like that of genetically modifying mosquitoes is not appropriate in an article like Dengue? What does "nowhere near rollout" mean? Thanks. Icemuon (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a news article describing small-scale experiments. To support the inclusion of such material, even in the "Research" section, we need a solid secondary source that meets the criteria outlined in WP:MEDRS. All other content in the section is supported by such references. Consider discussing the content in question on Talk:Dengue fever. JFW | T@lk 18:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012


New review calling into question metformin

What do we do with this?

  • Boussageon, R (2012 Apr). "Reappraisal of metformin efficacy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials". PLoS medicine. 9 (4): e1001204. PMID 22509138. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Very tricky. I think we should have a proper discussion on Talk:Metformin (and on the diabetes articles, actually) as to whether we should be citing this. It is a secondary source but it would displace the recommendations from a number of clinical guidelines. It might be appropriate to suspend its inclusion until we have more evidence as to the impact of the study's findings. I sometimes wonder if we should treat meta-analyses like primary sources, because somehow different meta-analyses by different groups can reach widely divergent conclusions!! JFW | T@lk 12:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Cyclooxygenase

I'm not sure why you deleted "Further Reading". I think it's very important to the article. 162.129.251.17 (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There are 43495 articles about cyclooxygenase on Pubmed. You decided to add one without making it clear why it would be more useful than the other 43494 for the general reader. For "further reading", a source should ideally be WP:MEDRS-compatible, in that it should be a high-quality secondary source such as a review article or a section/chapter in a respected textbook.
I note that the same reference was also added to other articles. Were you involved with the research? JFW | T@lk 13:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was involved in the creation of the paper mentioned. Although there are 43495 other articles about cyclooxygenase on Pubmed, mine is the only one in which systemic expression of cycloogenases, mPGES-1, mPGES-2 and cPGES was studied in intracerebral hemnorrhage. It will be more important for other researchers working in this field. - 162.129.251.17 (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes however we do not allow the promotion of anyone work per WP:NOT. And references must be secondary sources. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Every paper is unique in some way (because otherwise it wouldn't be published), but at the moment it doesn't seem there is a good reason to put a reference to it on Wikipedia. Hopefully other researchers in the field are not relying on Wikipedia to remain up-to-date! JFW | T@lk 07:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Jfdwolff, I'm new here. Please help me understand what you mean by "not needed - see DMOZ" in association with the deletion of the pancreatica.org FAQ URL on the Pancreatic cancer page. I was frustrated to spend the time learning how to add a URL only to see it removed so quickly. Thanks Crockett Dunn (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you to struggled with the URL syntax. However, the main purpose of Wikipedia is not to redirect readers to other websites. The article on pancreatic cancer has been on the receiving end of a very large number of external links. We therefore thought it would be better to simply add a link to DMOZ (by the Open Directory Project), which has a large collection of relevant links. Have a look at WP:EL, our external links guideline. JFW | T@lk 20:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Crockett Dunn (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

Improving Immunology Articles

Hi Jfdwolff, If you'd put your mind back a month or so, there was a discussion on the medicine talk pages about the proposal of a WikiProject Immunology. I have been having exams since then and so have not been active here, but now I am back. It seems the proposal do not have enough people to be a project, so now I am just happy getting an informal group of editors to improve articles in theImmunology category. If you are interested, please visit here and just start editing, and tell other people about this. I will do my best because I think there really are a lot of gaps in these articles. If you require any assistance please don't hesitate to contact me and all comments for improvement are welcomed. I hope you are interested and hope to be working with you soon. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 00:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As a front-end clinician I know relatively little about immunology but am supportive of your efforts to bring all the relevant content under the purview of a dedicated group of editors, and will happily assist in specific situations on request. JFW | T@lk 00:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Friedreich's ataxia

Had a question about this revert, [1]. Oxford University Press wouldn't be a reliable source? I found the study quite interesting and thought the source quality was sufficient, even if my prose needed rewording. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia:MEDRS to be honest, and my experience with FA is limited to a good friend's daughter suffering from it, which is how I found out about the study, but would just ask a little more clarity on why if fails if you can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies I wasn't clearer. In this case, the references were not problematic but the formatting and the URLs. MEDRS contains tools to improve citations. I will see if I can fix this. The same user (Epeting (talk · contribs)) has recently been adding other content supported by primary sources, so a glance at MEDRS wouldn't be bad. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Physiotherapy

Hi Jfdwolff, the purpose of our assignment is to collaborate with individuals such as yourself and educate general pubic on physiotherapy in adults movement problems arising from neurological conditions. I do not understand why you deleted my contributions from the Brown–Séquard syndrome and Post-polio syndrome pages without any reason at all. I believe my evidence-based contributions increased the knowledge base for management for individuals living with these conditions and it was not warranted to delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardidave (talk • contribs) 22:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have already clarified in the edit summary that we can only include content to medical articles that is based on WP:MEDRS-compatible secondary sources. Individual case reports definitely do not meet these criteria. Please refer only to high-quality reviews or textbook chapters.
You refer to an "assignment". Members of the WikiProject Medicine have been trying to get in touch with your tutor or supervisor. I would be good if you could ask this person (or these people) to get in touch. JFW | T@lk 00:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Finasteride emotional disturbances section

Hi Jfdwolff. Would you mind joining me in discussion on our disagreement here? Thanks. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 04:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. JFW | T@lk 18:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Heydes Syndrome

I am curious as to the appropriate place I might place the additional biographical information I research on Edward C. Heyde, but which was not deemed appropriate for the article on his syndrome. See: (cur | prev) 06:58, 26 January 2012‎ Jfdwolff (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,934 bytes) (-258)‎ . . (biographical data not that relevant). Thanks for any advise.--Freefattyacids 07:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Freefattyacids — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freefattyacids (talk • contribs)

I am presuming that you are referring to this edit. When providing the history of a medical condition, the biography of the person who first described it should be limited to the discovery. It might therefore be appropriate to mention years of birth and death, and perhaps his place of work at the time of the discovery, but not more than that. Hope this is helpful. JFW | T@lk 15:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with Kosher foods

This is not my field - had a request in at OTRS on the page about kosher in the meat and milk section is says that fish and bugs are considered parve. obviously bugs are not kosher or parve. bugs are traif - The suspect edits were done by 129.64.214.126 - see overall diff of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosher_foods&diff=487770864&oldid=487070675. Could you please have a look and fix if necessary? I've no idea who is correct. Thanks  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It would help if this editor provided better sources, but it seems correct. I can't see where 129.64.214.126 made the change that suggested that fish and insects are parve. The requester at OTRS did not take an opportunity to read the article properly, because there are certain "bugs" that are most certainly kosher. They are particular species of locust. However, since their identity is in doubt, most communities will now avoid all locust species. No change is required. JFW | T@lk 20:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll reply to the Ticket.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Pneumothorax

You should inform Dr.saptarshi of your concerns. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, he might not have a watchlist yet. JFW | T@lk 21:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Will be happy to continue to collaborate. Yes I dont use the watchlist feature. I get a email notification only when somebody modifies my user talkpages. May be you can use the talkback template so that you dont have to write the same talk twice. --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Jfdwolff. You have new messages at Dr.saptarshi's talk page.
Message added Dr.saptarshi (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

MND

Hey JFD, hope you're well. BTW did you see this? [2] I see you disagreed with my MND move, that's fine, was attempting to be bold and bring more of the MND traffic to the actual content which is at ALS. I suspect in 5 years MND will be a deprecated term except for the general umbrella term. The European researchers are increasingly saying ALS not MND, so will be interesting to see how things go. I also made some fairly radical changes on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis so if you get a second another pair of eyes would be most welcome. This new gene finding (C9ORF72) is really interesting but beyond my genetics capabilities. Maybe you know someone else you can point at it? Thanks, --PaulWicks (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that motor neuron disease redirected to ALS, with motor neuron diseases being a container for the others. I wasn't aware of the shift in terminology and nosology. Let me know when there is an official move on this. We don't have many neurology contributors, apart perhaps from Dubbin (talk · contribs) who mainly works on Huntington's and related areas. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I'm not sure we'll ever see an "official" move as it'll be expensive for the charities to rebrand. But check out Google books for instance for declining use of MND relative to ALS. I've been fiddling with that page for 6 years, I can wait =) --PaulWicks (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

"Ingenious"

" It would have been more ingenious, 79.182, if you had told us about your dispute on X-ray computed tomography upfront. "

I think you mean "ingenuous", not "ingenious". ;-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You're correct, although it would have been ingenious as well (but not requiring a rocket scientist, let alone a brain surgeon). JFW | T@lk 19:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "X-ray computed tomography". Thank you. --Nenpog (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, but I immensely dislike the tone of the conversation there and I have no intention of having my motives or competing interests questioned. Your relentless agenda-pushing is becoming seriously tiresome; you are trying to demonstrate associations that cannot currently be demonstrated, especially not for a general purpose encyclopedia. The article under discussion should mention the harms that are currently known as supported by high-quality secondary sources, but it cannot and should not speculate. JFW | T@lk 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Obesogens?

Could you have a look at the Obesogen article? It looks a little pseudoscientific to me...should readers be warned? Or am I really missing some "important scientific breathroughs?" doctorwolfie (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that the concepts of obesogens is not controversial, but the article should be based on WP:MEDRS-compatible sources and not overinflate (ahem) some findings. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Publishing the Dengue article

Per here we are working on publishing the Dengue fever article in the journal Open Medicine. Are you okay with your real name being used? The authors will be listed by number of edits which would make you second. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 17:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

GSK

Doc, please forgive me if this is the wrong place but you did say to call your attention in your talk page. The recent GSK fraud settlement mentions several drugs. I read the drug's pages and they seem to be keept clean of info on the problems. Could you add anything? 200.205.133.99 (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure which articles in particular you are referring to. Have you got some sources that I could refer to? JFW | T@lk 11:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Paxil, Wellbutrin, and Avandia, and the information was added to all three drug articles two days ago: [3][4][5] WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Outlet obstruction

yeah sorry, I was about to write this page but I was too tired.Tepi (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

