User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 26

aplasticcentral.com removed

jfd

why did you remove my link to aplasticcentral.com in the aplastic anemia wikipedia article?

this happens to be a very useful site for 100's of patients

who appointed you as the decision maker as to what is valid or not

do you have the disease?

i do and have been hosting the site for over 5 years, have written a book on the illness and i think that qualifies me to add a link

i respectfully request that you add back my link from feb 10, 2007

please advise

Bruce Lande webmaster aplasticcentral.com Seeker4life 05:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seeker4life (talk • contribs) 05:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Did you read my edit summary when I removed the link? It read: "clearly a personal page/forum, not authoritative".[1] I did review your site before removing the link. Wikipedia is not a collection of links to other sites. If it is meant to be helpful to 100's of patients (perhaps you've overstated the incidence of aplastic anaemia), Wikipedia would do that by providing high-quality encyclopedia content. It is not a tool for generating traffic to other websites, and indeed we have now turned on NOFOLLOW functionality, meaning that Wikipedia's external links will not be spidered by Google and the like. Please review our external links policy for some more information on this.

I was appointed as a decision maker on 10 May 2004 by community consensus. But in fact every Wikipedia contributor can be a decision maker provided policies are adhered to and consensus is followed.

Instead of using Wikipedia to promote your website, I'd be much happier if you shared your knowledge by contributing original encyclopedia content. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 10:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

jfd,

Thanks for your response. I was not sure if this was the right way to communicate with you or not being new to wikipedia. I would be happy to contribute to the content area and will review it in the next several day. Re the link - Why are there links to other aplastic anemia resources? The one that especially perplexes me is the Shannon Bradshaw Trust. What prompted me to include my link was the fact that the Wikipedia link now shows up as the second link when one types Aplastic Anemia into Google. At one time, I enjoyed that position but no longer promote the site as well as I once did.

I stared the site well over 5 years ago with the express purpose of providing information and resources for patients and that continues to be my objective. Although I certainly understand the Wikipedia is designed to promote website or products I do respectfully disagree that my site is an inappropiate link. The FORUM itslef contains daily entries from many patients who have direct experience with the illness and I believe it to be a very rich resource that is not in any manner self supporting nor are we promoting or selling anything. I do offer my book for sale but that is certainly no the main intent of the site. I would appreciate you recosidering the linkage but will leave it at that - a requst. For your information, there are at least 6 /million cases reported in the U.S. each year and with the current population now at 300 Million that would mean there were 1800 new cases in the U.S. this year alone so when I say 100's frequent my site that is an understatment. There are 100's of active registered members and many more who read but do not post. I firmly believe that almost everyone who is diagonsed with AA in the U.S. at one time or another will visit aplasticcentral and come away with new information.

Thanks Seeker4life 00:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have little to add to my previous explanation. I don't get the impression that your site, however useful, is regarded as authoritative/representative etc. Have you reviewed WP:EL? You can try raising the point at WP:CLINMED, the medical contributors forum. I suspect you'll get largely the same reply.

I will see if the Shannon Bradshaw Trust qualifies. JFW | T@lk 01:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

pneumoconiosis

If dust disease is pneumoconiosis as you say, then I will make a redirect (for dust disease) so it goes to pneumoconiosis not asbestosis. Sorry about the confusion, through my readings i somehow concluded that asbestosis is the same as dust disease. Cheers petze 15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. JFW | T@lk 16:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Asbestosis is a type of dust disease, and therefore is a kind of pneumoconiosis. Other types of pneumoconiosis diseases as defined in "Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment" are:

• Metal Dusts (Siderosis, Stannosis, Baritosis)
• Coal Dust (Coal Worker's Pneumoconiosis)
• Inorganic Dust (Silicosis)
• Silicate Dusts (Asbestosis, Talcosis, Kaolin Pneumoconiosis, Shaver's Disease)

From McPhee, S. J., Papadakis, M. A., & Tierney, Jr., L. M. (2007). Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment (Rev. ed.). San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Cochise11 04:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good. My point was that they are not synonyms. JFW | T@lk 06:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

MMC

My wife is a doctor , who is affected by the MMC and I am a dentist who is studying medicine these days in th UK , although MMC concerns me , I just wanted to update the article without compremising its neutrality , I hope my entry was not against any rules--Ghaly 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have already started stubs of pages related to dentistry like Faculty of Dental Surgery and Faculty of General Dental Practice and contributed a with a lot of the information on Orthognathic surgery--Ghaly 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Improving CFS/ME Article

Hi, I've noticed you recently made a contribution or regularly contribute to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I recently nominated it as the Wikipedia:Improvement Drive. I feel that it needs urgent improvement, and if you agree please vote at the Improvement Drive project page. Thanks! Thedreamdied 02:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dr Woolf, Thanks for your note. I entirely agree about your proposed "push forward", but my concern is that this will also become an edit battle, and I do wonder whether it is worth the effort. It may be best to simply abandon CFS Wikipedia and rely on other ways forward. Wikipedia is not the only source of information on CFS. Best wishes, Wilson48. 5.5.07 Wilson48 14:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Scleroderma revision

Hi, I noticed that in the history blurb regarding Scleroderma, you wanted to know "if it is stenotic and there is severe proximal dilation, why not?" Well, first of all the stenosis caused by the stricture is not proximal (which would place it near the larynx), it is distal. As for the why not, I have some proof that you might want to see. I posted this in the Scleroderma discussion page, but you might have missed it. Also, I have to beg your pardon if some of my comments are....confrontational. I honestly mean no offense, I just get really enthusiastic when I write. Please take that sort of thing from me with a grain of salt. ;)

The posts that I made are below my signature....

Cochise11 04:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Refactored long post by same editor duplicate from Talk:Scleroderma JFW | T@lk 06:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

These discussions are generally best held on the talk page of the article in question, and I have taken the liberty of removing your duplicates here.

I did not add the "offending" term, but generally I will revert removals of information from new (read: not-yet-trusted) editors unless good evidence is brought in support. You seem to have provided plenty of support now. You appear to be a fan of Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment. JFW | T@lk 06:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Experimental Drugs

At User_talk:Gak you wrote:

I saw your addition on VX 950. I wasn't aware this was only in Phase 1. Is it generally your view we should have articles on compounds that are still undergoing testing? We certainly don't have a policy yet, and we have many similar articles. I must admit I have written about dabigatran and rivaroxaban, despite them being experimental compounds, but the ximelagatran experience has shown that even post-phase III agents can still bork quite badly. JFW | T@lk 12:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No idea! VX 950 is now into phase 2 testing but who knows? I am not aware or policy either, but drugs are so often resurrected in different guises. Like Adefovir for HIV was later resurrected for HBV. And I guess I also have patients in clinical trials so it is nice to know what the long term consequences are, e.g., I have a few patients who were in clinical trials for loviride as monotherapy and ended up with K103N mutations and the consequences of that. --Gak 14:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The page on budesonide is not up to date. It is now available as Flexhaler, but I don't know how to edit the stem of an article. See http://www.bipinhaler.com/adult/about/

Historical tag at MEDMOS

OK, I admit that I got distracted because of all of my travel; can we try to finish this up and poll for consensus? [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Commenting. JFW | T@lk 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Since you don't have a watchlist, I though I point out that WP:MEDMOS is receiving opinions on whether it is ready to become a guideline. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 22:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Breastfeeding and type 1 diabetes

Here we go again. You insist on keeping the insulting and invalid conclusion that there is a protective effect of breastfeeding to the prevention of type 1 diabetes. The study that supports this is not a medical study, but a survey of a few hundred people in a community in Europe that showed a SMALL difference in