First medical article translated into Dutch

Wondering if you could take a look? [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 06:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ascending cholangitis

its common knowledge in medical textbooks, im new to editing wiki and dont know how to put in references and just thought people should know the differences on presentation between your average every day cholecystitis and life threatening cholangitis, i found this reference on the web, (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/774245-clinical), anyways have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.54.15 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if everyday cholecystitis is always as benign as you make it sound. The eMedicine page doesn't actually say that shock predicts the presence of cholangitis. Let me know if you require any assistance, but a good reference will be important. JFW | T@lk 20:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
e-medicine doesnt outright say it, it more implies it as there isnt a comparison between the two, but thats what ive always been taught, you dont wake up an attending while on your on nightcall for cholecystitis where as you must do that for cholangitis (as well as get the patient on IV fluids and ABx and get an emergency radiology consult for possible ERCP so they can be prepared before hand if things get real bad), and as far as presentation is concerned ive always been taught that cholecystitis symptoms, + high fever (greater then 103 degrees on two separate readings or temp greater then 104) is a minimal sign that you may be dealing with cholangitis rather then cholecystitis, but the major ones were always chills, hypothermia, and hypotension, none of these rule anything out, they just change the order of you deferential, but anyways, i dont need it on the page, its informative even without that extra information, i just put in there because i thought it might be helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.54.15 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You may well be right that severe sepsis is a predictor, but as an encyclopedia Wikipedia cannot make pronouncements without a solid source. I submit that a gallbladder empyema can provoke a rather nasty Gram-negative sepsis and will be difficult to distinguish, particularly in the elderly or otherwise susceptible. Thanks for your contributions and let me know if I can be of any further assistance. JFW | T@lk 20:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
i agree but as the treatment of gallbladder empyema is exactly the same as it is in cholangitis (at least intially), i hardly see the point in differentiating the two at presentation, though i agree it should be sourced, im just not going to spend the time to search which textbook its in, anyways it been a pleasure, have a nice rest of your day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.54.15 (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Feel free to get a username and join the medical WikiProject. We do need contributors for medical articles! JFW | T@lk 21:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Statins

Your summary sentence for possible diabetes caused by statins is much better than mine. However, as long as the details are carefully layered to follow the summary, and thus be an optional read, what is the harm in giving the details for the savvy reader? I suggest keeping both your summary edit and my details. - Robert Badgett

Signed/dated to allow archiving JFW | T@lk 13:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted changes to SLE

Hi, I just wanted to ask why you reverted the changes I made to the SLE entry a couple of days ago. You cited Wikipedia's source policy as a reason, but I don't really see why there is a problem with my source. I've got the article that contains the information right here, so I guess it's a valid source. If there is another issue with the changes I did, please let me know. I'm new to the whole editing business, so I don't know a lot about it. Maybe you didn't like the place or manner in which I inserted the additional information? I wasn't completely happy with it too, but didn't see any other way besides writing a new subtitle in the "Causes" section, or maybe enlarging the "Genetic" part of said section by quite a bit more. So please let me know what I can do better next time. Regards, Thomas

PS: feel free to answer in Dutch. ThomasMoll (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly an interesting paper from a pathophysiological perspective, but the actual relevance of the findings in human lupus is not demonstrated by this study. I realise that it appeared in Nature, but it is and remains a "primary source", which is relatively unsuitable as a source for encyclopedia articles. When I search Pubmed using MeSH and restricting to "lupus erythematosus, systemic" as MAJR, I still get 35528 articles.
What I was trying to explain was that we can only really use medical content that can be supported with "secondary sources" (i.e. reviews or textbooks that distill those reams of studies into a useful framework and separate chaff from corn). This is explained in detail in WP:MEDRS.
Let me know if this is helpful. (I chose to respond in English so other editors who feel like responding can see what I wrote.) JFW | T@lk 13:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that made things a lot clearer! I didn't read WP:MEDRS in detail, so I did not know that only results that are directly relevant for humans make for good sources. I don't completely agree on that policy though, since there is a lot of information that is lost by sticking to it. In this specific example, one could expect to get the same results for humans, since in both species the whole system is conserved and all involved receptors and proteins are homologous. But I get that Wikipedia is not intended to be a purely scientific platform, and in regards of making information accessible to a broad public, I think their policy is adequate. Thanks for enlightening me :) ThomasMoll (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The policy has evolved this way because Wikipedia is not a source of news. The medical contributors have accepted that it is okay not to represent the very latest insights when they have not yet become part of the general understanding of a condition. The evidence for this would generally be the incorporation of a discovery into secondary sources. In a frequently reviewed condition such as SLE this would be a matter of a few months. JFW | T@lk 12:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Author/Jfdwolff

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Age-related muscular degeneration. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please contact me off-wiki by following this link: email. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for your work in health related articles and good luck at the 31 August health presentation with Wikimedia UK. I am doing everything I can to encourage editors to contribute to health articles. If you can think of a way for me to support your work then get in touch. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Developing more medical Wikipedians is vital for the quality of the health content. JFW | T@lk 18:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Ovary cyst

Hi While seeking information on ovarian cyst I came across the page Ovarian cyst which I found is very poor in contents specially reference section and style of writing. I found tag of high importance on article talk page but nothing found noteworthy. Now I bring it your notice plz do the needful to improve the quality of article so that next visitor'll find some useful information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.65.199 (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there are many medical pages on Wikipedia, including important ones, that are in need of improvement. At the moment I don't think I'll have the time to personally improve the page. We urgently need more contributors! JFW | T@lk 18:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

New user

Hi, thanks for spotting Simon's debut. I have been encouraging him to join the project for some time. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

He makes some pretty gorgeous immunofluorescence images. JFW | T@lk 08:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your kind words and assistance.

Whilst the content I posted was accurate I sacrificed scientic rigor for speed which is not good form (probably overenthusiasm in being able to increase the information available on what remains a cinderella ailment)..

Rory 20 uk (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Exodus

Pico is not perfect, but he at least leaves decent edit summaries and it is quite clear that some of his edits were non-controversial. It seems unreasonable for him to have to do what Quark insists he should do, justify each edit, and Quark was unwilling to discuss any complaints about Pico's edits. Then we have the sudden appearance of a new editor with only 30+ edits, suddenly reverting me. As I said in my edit summary, I wasn't backing all Pico's edits as I hadn't read them. But Quark's attitude is unreasonable and frankly looks like a form of editwarring. It doesn't help build an atmosphere in which there can be discussion. And it's not Pico's fault that Quark didn't know that the article was no longer protected. The issue now seems to be where to we go from here. Do we really insist that Pico bring every edit to the talk page? Does he have to go tell Quark about his edits? In fact, how can he or anyone edit the article in a way Quark doesn't like without this happening again? I was considering going to ANI about this because I find Quark's behavior disruptive and the appearance of a new editor never involved in the article suspicious. Any suggestions? Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Damn, didn't read the talk page first, stupid me. We'll see what happens, Quark seems more cooperative on the talk page than his edit summaries suggest. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Full protection sometimes has that effect. Sometimes it just turns the talk page into a battleground, and it all goes up the dispute resolution food chain. JFW | T@lk 17:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Your help is appreciated, as I was unsure about the difference between pituitary adenoma and pituitary tumor. The later was used in the text a few times, so I thought it was the same. I have replaced pituitary tumor with pituitary adenoma in the first sentences, hope this OK like that. Tony Mach (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably (but incorrectly). I totally agree that the terminology could do with tidying up. JFW | T@lk 18:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
So just to be clear, pituitary tumours are something different than pituitary adenomas? Neither article makes it clear (to me as a layman) what the difference between the two is (and I might be a bit slow today…). Are adenomas one form (noncancerous) of tumors in general? Tony Mach (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
You've got it right. "Tumor" in Latin means "swelling", and the word is therefore used for any abnormal growth. There are various kinds of pituitary tumors. The majority are adenomas. Adenoma is the description of the tissue on microscopy - it resembles (and indeed usually behaves like) glandular tissue. JFW | T@lk 16:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Menigitis

This study [7] was a review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, more in depth detail on the talkpage. It might be something for the "epidemiology" section. JFW | T@lk 00:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Dug up some better references. Could still use some work though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Clarifications on the edits I've made that you deleted

Hi Sir, 

I tried putting up some links in some of the kosher- related wikis and you have deleted them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COR_%28label%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EarthKosher_Kosher_Certification http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star-K http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OK_Kosher_Certification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashrut http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rabbinical_Council_of_California http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chicago_Rabbinical_Council http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangle_K http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beth_Din http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_Supervision_of_America http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hechsher

I posted there the links from Kosherregister.com featuring the individual kosher certification agency. Kosherregister.com has a comprehensive listing of all kosher certification from all over the world including their adresses, contact info. personnel, locations etc. Kosherregister is not selling anything.I think it is just right to place the link on the kosher certification agency because it just give more information about the agency.


I understood you gave me a message not to post inappropriate links in wikipedia. Sir, I have seen some links in the External Links of the pages are even promotional in content or either just like my links which offer information on wiki. Since I am new here, I hope you will give me clarifications on why you did not delete these links as well (one link is even not working):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hechsher 

     Kashrut Agencies (linked to http://www.kashrut.com/agencies/)
     Kashrut Ingredients (linked to http://www.hechshers.info/ingredients/index.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EarthKosher_Kosher_Certification 

     EarthKosher Kosher Certification Official Website (linked to http://www.kosherquest.org/)
     Kosher Food Production - Author: Rabbi Zushe Blech (linked to http://www.hechshers.info/bibliography/index.htm#0813825709)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OK_Kosher_Certification 

     OK's KosherSpirit magazine  (linked to http://www.kosherspirit.com/about.asp)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashrut 

      Badatz Certificación Kosher in Spanish (linked to http://www.mercokosher.com/)

I am not saying that you also delete these links but I am just hoping you would reconsider my links and revert them back.

Thank you sir and have a good day!

Kosheryankel (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is my view that the links to Kosherregister.com are not compliant with the Wikipedia external links policy. From the website it is not clear that this is an authoritative register, of which membership is a particular indicator.
I realise that there are other links that don't comply with the policy. I am not personally responsible for all links. Feel free to either remove these yourself or discuss their relevance on the talk page of the articles in question. JFW | T@lk 02:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi JFW,

Thank you for your vigilant evaluation on the relevance of external links relating to kashrut, kosher and kosher certification agencies. We at Kosher Register uphold this same principle in all of the personal pages created and provided by the particular Agency account holders. We have indicated this in our disclaimer/ caution panel, which is view-able in all of the personal pages we provided for each user/agency who affiliated themselves to us.

In view of this claim. I would like to request your kind consideration of the links we are attaching to each specific subject matter which is mainly the wiki pages for a particular kosher certification agency.

We would amend or request reconsideration of your views on the following grounds:

  • Kosher Register is the only Worldwide directory who aims to provide the up to date and accurate information for all the kosher certification agencies and personnel affiliated with us.
  • Kosher Register leadership have been in direct relationship and affiliations with the kosher authorities which we can prove with the recent seminar we held in cooperation with USDA , Star-K and KLBD, which are one of the big authorities in the field of kosher.

http://www.kosherregister.com/koshernews/NEWS0000000273&kosherregistercom-and-umb-co-host-successful-seminar-with-the-usda,-star-k-and-klbd.htm

  • Kosher Register is run by leaderships with Rabbinic background and title whose expertise are within the subject matter or in general all about kosher.
  • All the links we provide are personal information pages updated by the same agencies we are linking them in wikipedia. In short, all the information found in the page are provided by each kosher certification agency through their authorized representative where our main role is to verify all information for accuracy.


Based on the above ground presented we are hoping you would reconsider your view and support us in providing more information for each Kosher Certification agency. We are updating our website on a daily basis to further transform each pages referenced to provide all information about the said organization with all the personnel and leadership.

Respectfully Yours, kosheryankel

Kosheryankel (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not the final arbiter on these things. Wikipedia content is formed by consensus, and that includes external links. Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the external links functionality is perhaps the least important part of its content.
How about you post a message on the external links noticeboard to see if other editors have a different view? JFW | T@lk 07:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I understand you are not the final arbiter on the kashrus wikis. Unfortunately you are the only person deleting the kosherregister links. that is why I would like to get your reconsideration so I can post them again. Then if other arbiters will delete them then I will rest my case..Thank you very much.

Kosheryankel (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I currently am of the view that these links add nothing to the pages to which you've added them. There are other ways to get traffic to your website. I do suggest you use the external links noticeboard to get an appeal/second opinion/consensus. JFW | T@lk 18:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I welcomed a new editor

FYI, someone with knowledge on Wilson's disease made some edits so I tagged their contributions as needing sources and welcomed them at User talk:Dashanana. Biosthmors (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what has been added is copyright violation from here [8], so it has to be deleted. Graham Colm (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately Graham is right, and the same problem applies to his additions to iron overload. I have done the needful. Interestingly, it is exactly 100 years ago when Wilson first described the disease that carries his name. I believe there is going to be a conference in London to celebrate the centenary. JFW | T@lk 18:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. That is interesting. Biosthmors (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Justinian

I added this because it is the first (maybe second) criticism of the Talmud, from the original Codex Civilum if you read the end of this part about Jews it states that Jews' homes and property can be seized for using the books (which I am sure was never abused [sic]). Written in 552 therefore extremely enlightening to the Tulmud reader's experience of the mid-6 Century. Justinian's codex was the basis for some but not all the antisemitism in the later Theodosian Codex, all powerful for millennium in Western Europe and Catholic central Europe. And hence had extraordinary repercussions to the daily life of someone who owned a Talmud, in the area where almost all Jews would come to live. The section is criticism, if that's not criticism's root by a Saint who was the most powerful man in Eurasia I do not know what is?

It also shows the punishment not just censorship but your life. I think it (among a few dozen others) are the most important shaping documents of diaspora and then modern Jewish thought, eg liberalism, feminism, zionism, Jews started most if not all American Unions (my research indicates all, but people will censor that, definitely over time) all this comes from being so profoundly persecuted on one hand and believing you are special on the other. Oh and of course getting accused of disproportionately of only caring about yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryester (talk • contribs) 16:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Maryester (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Last part from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/novel146.asp about taking property "your Excellency and your present colleague and your staff shall see that it is carried out, and shall not allow the Hebrews to contravene it. Those who resist it or try to put any obstruction in its way, shall first suffer corporal punishment, and then be compelled to live in exile, forfeiting also their property, that they flaunt not their impudence against God and the empire. You shall also circulate our law to the provincial governors, that they learning its contents may enforce it in their several cities, knowing that it is to be strictly carried out under pain of our displeasure."16:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please post this on Talk:Talmud, which is where I asked you to discuss this.
Justinian is a primary source. Without a secondary source confirming his statue and impact it is impossible to judge how important these pronouncements are. JFW | T@lk 21:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for getting insulting, I removed the words liar control freak or whatever from the talk:Talmud. Moving and losing my mind, also people are angrier at this time of year, I'm happy just unnecessarily recalcitrant at random people, sorry. I personally like original sources (when coherent) because they let you judge. Also, because what we may not realize is that many anti-semites are reading our articles and this may quell them enough not to protest fervently. Actually I just realized that as I was typing, I really do not understand anti-semites, I hate them. But, they may view the quotes as outlining their hatred of the Talmud eloquently. While at the same time less hateful semi-anti-semites may see it as a reason to reassess their bigotries. I believe in no or very little secret knowledge, so I don't care either way. Marie Curry: 'humanity will draw more good than evil from discovering new things'.

The person who said dueterosis is different than Talmud.. I would respond that from my research 'sh' or shin turns into 't' or tuff in Babylonian or Aramit so Tannah means dueterosis (second or shannah sheni) in the noun form. Could be wrong. I am by absolutely no means an expert on Aramaic translation into Latin.

I am still relatively new at editing in bulk, and there are a lot of real bullies and vandals who have power on wikipedia, who make false accusations. Thought you were doing that however after thinking it over the article is OK now. And I will ask for help if I find an angle to get that quote on the Talmud page in a couple of months. TY Maryester (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic and conduct any discussion on Talk:Talmud. I believe we might be on the same side. JFW | T@lk 14:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your comments on my talk page several years ago. Glad to see Wikipedia is still going strong! Anitabrenner (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of

WP:AE#Request concerning Historylover4. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Advice?

Hi. Could you possibly tell me whether this is posterior or anterior? The image file's description has it as posterior but a comment (and the file name) say anterior. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the image is not here to check at the source, but it looks like a posterior MI, only because the thin-walled right ventricle is on the left (and hence the image is rotated by 180°). JFW | T@lk 16:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Henoch–Schönlein purpura: epidemiology

I found a newer source on the possible seasonal pattern of HSP - have a look at it and see what you think. It's from 2002.Rytyho usa (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ping

Hi. In case you're not watching meta: m:Talk:Wikimedia Medicine#Conference call. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why thanks. Consider me pung. JFW | T@lk 15:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Friday

Hi JFD, is there anything you need me to do other than turn up? I'll be bringing Simon with me BTW. Graham Graham Colm (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't think so. Will be great to have you around. Which Simon would that be? JFW | T@lk 23:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, User:Simoncaulton, I think he will find it v. useful. Graham Colm (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Great. JFW | T@lk 20:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

Coventry

Welcome everyone! JFW | T@lk 12:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
This is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Editor outreach/UK 2012 editing session. JFW | T@lk 14:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Aaah right. Great idea....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your talk today, and for all you do to improve medical content on Wikipedia. My own doctor uses Wikipedia (along with other sources and his own judgement, of course) and you're making his and many, many other professionals' work easier. Here are the new user accounts I managed to find from today's session:

(moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Editor_outreach/UK_2012#New_users)

Helga and I were talking about making the session an annual event. I hope you can be involved in future. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Great idea Martin. Hopefully we will begin to see some new editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jacob, it was a pleasure to meet you in person at last. Although I feel I have known you for years. Your presentation was superbly delivered. I particularly liked how you related your personal experience on Wikipedia, along with its highs and lows. I'm sorry I had to miss the afternoon session, and did not have the the time to talk with you more. But I hope there will be more opportunities in the future. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Graham! Great to finally meat you in person. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Enjoyed meeting you. Thank you, —MistyMorn (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

3RR

We have a new user who has been 3RR on a few pages. It may be good faith. But since the author has a POV and rejected a request for sources, then it may need an administrator's note. --Jayrav (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.20.249.46

Parkinson's science learning project in Wikiversity

Hi. I'd like to bring your attention to a new learning project in Wikiversity. As you have been involved with the discussion on the wikipedia Parkinson's disease page I felt you might be interested in looking at the project and perhaps even contributing material to it. Please see my Talk page, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet#The_Science_Behind_Parkinson.27s_learning_project , the subpage, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet/ProjectDescription or the project itself , http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:The_Science_Behind_Parkinson%27s . It would be great if you could bring the project to the attention of others who might be interested in helping us develop it. Thanks.

Jtelford (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC) (My Wikiversity Username is Droflet)

Hello from Wikimedia UK office

If you are ever in the Old Street area why not come in for a cup of tea or coffee. Your editing history is very impressive! Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


You will always be welcome - you have a rich editing history and would love to talk about it. We have actually edited the same page on one occasion! Tot ziens Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

alternative treatments

i am not familiar with wiki in how to really use it so i hope i am commenting in the right place.

i was trying to make an addition to the CANCER wiki page under 'alternative therapies' in order to add cannabis oil and also antineoplaston therapy. both medicines cure cancers, verifiably. proven over and over again so i won't go into it here.

anyway, i stumbled into the collapsed box on an obvious hot mess of an argument.

i would like to put my 2c in here: jackpots777 who is trying to get the admins (not sure why a cancer page needs admins or semi/protected use. doesn't seem right or fair. plainly it is wrong. i thought wikipedia was a reliable source, but now i realize it is not. it is just a joke of sorts.

any alternative therapies, treatments, etc., should be editable on the main page. it is an act of treason to not allow such a thing. wikipedia is not an advertisement for the cancer industry. it IS an industry.

it should be open to fairness in the name of all humanity.

i was disgusted by the lack of professionalism in the talk section. someone, jackpots777, trying to get ALL the information out not just what the admins of the cancer page want to be published. really disgusting stuff, folks.

cannabis oil and antineoplaston therapy (dr. burzynski) MUST be put on the cancer page. it should be against the law NOT to have them in plain sight on the main page for someone that might be using this 'encyclopedia' to gain information about a diagnosis they may have just received.

I, for one, will not be using wikipedia for any research or knowledge seeking on any level. I find this whole episode appalling.

peace

k — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalijuri (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a section called Cancer#Alternative treatments which is not a lot shorter than the sections on chemotherapy and radiotherapy. It points towards a longer subarticle called alternative cancer treatments. While Wikipedia has a strict policy on neutrality, we cannot bend the incontrovertible fact that the treatments you discuss are not supported by rigorous evidence when compared with mainstream treatments. If you struggle with this, then perhaps it is better that you don't rely on Wikipedia - it will not affirm your worldview. JFW | T@lk 18:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jfdwolff. You have new messages at Bluerasberry's talk page.
Message added 20:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Merging smaller Hasidic dynasties into larger ones

Hi Jfdwolff, where does one draw the line and on what basis should articles or stubs about smaller Hasidic dynasties be merged into larger ones? See the discussion starting at User talk:IZAK#Feedback, please: Ropshitz (Hasidic dynasty). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

re

Just carry on, so that we can get things done more quickly. When I am not here, I might ask User:Anypodetos to help me out. Thanks!--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Preparing meningitis for translation

Hey Jacob. Working on some improvements to this article. Wondering if there is more you wish to do to it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about this line for example "Recent trauma to the skull gives bacteria in the nasal cavity the potential to enter the meningeal space" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
There are a whole bunch of recent cochrane reviews [9]. I will try to update unless you bet me to it :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wessely

I would love your help doing this YellowFratello (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Will take a look and help where I can. JFW | T@lk 19:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

In fact I am amazed that a year and half ago has been removed. Discuss it here, please: Section "popolare culture", before acting bold. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I follow WP:BRD and I suggest you do too. Happy to discuss. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A new source Re. Cervical manipulation and VAD

I believe that you were involved in achieving good article status for the VAD article. As such, I thought you might like to comment on this [10] discussion that I started. Regards, Puhlaa (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Your comment on user talk

Hello, please avoid in future such comments on a user talk. Keep in mind, you are admin here. Please, read first and write than. Thanks a lot. --Brainbug666 (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

Diabetes type 1.5

I noticed that you had a concern about the use of Diabetes type 1.5 for Ketosis-prone diabetes. I have tried to address that concern at Talk:Diabetes type 1.5. The concept of primary topic is discussed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary_topic?. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Disambiguation pages with only two entries suggests that where one topic is primary, that the other topic be addressed using dab hatnotes. See also Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation page or hatnotes?. Let me know if this solves the problem, or not. I realize that some people like boxes and some like continua; I found the abstract of Leslie, R. D. G.; et al. (2008). "Diabetes classification: grey zones, sound and smoke: Action LADA 1". Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews. 24 (7): 511–519. doi:10.1002/dmrr.877. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help), quite informative. Thanks in advance, --Bejnar (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging that up. The LADA article is problematic, and I have done some gentle copyediting. I have actually dropped the hatnote because I don't believe that DM1.5 is an adequate description of either condition and the whole term is a lay oversimplification. This follows on from my views expressed on the Talk:Diabetes mellitus page. LADAs are essentially type 1s, while KPD is a form of type 2 with a little twist. JFW | T@lk 21:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I have restored the hatnote. Right or wrong, people do look for type 1.5. In September 2012 it averaged about 35 hits a day, with a low of 19 hits on 1 September and a high of 60 on 12 September. And, if you are correct, they might be looking for KPD, so the hatnote is an appropriate service. I tend to be a continua type person, but other people like boxes. Wikipedia traffic thanks to http://stats.grok.se/. --Bejnar (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
We have no evidence that those people were looking for KPD. See my response on the LADA talkpage. JFW | T@lk 06:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Diabetes mellitus and protein glycation

About: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diabetes_mellitus&diff=517983373&oldid=517940367

Hemoglobin is a protein. The underlying part about protein glycation is explained at these articles: glycated hemoglobin, glycation and Advanced glycation endproduct. I believe it shouldn't have been undone/removed, but improved. Glycation is an important process which could explain partly the pathophysiology of peripheral neuropathy and angiopathy in diabetes. It's important for medical students to understand the underlying mechanism.

Here's an article to prove it: Hyperglycemia in diabetes causes non-enzymatic glycation of free amino groups of proteins (of lysine residues) and leads to their structural and functional changes, resulting in complications of the diabetes. Glycation of proteins starts with formation of Shiff’s base, followed by intermolecular rearrangement and conversion into Amadori products. When large amounts of Amadori products are formed, they undergo cross linkage to form a heterogeneous group of protein-bound moieties, termed as advanced glycated end products (AGEs). Rate of these reactions are quite slow and only proteins with large amounts of lysine residues undergo glycation with significant amounts of AGEs. The formation of AGEs is a irreversible process, causing structural and functional changes in protein leading to various complications in diabetes like nephropathy, retinopathy, neuropathy and angiopathy. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17285797)

The only part I wrote (and I don't understand) is how erythrocytes increase their glucose intake (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2045061) to create HbA1c -- I'm open to suggestions. I suppose GLUT1 transporter on erythrocytes is not insuline-dependant. :) --Sav_vas (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the discussion about protein glycation, but the source that you used did not support the content. I would recommend WP:MEDRS as a useful guideline for how to select sources for medical Wikipedia articles. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Immunomodulation_therapy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Immunomodulation_therapy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Scray (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Deep vein thrombosis

Greetings. If you have a chance sometime, maybe you could comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive3. I am planning to submit this to FAC in November, but it depends upon the peer review. After DVT hopefully reaches FA, it shouldn't be too hard to get pulmonary embolism upgraded in quality because many of the sources overlap. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Will have a look. JFW | T@lk 18:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Shabbat Article

Hi. Though I'm the putative contributor, I can't say I object to any of what you did. Just so you know: Much of the content that previously existed in the "History" section of the article was also added to the Shabbat section of the Jewish holiday article. You can see it there right now, but I'm working on a major revision to the latter (at User:Jethro B/Jewish holidays) where (among other things) I am deleting it. I cannot justify deleting the content entirely, but I do not think it is germane to the subject of Shabbat as part of the constellation of Jewish holidays. So I'm deleting it at Jewish holidays, leaving behind a hatnote reference to its position in the Shabbat article. The only part of what I deleted that wasn't already in the Shabbat article was the text that I moved that you tagged with "citation needed."

That's why the text got dropped into this article. But I don't disagree that a citation is needed--on the contrary. But don't expect a source from me, as I'm not really the original contributor. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. It was just that it can otherwise be assumed that the content can be sourced to the first upcoming reference. That is not the case. JFW | T@lk 20:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pneumonia

Working on a final push to get this article to GA if you are interested in jumping in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Have nominated if you have time to review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd love to, but am very short on time currently. The GAN for azathioprine, which I agreed to do, stalled due to lack on time on my part as well as the nominator. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

More cod, less wallop

Thanks for the clarification on dexamethasone :) Yeah, I was kinda suspicious of that, too. Best that it's removed altogether! Thanks again - Alison ❤ 04:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your revert

At this edit your comment didn't really explain clearly why you reverted. The source looks respectable, at least on its face. What it says struck me as rather conventional wisdom, yet you say it is controversial. Could you please clarify the problem? Thx, LeadSongDog come howl! 16:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That revert was a month ago, and the paper it is based on is a single 13-year old study that therefore would be less ideal in terms of WP:MEDRS. This particular editor made the article quite unbalanced, with placing loads of emphasis on this study in the introduction and further down in the text. Since this paper we have had loads of studies about protein-rich carbohydrate-free diets (Atkins etc) that have yielded mixed results. One can therefore not say that this observational data has been confirmed prospectively, and I would expect a much stronger source and a more nuanced treatment of the subject of diet as a cause of ischaemic heart disease. JFW | T@lk 19:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I just came across it yesterday, it wasn't watchlisted. If it had been me, I might have just added the {{MEDRS}} tag inline, but we all approach these things differently. Thank you for the clarification. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Revert of Home remedies for Acid Reflux

I must say, I am little surprised at the revert. First of I am a Computer Science graduate not an alternative medicine practitioner, so I don't have any preference when it comes to medical treatment, as long as I get healed. I was an acid re-flux patient myself, used conventional prescription medicine without much success but ever since I've used these home remedies my acid re-flux is gone. All I wanted to do simply was to share these simple remedies, so other can benefit from it. I have lived all my life on the internet and thought of wikipedia as a reliable neutral resource, without discrimination, however your decision against my home remedies contribution appears a little prejudiced. As for the evidence you can google for it and can find thousands of websites, blogs, forums and books citing alternatives to the conventional medication for acid re-flux. If you have a concern about any particular remedy let me know, and I can edit it. In my humble opinion no one can, unless (s)he has a strong prejudice, deny the existence of home remedies or alternatives. My two cents— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malir (talk • contribs) 08:39, 9 November 2012‎ (UTC)

High quality refs per WP:MEDRS are needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Or maybe it could be incorporated into a society and culture section, depending upon how much attention standard reliable sources mention it? Biosthmors (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

CFS

I have encouraged Richio76 to sign up because he was discussing the Wessely case with excellent calmness and sanity. He's not one of the usual suspects. Hopefully we can help him to make a decent contribution that illuminates the controversy without straying into the usual witch-hunt. I have reasonable confidence that he can do this. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this Guy. I had included the Sophia Mirza case as it was an extremely significant development for patients in this country. I had been advised that small additions were preferable. My intention was then to reference more recent examples of a coroner highlighting ME/CFS as a primary cause of death, both in the UK and abroad. There are a number of examples of this in the last 12 months alone. I'm not here to kick up a stink and, whilst I have my own mind on a number of issues around the treatment of this illness, I'm only here to add information of interest and maybe develop some of the arguments from a patient perspective. I'm not going to throw stones at anyone or distort any existing copy that I may not agree with. I was a little disappointed that my addition yesterday was deleted as I was merely reporting and fully referencing a factual event. I noted your comment about the Sophia Mirza case not amounting to a precedent when standing alone, but it was the first of a number of similar inquest judgements. I'd like to make note of these and can't see how they might not be of significant interest. There is a general perception held by the general public that ME is not a serious, life destroying and, in severe cases, potentially fatal. I'd like to develop that area more but if it's totally off limits I don't want to waste more time and the little energy I have on something that won't be allowed to stand. This is your playground and we have to play by your rules but I'd be grateful if you could tell me why these deaths aren't of interest?
I would also like to make additons to the Simon Wessely page, not to slur him, but to develop the reasoning as to why he provokes such anger from almost every ME patient. To that end i would like to add verifiable, referenced quotes about the illness and note parliamentary concerns about his involvement. I dont want to smear him, just demonstrate the source of the controversy. I'm happy to talk things through on here before i attempt an edit to make sure that everything is satisfactory. i hope i can add to the debate in a sensible, neutral manner. Thanks in advance. User:Richio76 User Talk:Richio76 17:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I think a way of discussing the Mirza case should be discussed on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome per WP:BRD. Of course Mirza is a cause célèbre in the community, because the coroner's opinion is regarded as a recognition for ME as a pathological diagnosis (despite the immense controversy around this). Remember that any discussion on CFS/ME as a cause of death should take a global view rather than just the UK, although it seems that many of the ideological battles over the condition are fought in the UK, and observers from other countries seem to take a lead from here. Any discussion on the subject would be greatly enhanced by the presence of high-quality secondary sources.
As for editing the Wessely article, I would not make a single change without discussing things on the talkpage. The article already has reasonable coverage from the ME advocacy camp. The relevant guideline (WP:BLP) is quite clear on how to present criticism from third parties. I will happily keep an eye on the discussion and assist in forming consensus. JFW | T@lk 18:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I'll take the discussion over there. Re looking at things from a global perspective, I have information that demonstrates ME/CFS as having been listed as a cause of death in both the US and Australia and had intended to note and reference these. Anyway, thanks for the steer.User:Richio76 User TalkRichio76 —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Botulism

Hello, Jfdwolff. You have new messages at Nicke.me's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Can be archived. JFW | T@lk 14:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Delirium article

Thanks again for helping to support edits to this article. I've made my first major edit and would be grateful for any comments. By the way, I've made this edit in my 'own name', as it were (to test the water), but eventually the EDA board will approve a text that we'd collectively contribute as a series of edits - do you think we should create a separate username? All the best, Dhj davis (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is little precedent for this. Ultimately, it's you doing the edits. You could put in the edit summary that the content was discussed at the EDA board, but that does not make it immune to challenge (authority is good here, but the content may still be edited until it's almost unrecognisable). JFW | T@lk 20:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Improve some now, improve more later? Don't worry about getting it perfect to begin with. Wikipedia is too malleable to have board "approve a text", in my opinion. All editors can "approve" or "disapprove" of existing or proposed text. Biosthmors (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks both. JFW, if you're watching the article, is it OK if we just correspond on Talk:Delirium? All the best, Dhj davis (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Merry Festive Season

Merry antipodean Xmas Festive Season
hope yours is/was fun, and you had a good turkey :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Collaboration?

Hey there. Mdscottis (talk · contribs) is interested in the possibility of a GA collaboration. I thought you might want to contact him and maybe both of you could decide on a GA to work on in 2013 here. MDScottis is a physician and a professor at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have recently been desperately busy in meatspace and thus my article work has suffered. I don't think I can currently commit to a GA project. That said, I would be very happy to provide assistance to Bill if required. JFW | T@lk 04:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Myocardial Infarction article: information referenced by source not in source

I'm sorry but the information in the entire first paragraph of the "Causes" section of the article "Myocardial Infarction", is no where to be found in the source cited, "Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease Using Risk Factor Categories". I have read this source and searched for terms with the Acrobat find command. Nothing. It is not surprising. "Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease..." talks about ultimate causes, such as smoking, cholesterol levels, etc., while the paragraph is about immediate causes (i.e. precipitators)!

I am not questioning the veracity of most of the statements-- most of them seem true to me. But any statement falsely sourced cannot remain in the article unverified. Hence citation neededs for every statement. Please prove me wrong with explicit quotes from "Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease..." here or on the article talk page if you return the source to the paragraph. Thanks.--Anon. User, 205.127.247.183 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This is why it helps to provide an edit summary when you make changes to articles. JFW | T@lk 04:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
All three edits reversed had an edit summary: 1)"more stuff not in cited reference, citations neededs", followed by 2)"one more citation needed tag", and 3)"capitalization".
The "more" refers to the previous edit summarized as "none of this is in the cited source, citation neededs for the statements".
BTW, all of the citation needed edits in the paragraph as well as the capitalization edit were by the same person, me. The different IP addresses are because I am using library computers for the edits.
It is regrettable to leave so many citation neededs as it implies, probably falsely, untruthfulness. So I will try to find sources for the statements. I have access to Hurst's The Heart, a huge multidisciplinary and comprehensive textbook on cardiovascular disease. I am not a doctor (but do have some education in related fields) and I may need some help understanding passages of text. If I post them as ask for explanation, can you take the time to help me? --Anon. User, 205.127.247.79 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I understand what has happened. I viewed your edits as a bunch in a WP:DIFF, in which case the edit summaries don't get displayed. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Of course I can monitor Talk:Myocardial infarction. JFW | T@lk 23:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Jewish topics

Hey! Please write to me fivetrees@yahoo.com Thanks fivetrees (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't we discuss this on-Wiki? JFW | T@lk 22:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Asthma

Hey Jacob working on getting this to GA. Wondering if you could take a look at it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Anything in particular I can help with? I can give the article a skim read and see if I can come with anything useful. JFW | T@lk 23:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
That would be great. Anything I missed which you think should be discussed? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Simon W again

The Knighthood seems to have set off some of the old debate!YellowFratello (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing like the bad old days. JFW | T@lk 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Perspectives" in Nature Reviews Cancer

In the context of your rv at Lung cancer, I'm not entirely sure what to make of this class of source, which Nat Rev Cancer calls "Perspectives". Here's] the journal's blurb on them. They strike me as better than primary, perhaps equivalent to literature reviews. Are you aware of any prior consensus on the matter? LeadSongDog come howl! 04:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah right, the reference code was so garbled that I only noticed one source, which was the primary source from Pathol Oncol Res. The Nat Rev Cancer source looks better (although I cannot access the fulltext currently). I will have a look when I can see. JFW | T@lk 09:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Howdy JFW. I was wondering if you might like to make contact with this editor, who is looking to collaborate on improving core articles, with an interest in cancer. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've dropped a message on his talk page. I thought for a moment it was the same person as Samir (talk · contribs) - a much missed previous editor. JFW | T@lk 09:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

question about what's happened in last 3 years

Greetings JFW. After a long absence-- other interests and time claims, i am sticking my toe back in the water here. And finding i have forgotten a lot of the details. Can you point me to the latest citation aids and templates for medical articles? Anything newer than the diberri one i used to use? And anything else huge that you think i should know about in the last couple of years? alteripse (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Great to have you back! There are loads of interesting things happening in WikiProject Medicine. We have broad consensus on the structure and sourcing of medical articles. Members of the project are slowly getting through the most popular pages and getting them up to standard. I have had to reduce my editing time, but remain involved in article and project work. JFW | T@lk 13:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Stokvis

I've begun the GA review on Stokvis. Looks very close, just needs a few clarifications and tweaks to the prose. Details at Talk:Barend Joseph Stokvis/GA1--thanks for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will have a look and respond as required. JFW | T@lk 14:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring Barend Joseph Stokvis up to Good Article status. Keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts

On this article Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome and the users others edits? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor is certainly prolific, and with a bit of luck will soon become more familiar with WP:MEDRS and the need to wikilink more content. The new article should ideally be merged with the main HUS article. JFW | T@lk 06:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Training event in Newcastle

Hello Jfdwolff! Wikimedia UK is committed to supporting our volunteers and to encourage them to teach others how to edit Wikipedia, we are running a weekend training workshop that will take place on the weekend of 23–24 February in Newcastle. Also, if you know anyone based in Scotland or northern England who might be interested going to the training please feel free to tell them about it. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's quite far from my geographical base, but I will keep an eye out. JFW | T@lk 07:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi JFW, there's been an update since my initial message. The response from the community is that a different location would be easier for volunteers to get to. As such the training session will be held in Manchester on the same dates. If you're interested please take a look at the event page for further details. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Thanksssss

I left without saying anything due to personal reasons and also a lot of burnt out sensation. Right now I am not really sure if I will stay for long or this will be only temporal until I fix a bit the multiple ssclerosis article. Nevertheless to hear from 3 people that still remember me has been a great experience of coming back. I am sure many things will have changed here in wikipedia and the med-project in all this time. I will try to catch up and ask for help if needed...--Garrondo (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Further clarification requested...

Hi, I think you already tried to answer this Q for me, but I am still confused. Request comment here please. Lesion (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what part of the question remains unanswered? The discussion is quite long!! JFW | T@lk 23:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Apologies. Issue is about exactly what should be in DDx section of articles about signs or symptoms. Please see about last 5 comments of this section. Is it a list of possible causes of the symptom, or a list of things that are similar to the symptom and need to be differentiated. In other words, should the section discuss differentiation of the symptom's causes, or differentiation of the symptom from other "stuff"... Lesion (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

About external links...?

Hi, I got your message about posting external links to private or commercial webesite, and that is totally clear to me. However, the links I added is to a non-profit educational website about treatment for cancer survivors. This is unique information for this population and to my knowledge there is nothing second to this on the net. I can't really understand how my external link was removed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracheotomy#External_links when there is a link to a webshop that apparantly is OK. I wanted the Wikipedia population to become aware of this objectice clinical website that contains practical hands-on information and education for cancer survivors, their families and perhaps even clinicians. Maybe the way I added the links made them come out wrong? I am new to this... Sheila70 (talk)

When one starts out it is best to use recent review articles as references. Summarize these in an encyclopedic format and add the summary to Wikipedia. Help is here WP:MEDHOW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Cardiology edits

Hi Jacob. If you have time could you possibly spot-check some of this editor's contributions to cardiology articles please? Concerns have been raised at Wikipedia talk:MED#Injection fraction. Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Wikidata has been deployed to the English Wikipedia. Wikidata manages interwiki links on a separate project on pages such as this.

You are receiving this as you have recently reverted a user removing interwiki links.

Removal of interwiki links on a page linked to a wikidata item that contains the links is NOT vandalism. Please use this script which can identify if the links are found on wikidata.

If you have any questions regarding wikidata please use the talk page Wikipedia talk:Wikidata. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
  2. London Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
  3. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Alaska Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by British Empire The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia conference 2013

Hi Jacob. Can I point you to m:Talk:WikiProject Med#Chapters Meeting 2013? Two places at this year's conference have been offered to WikiProject Med board members. Ocaasi has applied for a scholarship. Registration closes on 10 March, and I think the board should discuss attendance, and decide who should represent us before then. Could you please add your thoughts to the above-linked discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

Hepatitis C

Can you please explain what you mean by secondary sources in the context of my edit, and why you feel it's "too soon"? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

We have an article here on secondary source which are typically review articles. See WP:MEDRS for more details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I know what a secondary source is. The revert to my edit cited concern with secondary sources: "too early, need to wait until secondary sources are available". That's exactly what was supporting my edit, secondary sources. I'm not very familiar with the medical article guidelines (although a secondary source is exactly that no matter the context), so please point me to the specific part of WP:MEDRS I seem to have run afoul of. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure this is popular press and not a reliable secondary source [11]. This is not reliable either [12] being little more than an advocacy page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I am aware of what those are. I'm not making scientific assertions. It's an opinion piece (secondary source) mentioning research, and a petition site to go along. They cover Hepatitis C. I'd rather you explain why you or Jfdwolff feel it does not merit inclusion, and based on which guideline, exactly. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Simple use high quality secondary sources. What you have added is undue weight. With out a proper source we do not typically mention phase two trials. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's back up here. I'm going to assume this isn't a case of ownership for a moment, and ask you to be specific as to why you feel this represents undue weight. I quote from the guideline you cited: When citing primary sources, particular care must be taken to adhere to Wikipedia's undue weight policy, and The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight. Both instances refer to primary sources. These are not primary sources. The first rule of using a guideline or policy is to use it correctly, or not at all. Now I ask you again: What exactly is the problem with my edit? So far I have "need proper sourcing", "too soon" and "need secondary sources", but that doesn't tell me a whole lot. As far as "With out a proper source we do not typically mention phase two trials", please tell me where that is indicated in a policy, guideline or project consensus, and why this is not a reliable source for the paragraph I added. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I just added four more secondary sources. I hope those are "proper" enough. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
No this is still not suitable. We do not use popular press stories. We use proper review articles. Otherwise get consensus via the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

An email was returned

An email I sent to the address I have for you was returned as not sent. Might it have changed? Biosthmors (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Should work now. JFW | T@lk 09:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

Talkback

Hello, Jfdwolff. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
Message added 06:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Wolff, if my adding a link to a registered 501c3 organization is considered spam on the Addison's disease page, then by the same token the other links must be removed as well. Please take the time to read through 4Philip dot org before passing judgement. You'll note that I will leave my contact information rather than hide behind a code enabled page. Regards, Eric Hart CEO 4Philip dot Org (919) 926-8447 eric.hart@4philip.org 107.15.101.70 (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Eric, please see my comments on Talk:Addison's disease. While I am sympathetic to the organisation's aims, I find the website does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:EL and the content would need substantial improvement to add any useful information that is not already in the article. JFW | T@lk 12:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hyperventilation Spam

Hello!! I recently edited the Hypoventillation article and You returned it to what it was. Then I got your message about spam text. Medscape reference is a FREE website that ANYONE CAN ACCESS. If you consider this website as not a public domain, I will surely stop adding texts from it... Thanks!! Om.Tem (talk · contribs)

There are much better references. Textbook are generally better IMO and these can be found via google books. Many open access reviews also exist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

Cancer Research UK meeting

Hi there, I was wondering if you would be interesting in attending this? Would be great if you could let me know on daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk

Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

4philip

Hello. Links to my support group for Addison's disease are continuously removed yet other external links remain. Please explain your rationale for allowing those links yet disallowing mine: www.4philip.org Ericwhart (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. JFW | T@lk 00:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

Meeting on Friday

Really nice to meet you on Friday. Sent your regards on. Hope you will drop by again in the future. Tot ziens YellowFratello (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks YF. See you soon. JFW | T@lk 00:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

Histamine

Hi, can you explain with reason your reason for reversion? No, that link doesn't suffice. Haaaa (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You added a new (short) section suggesting that histamine plays a role in angiogenesis. The paper you cite in evidence is 18 years old, and is a primary research study. WP:MEDRS is a consensus guideline that assists in the selection of high-quality sources that are robust enough to support encyclopedia content. A single primary research study is often insufficient to support encyclopedia content, because it may not have been replicated, or its findings might have been qualified by subsequent studies. This is why we generally insist in secondary sources (reviews in reputable journals, or textbook chapters) for such content.
I hope this is sufficient explanation for my revert. Please take a minute to read WP:MEDRS, because it is recognised as a highly useful way of identifying good sources. JFW | T@lk 08:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
If you are of this mind, then I will suggest for you to remove the sentence in Histamine antagonist that says the same. Consistency is big isn't it? I think it doesn't make sense for the fact / possibility (if so you prefer) of it's role in angiogenesis to appear in the secondary page but not in the primary page.
Though I think it might be better instead of removing the reference, I do believe it better to flag it for more citations.
And so what if it is old? There are **many** articles in google documenting the angiogenesis effect of histamine from 2005 - 2008. So you are saying that they are all wrong? or Could it be that it is a known fact that has not made an appearance on wiki?
Please do the necessary as you deem fit. Haaaa (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I certainly agree that articles should be internally consistent, and where possible articles should be in agreement with each other as well. As you might have guessed, I don't have histamine antagonist on my watchlist, so I have made no changes there. I have followed your suggestion and requested a citation covering all the biological effects of histamine in vivo, as the entire paragraph in question was unreferenced.
I did not say that histamine did not promote angiogenesis. Google hits are certainly a poor proxy for scientific evidence, and I would expect a source actually meeting the standards of WP:MEDRS before we can add anything to histamine about its angiogenic properties. When I searched Pubmed with MeSH major headings "histamine" and "angiogenesis inducing agents" I had no results at all, but then that is a very restrictive search strategy. JFW | T@lk 10:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Botulism

Hi,

You removed a pile of links under "External Links" on the Botulism article. This is completely correct, but I need access to the list and I could not revert your edit (temporarily) to access the list of links (for my personal reading). When I tried, I got this:

The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually. (I was a bit apprehensive to go ahead, perhaps you can do it more efficiently with your admin privileges (rollback). If so, could you dump the list on my talk page? Thanks.

Thanking you in anticipation.

(I know my talk page is a mess. I will get around to cleaning it up soon.) Best, RPSM (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

please excuse my lurking... No need to revert. Just go to the page history and click the date/time link for the version you want to see, e.g. here is the one just before JFW's revert. I think that will give you what you need. -- Scray (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was clicking in the wrong place (at the beginning of the line instead of the date) RPSM (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Asthma & cannabis

I noticed that comment soon after it was made (on my watchlist) but I chose not to reply. It is a simple statement of anecdotal opinion by a 16-year-old anonymous editor. It is unlikely that anyone would come to the talk page, read the comment and seriously consider using cannabis for that purpose. Regarding your reply, I wouldn't be surprised if the anonymous editor never comes back to read it.

For your interest, I actually did a PubMed search for asthma & cannabis after I read the comment. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is little about the interaction between them. There is a case report of anaphylaxis. There has been some early work with tetrahydrocannabinol and other derivatives. This letter looks potentially interesting, but I couldn't get hold of it. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the anonymous editor is unlikely to either read the comment or indeed take it on board, and the other option would have been to just remove his comment (per WP:TALK). Still, I thought some response would be good (if only to get a bit of a public health message out). JFW | T@lk 16:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

Primary/Secondary sources.

Hi, I got your message on my talkpage. I also noticed that you revert a lot of primary source edits from contributors. There's the WP:NOTGOODSOURCE that says primary sources don't mean they're bad, WP:MEDRS allows it under strict use, and other wiki entries that say they are acceptable. I think the heavy bias against primary sources is a mistake. I use primary sources because secondary sources don't exist for new information and this is knowledge that is otherwise not available. My intention is not to provide misinformation, nor hide harmful effects; everything needs to be disclosed and stay strict to the sources. I hope to compromise on this issue. Lucy346 (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

When primary sources are used it often creates undue weight. So I agree with Jfdwolff we should not be using them. If there is nothing in a secondary source than maybe the content in question is simply not notable yet.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Doc and Jfd, it's problematic to use a primary especially when "orphaned" from any secondary for the reasons of undue and the fact that the primary may not be picked up in a secondary because it was not of good quality. Zad68 14:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
That sound pretty. But is not exactly in lined with the spirit of Wikipedia which is to consolidate and share knowledge. Do you mean that if there any many primary sources but not any secondary sources, then you will remove it? When are your criteria for an article being too heavy? You feel? That's not really scientific. I will recommend that if in doubt, move the content to a new section or a new article "<original article>_controversey" or something of that nature. Censorship may be right (according to the rules) but is it good? I believe the goal is to move wikipedia towards a structure that is organized. Censorship can help, but it often detracts more than it add and should be reserved for blatant contravention like advertising etc. Haaaa (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
This has nothing at all to do with censorship. If that's what you think we're dealing with you are talking to the wrong person on the wrong talk page. JFW | T@lk 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Coeliac disease

I noticed you reverted my edit on Coeliac disease. Why? The edit summary says "not a classic association, need for secondary source". I am unaware of this requirement, can you explain? The reference I gave was "J Allergy Clin Immunol", and I guess I should have wikilinked it (I copied it from another article), but its the The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. It has an impact factor of almost 10 so its obviously reliable. It was my understanding the source only needed to be reliable and verifiable, of which this reference is. Int21h (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

We typically use secondary sources such as review articles per WP:MEDRS. The article you used was a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have re-added with a secondary source. Hopefully this meets requirements. Int21h (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a bump to bring your attention to my most recent replies to Talk:Coeliac disease#Atopic dermatitis. If you still disagree just say so, preferably with a summary/restatement of your position. Int21h (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

New section in "Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia"

Please see Talk for comment by Cytoscape55 about the creation of the "Clinical trial" section on the "Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.187.81 (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I keep an eye on that talk page. JFW | T@lk 23:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi Jfdwolff! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

File:PPARg.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

However

Not sure what is wrong with however? Do agree your wording is an improvement. I am wanting to simplify the text of MS a bit before sending it to translation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"The cause is not clear however [it] may be due to [...]".
It is quite easy to overuse "however" where contrast is implied; I think it can often be left out. In the MS intro the sentence became a bit convoluted, possibly because there were no commas around the word (link: Grammar Girl). JFW | T@lk 13:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 19:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

  • Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
  • Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
  • If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Systemic lupus erythematosus

I saw that you have reverted one of my edits on Systemic lupus erythematosus. Let me tell you that I know how to put the references and you will know that when you see the list of my edits. I came across the mentioned link and found it to provide a prototype for the section. But unfortunately I lacked the time needed to make the edits (with appropriate references of course). So, I left the link in an invisible tag so that interested editors can utilise it before I can come back for the edits (while other users do not even see it exposed). I do not think that this is abuse of any sort that I was doing. DiptanshuTalk 10:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not regard it as link spam. And sorry if I sound rude as I do not mean to. I do not have any interest in promoting the site. DiptanshuTalk 10:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not saying that you are spamming, but using the "comment" feature for your own benefit is not correct use of the article namespace. If you want to remind yourself (and others) of a useful source, consider putting it on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 13:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Improving translation support

Hi Jfdwolff! We are testing some new ideas to provide better support for the translation of Wikimedia projects and we want to hear from the community.

If you are interested in trying some prototypes and exchange your impressions, you can fill the participation form. Once you have filled the form, we'll contact you to perform a short testing session (less than 30 min. in total) during next weeks.

Thanks

Pginer (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Anaphylaxis

Hi,

I reverted your revert of my edit to Anaphylaxis.

Your comment was "bad grammar", however, it was the original, not my edit, that contained the bad grammar.

The original lacked a main verb. The present participle "including" introduced a dependent clause. I replaced that with the present tense "include" to create an independent clause.

I think if you read it again you'll agree with my version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesd (talk • contribs)

You're right, I hadn't spotted the word "that". JFW | T@lk 14:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

References on Churg--Strauss syndrome

Thanks for expanding those two references, I was a bit stumped how to do that. Iyov (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

On another note, I've just expanded an NCBI PubMed reference I previously added here. Does that look right to you? Thanks. Iyov (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
That looks great. Good work. To automatically generate citation templates, I use The Diberri Citation Tool. Magic. JFW | T@lk 11:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Great - and that citation tool looks awesome! Iyov (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor

You added a number of comments in the text of the GIST article. This is not good practice, and it is better to raise issues on the talk page, the relevant WikiProject, or actually removing content if it is believed to be highly misrepresentative.JFW | T@lk 20:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear JDW --> Hello. At the time of adding the inline comments, I also raised the general issue on the Talk page, as I am sure you noticed. (In the interests of transparency, I will point out that I've modified that Talk page "concern list" as I have started in on the article.) In this article's rather woeful case, I placed the inline comments as a way to be less inflammatory, tagging the content for actual improvement. For now I won't push the issue with you as to using comment fields. By the way, I notice that in addition to the article's internal dissonance, there are several sentences which are lifted almost word for word from the brief GIST section in DeVita's small intestine chapter 86 (including a unique turn of phrase that caught it for me.) I edited some of these problems and a number of the most severe oversimplifications / errors. When I have time I will continue working on improving this article's content. [User:FeatherPluma|FeatherPluma]] (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. Having spent quite a bit of time working on the article, I find that in fact I do need to push the issue with you, and ask you to please be good enough not to blanket remove every embedded hidden text comment that I add as temporary place tags and thought explanations. For me, that blanket removal feels a bit more like arbitrary procedural grounds than providing actual content improvement. Are there actual policies I'm transgressing? Do they have myoglobin? A few glial cells? Or are we Fisking? Again, if the article was even kind of close to acceptable I'd not need to take this unusual step. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a very good reason why comments in the article namespace should be kept to a minimum. Wikicode is already very easily cluttered with markup, particularly when references and citation templates are used. No reader benefits from it until the issues have actually been addressed.
You might have noticed from the article history that I was the editor who started the article. It was then heavily edited by someone else and I didn't take the time to verify the edits. It is also somewhat outside my direct area of expertise. JFW | T@lk 09:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. OK, fair enough, generally speaking, but IMO the "very good reason" doesn't apply here, being trumped by the factors I've explained. I would anticipate that eventually, after much additional work, the Wikicode will be properly cleaned up, including the comment markups being removed. Moreover, you will notice I have already started to offset the references, which cleans the look of the code considerably more than temporarily adding comment fields clutters it. I do know you started the article, and I appreciate you. I don't know why, but the random idea that we all have only so much time each day comes to mind, one of the strange things about the universe. It would be helpful if you'd continue your page watch and help with any unintentially obscure wording. Cheers. FeatherPluma (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Reversion regarding g6pd pathophysiology

Should not it be GSSG converted to be GSH by NADPH?1.36.119.155 (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Wilson's disease

The reference you removed from Wilson's disease contains relevant, up-to-date, information about copper biochemistry, which otherwise is missing from the article. This is important because chelation therapy has been used to treat Wilson's disease.

The same applies to the one that you removed from iron overload. This is an active area of chemical research and involves doctors such as Prof. Faa at the children’s hospital in Cagliari. As you know. beta thallasemia has been endemic in the southern Mediterranean and elsewhere. Treatment of the iron overload resulting from blood transfusions, chelation therapy again, is an important topic.

Please re-instate both references. Petergans (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You cannot just drop references into an article because you think the references are good/important. It is the article content that matters. The articles in question both contain a lot of content on chelation treatment. If you believe that content needs updating, consider using these sources as references. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
We obviously have different views on the purpose of citations, I as a chemist, you as a clinician. There is room for both in Wikipedia. The cited reviews provides background information on the biochemistry from the point of view of the metal as well as the specifics, which, as you say, are already referenced. Petergans (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Peter, in general, if one has a source one believes should be incorporated into the article, it's best to place it on the talk page and indicate to others that thought. Wikipedia:Lead#Citations states citations there aren't very necessary there anyways. Placing a new source in the article isn't a good way to indicate to others "please expand the article with this source". Biosthmors (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I did not say that the sources might not be relevant. I am simply trying to explain that they are currently not necessary. Please explain (on Talk:Wilson's disease, for example) what should be added. JFW | T@lk 13:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Medical Image Advisory

Your upload of File:Hickman line.png, is noted. It would be appreciated if the patient consent noted in the image description was confirmed to OTRS. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not worked in the hospital in question since 2005 and have no means of contacting the person in question for permission. JFW | T@lk 07:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Additionally if the person is not recognizable signed consent is not needed for use of an image. Verbal consent is sufficient. There is also no requirement that consent must be sent to OTRS. This would raise much greater confidentiality issues. The people who work at OTRS have not signed appropriate agreements and therefore are not suitable recipients of this information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013


Million Award

The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Meningitis (estimated annual readership: 2,549,000) and Coeliac disease (estimated annual readership: 1,892,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment--few editors have produced two FAs with this level of readership. And thanks for all you do for our readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Meningitis to Featured Article status.
This editor won the Million Award for bringing Coeliac disease to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your free Cochrane account is on its way!

Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to Cochrane Collaboration's library of medical reviews: Link to form.

If you have any questions, just ask me. Cheers, Ocaasi 13:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

You made me laugh...

Petri dish comment--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

xkcd is worthy of a Nobel prize. Several. JFW | T@lk 22:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

An Invitation to Wikiproject Traditional Medicine

I would like to invite you and anyone else whom might be interested, to support wiki project traditional medicine in getting started. The projects goal is to improve coverage on topics of traditional medicine practices; using primarily ethno medical and anthropological journals. Though mostly of anthropological value the input from medical professionals such as your self would be welcomed. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply to yours year-ish sgo

Sorry so long ago, novice here, brain damaged and so much to learn. Your comment on balance, hmmm, if we all keep silent (for balance?) when things are plainly wrong and when tradition that should be questioned isn't then change for good can't and won't happen. For instance under anesthesia awareness 'muscle relaxants', the term anesthetists routinely use, tradition but not fact. Now I've got some of these at home and they do what they say: relax muscles, they don't paralyze me or stop me breathing. Calling paralyzing agents this misnomer is wrong, like calling a bus a digger = they do very different things. Is it 'balanced' to carry on the deception? Is it balanced to allow bad practice to continue unchallenged and for anaesthetists to learn false 'facts' such as this and that everyone and everything is to blame for awareness except themselves? Mmm, balance, I'll just go and check out the wiki page on torture, see if that's got balance, for torture is what awake paralysis with suffocation is. Until we say it and everything else as it is these things will continue to be called 'controversial' and education/learning can't take place. All the best, T truthdoctorknows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthdoctorknows (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

The Signpost: 18 September 2013


The Signpost: 25 September 2013

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Discussion of a page-move of yours

Talk:Cholov Yisroel#Chalav Yisrael. DMacks (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am an amateur at wikipedia so wouldn't know how to do a page move myself or start a discussion on whether it should be done. However, I do think it should be changed to Chalav Yisrael. -- Hebrew_Grammar_Pedant 11/10/13
It would be great if you could join the discussion on the talk page linked to above by DMacks. JFW | T@lk 20:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

FYI

See Coeliac disease, Talk:Inflammatory bowel disease and other articles up your alley, per this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Have left a message and will keep an eye out. JFW | T@lk 11:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comment about Darwinian Medicine

Dear Jacob, We are in complete agreement about the need for appropriate sourcing of contributions and for avoiding wild speculation. Sanetti (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for posting on the talk pages of my student, KHatchell. Please don't hesitate to get in touch about the contributions of any of my students. My courses are at: Education Program:Rice University/Poverty, Justice, Human Capabilities Section 1 (Fall 2013) and Education Program:Rice University/Poverty, Justice, Human Capabilities, Section 2 (Fall 2013). I will appreciate any advice. Thanks! DStrassmann (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome.

Good question. Actually, neither. My handle, Youtalkfunny, is because my early formative years were split between Austin, TX and the latter half in the UK, London to be exact. I've got a bit of the two going, and people can't quite define my accent, but always ask. So its an amalgamation of the two.Youtalkfunny (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Where are you based currently, Youtalkfunny? Or would you rather not tell? JFW | T@lk 20:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Med school & residency on the east coast. Now in California. How about you?Youtalkfunny (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm in England. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Shemini Atzeret/GA2

Hi, please see Talk:Shemini Atzeret/GA2 and add your expertise. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

FYI

See Coeliac disease, Talk:Inflammatory bowel disease and other articles up your alley, per this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Have left a message and will keep an eye out. JFW | T@lk 11:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for posting on the talk pages of my student, KHatchell. Please don't hesitate to get in touch about the contributions of any of my students. My courses are at: Education Program:Rice University/Poverty, Justice, Human Capabilities Section 1 (Fall 2013) and Education Program:Rice University/Poverty, Justice, Human Capabilities, Section 2 (Fall 2013). I will appreciate any advice. Thanks! DStrassmann (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome.

Good question. Actually, neither. My handle, Youtalkfunny, is because my early formative years were split between Austin, TX and the latter half in the UK, London to be exact. I've got a bit of the two going, and people can't quite define my accent, but always ask. So its an amalgamation of the two.Youtalkfunny (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Where are you based currently, Youtalkfunny? Or would you rather not tell? JFW | T@lk 20:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Med school & residency on the east coast. Now in California. How about you?Youtalkfunny (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm in England. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Shemini Atzeret/GA2

Hi, please see Talk:Shemini Atzeret/GA2 and add your expertise. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Naming convention for Hasidic dynasty pages

Hi, an editor has decided to change the way we identify Hasidic Rebbes who have the same names. Please see discussion at Talk:Yissachar Dov Rokeach I#Page rename. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Commented. JFW | T@lk 15:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Admin help

Hi Jfdwolff: Could you please move Simon Maccabeus, (there is a mistaken comma at the end of the title) to Simon Maccabeus (without a comma). Thanks. IZAK (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Moved. JFW | T@lk 15:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The initial move was a controversial one, and should be moved back to Simon Thassi. There is a discussion apparently taking place at Talk:Eleazar Avaran. StAnselm (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It was a move that is now disputed. That is not the same as a controversial move. Meanwhile, the page title obviously shouldn't have a comma in it. JFW | T@lk 14:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
What I meant was, Wikipedia:Requested moves says "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page." However, I am unable to move the page back (presumably for the same reason IZAK posted here). So would you be able to revert the move and Simon Maccabeus to Simon Thassi until the discussion is finished, please? StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The WP:RM page also says that if you want a move undone, you should be requesting it there. All I did, in good faith, was move the page to the correct title. The whole discussion on the moves is unrelated, and I am frankly surprised that the pages were ever created under these archaic never-used names. I have no intention of moving the page back, and hope you can participate in the discussion on Talk:Eleazar Avaran.
Meanwhile, you used {{db-move}} on Simon Thassi where the intention was contrary to the stated aims of the template.[13] JFW | T@lk 19:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Administrator request to add new task force to WPMed

Hello! I was wondering if you would be so kind as to make the changes to the {{WPMED}} template to include a new task force, society and medicine. It looks very complicated to make a change, and I'm not sure non-adminstrators are able (WP:MEDTF) The task force page is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Society_and_medicine_task_force, and I've already created the relevant categories. The image would be "File:People_icon.svg" and the abbreviation societyandmedicine, we will have an importance rating.

I hope through this task force we can make a positive change to a growing subset of articles under the scope of WP:Med. I recently made a similar request at the talk page of Jmh649, but I believe he's on holiday. LT910001 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Your comment about Darwinian Medicine

Dear Jacob, We are in complete agreement about the need for appropriate sourcing of contributions and for avoiding wild speculation. Sanetti (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Jfd, would you have time to look at this one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

COPD

Have tried to address the remaining concerns. Let me know what you think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Question here [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how you suggest that ref be formatted? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Going to leave things as they are. Not a dealbreaker for GA. JFW | T@lk 21:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

Lupus Edit

You keep mentioning that I should follow the guidelines, I have as far as I can tell

1) I really can not understand your insistence that I have not, I am not using the article to debunk something generally unsupported, My minor edit that Lupus is also a type 2 hypersensitivity is not different substantively from the claim already made in the pathophysiology section, it was really more a stylistic clarification and addition of a reference than anything else, it was a well sourced article published by 2 major organisations, & I think we should at least allow the readers to decide it's relevance.

2)Your insistence that it is "a ten year old study about mice" is also quite baffling to me, especially since it says in your profile that you are a doctor

a)It was published by the American college of Rheumatology, not the college of Veterinary science, the reason why murine(mouse) tissue is used in so many labs is because it is considered to be highly analogous to humans, Your implication that it is not a valid comparison to humans is absurd, The college of Rheumotology would not publish an article if it was not highly relevant to human physiology and/or treatment, I would wager that most of the medical textook sections of histopathology & immunology would be highly reliant on murine tissue in most cases

b)The fact that it is 10 years old is has little relevance, most of the information in textbooks have probably already seen the better part of a decade by the time a textbook is published, and by the time you use it it has probably been close enough to a decade already. If you are so strident about removing anything over a decade old, then please remove references 5, 13,16,17,18,20,23,25,29,42,44,46,51,55,56,59,61,62,63,78,84, These are all journal articles a decade or older

3)Also I think you are really undermining the spirit of wikipedia if you insist on only referencing something that is behind a paywall, Most people who have access to a copy of Harrisions, online or otherwise, could already look up information there bypassing wiki anyway. By citing something that can only be seen through a hefty paywall, you may as well have not referenced at all for the vast majority readers, from scientists to journalists, to members of the public in general, many people especially the poor rely on wikipedia for information

4)Harrisons is a source intended for those in the medical profession, which is great for them, but ultimately they are summaries of clinically relevent aspects, someone, for example a researcher may find many details in a comprehensive study,relevant to his/her work, which may be missing in a stock standard textbook. This quite frankly was the main reason I fought to leave the reference up

It would be my preference that you restore the article for the reasons I have given but at this stage, you can do what you want, I have better things to worry about than a reference on wikipedia, All I can say is I tried my best to use the best references I could find based on my experience as a researcher

Regards Xkcd1234 Xkcd1234 (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have explained everything in extenso in edit summaries, and on your talk page. You cannot build an encyclopedia on secondary sources. Feel free to engage in the dispute resolution process if you believe I have misinterpreted existing Wikipedia guidance, but I suggest you take the advice of an experienced editor and find a better source. JFW | T@lk 14:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I have said before, I am not invested in this enough to start a big whoop over this, I barely know why I am responding to this now, so feel free to leave the article as it is if that is your hang up, but I have been in science for longer than I care to admit, & I have NEVER seen a properly published and peer reviewed article dismissed simply because it was not published in a journal that was considered sufficiently "premium", in fact never on anything other than good solid counter evidence or argument, for which you have supplied none, which should be your first clue that perhaps you are the one who needs to take a step back. I think this sets a bad precedent, but clearly you have invested more time as a wikipedia editor than I have so feel free to guard your own turf, I just don't know why you are picking on a properly published source when the article is riddled with "citations needed" & web referencing

I'll leave you with this; look up Nobel prize winner Randy Shekman, and what he says about the problem of overvaluing the work of "premium" journals, you may be surprised by what manages to make it into those journals, & what is kept out

Xkcd1234 (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Read review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Xkcd1234, I am sorry you struggle to assume my good faith here. I am trying to support you in your first steps as a Wikipedia editor, and am very happy to continue doing so. However, you must realise that there are criteria and guidelines that allow to write better content. I am not defending the current status of the article, and many of the current references need to be replaced with better ones. What I am trying to achieve is engage with knowledgeable people like yourself and provide you with the tools for getting it better.
Not every article published in scientific journals is a suitable source for encyclopedia content. This is a common source for confusion when people from a scientific background start editing medical articles. From your perspective as a scientist, the study (using an animal model) is proof of concept that type 2 hypersensitivity is intimately involved in the pathophysiology of lupus. However, studies can have methodological weaknesses (yet they get published), and it might be that the result cannot be reproduced (which is extremely common); secondary sources sift through the wealth of primary research to provide a clearer picture of what has (and what has not) been confirmed. This approach improves the reliability of what we write. When I write an article about a clinical subject, I will not cite a large primary study from the New England Journal of Medicine but I will cite a systematic review or meta-analysis.
I hope the above makes sense. Once again I am happy to provide further guidance on editing Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 16:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Hypothyroidism

Hey Jfd, regarding the recent edit to hypothyroidism, the paper by So in 2012 does discuss thyroid autoantibodies in the diagnosis of hypothyroidism as well as an additional investigation section discussing anemia, hypercholesterolemia, hyponatremia, and elevated creatine kinase. Can you revise the edit appropriately so not everything is removed? Thank you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi TylerDurden8823, I removed it because some items in the list could not be found in So2012's list. As I said in my edit summary,[15] I intend to reintroduce content sourced to Garber (and possible So2012). JFW | T@lk 19:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, not sure why we couldn't just remove the prolactin and other tests not mentioned (unless Garber mentions all of those), but okay, I'll wait to see what you do with the other source. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Garber says relatively little about the diagnostic process for central hypothyroidism. If a pituitary problem is suspected, prolactin is not the only test that should be performed—a complete pituitary panel would include other tests such as cortisol, LH/FSH and potentially even tests of growth hormone activity. (Incidentally, the word "prolactin" does not occur in So2012.) JFW | T@lk 19:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I know, I was saying we could just remove the part about prolactin and the other tests mentioned in the article that we couldn't find mention of in the papers. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed doi:10.1210/jc.2012-1616, which is currently cited only in the "pathogenesis" section but is actually a high-quality source for all other discussions about central hypothyroidism. I can't access it currently. JFW | T@lk 09:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Proper way to implement a BLOCK, to help prevent misuse of authority

Over on my Talk page, I have detailed my view that when a user gets blocked, the bare minimum that they are owed as a matter of explanation is a citation of the specific reason why this action is being taken. Here is a quote from that page...

(Iconic Pepper Spray Image)

We can imagine this cop is thinking to himself "...I'm not actually harming these people. The effects will wear off in ~36 hours."

While cops serve a very important role in the healthy functioning of society, checks and balances are very important to help ensure that such power does not get misused. Citizens, as well as Wikizens, are owed an adequate explanation for anytime restraining action is taken against them. A virtual writ of Habeus Corpus, if you will. By what specific justification are you detaining me? If you're unable to cite that, then it is your obligation to release the shackles and let the law abiding citizen go free.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in a long discussion about blocking, or your characterisations, or your analogies. The specific reason was that your edit warring amounts to a public nuisance. If your pattern of editing persists I see solid grounds to apply prolonged blocks. JFW | T@lk 11:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You've now threatened to ban me because I posted the above to your Talk page. Amazing.
And telling someone that they are "edit warring" does not constitute a specific citation of how a policy has been violated.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear ChrisfromHouston, edit warring is intensely disruptive, and you trying to make the same edit repeatedly, despite a small crowd telling you that it is not the right thing, is edit warring. My message above was indeed a threat, and as an administrator I will have no qualms to enact further blocks or a ban if I believe it improves the editing climate for other contributors on Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with me being a doctor, or working with Doc James on other articles, or having a fondness for pepper spray.
One thing that leads to people's undoing on Wikipedia is inability to concede that consensus is against you. Please give it a try. JFW | T@lk 19:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Is it time for a periodic FAR.

Hello User:Jfdwolff, Your Talk entry listed an interest in "Major Depressive Disorders" which has not been reviewed since 2008 and which is listed for "WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology." Is it time for a periodic review and could you list it? BillMoyers (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if I will be the best person to update this. Casliber was the person who carried this to FAC, and he is editing actively, and has an impressive record in FAs in medical and non-medical areas. Of course I would be very happy to provide assistance with specific issues.
Incidentally, WP:MED is the main WikiProject associated with the article. While there are certainly neurobiological aspects to cover, it remains predominantly a clinical article. JFW | T@lk 20:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Just out of interest, BillMoyers, I see no entry on WP:FAR suggesting that the article is reviewed. Were you looking for a formal full review, or just a particular update? JFW | T@lk 20:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

G6PD

Dr. Wolff, Could you please direct me to a page explaining the progression of a G6PD response after a large ingestion of Fava Beans?

Thank you, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlwinkler (talk • contribs) 03:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Hypothyroidism

Hi JFW, I think the additions that you, Axl, Sandy, and JMH have all made look spectacular. I agree that the article looks GA now. I'm hoping others agree. Thank you for all of your help. I made a couple of very minor tweaks (things like a missing period at the end of a sentence kind of thing) last night. This was very valuable for me seeing what does/doesn't go into an article like this for obtaining GA status since I haven't done it before. I appreciate the help! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Bringing you warm wishes for the New Year!
May you and yours enjoy a healthful, happy and productive 2014!

And thank you for all you do in here!

Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia. A great year to you too. JFW | T@lk 19:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hypothyroidism

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hypothyroidism you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jmh649 -- Jmh649 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jmh649 - I will not let my review of epilepsy get in the way. JFW | T@lk 19:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Let me know what you think of the simplifications I did. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
All okay. JFW | T@lk 19:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I notice that you posted a link to involuntarycelibacy (dot) com at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination). The link is on the spam blacklist and its presence is blocking edits at deletion sorting. Please edit it. Thanks. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Fluoroquinolones

Hi, I'm the fluoroquinolone guy. I finished pretty much everything I want to do with the levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin articles, and since it is a bit awkward for me to be editing out negative stuff (even though improperly sourced and undue weight) as a former industry guy, I'm inviting those who took an interest on the pharmacology portal to review what I've done for POV and accuracy. I tried to do a good job and have never worked for either of the companies that make these compounds.

Many thanks, I've registered and can be found here Formerly 98 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Formerly 98, thanks for registering. I will need to have a close look later, but I will support any edits that will replace poor quality content supported by non-WP:MEDRS sources with high-quality cautiously phrased content supported by great sources. Your potential COI seems to be a non-issue, although I am glad that you feel willing to be open about potential sources of bias. JFW | T@lk 18:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Sheard et al, Thorax 1991;46:584-585 doi:10.1136/thx.46.8.584, Pneumothorax and Malignant Mesothelioma in Patients Over 40
  2. ^ Alkhuja, et al., American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Volume 38, Issue 2, pages 219–223, August 2000, Malignant pleural mesothelioma presenting as spontaneous pneumothorax: a case series and review
  3. ^ Flood et al., Journal of Thoracic Oncology: June 2009 - Volume 4 - Issue 6 - pp 770-772, Spontaneous Pneumothorax and Lung Carcinoma: Should One Consider Synchronous Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jfdwolff/Archive_35&oldid=1168302125"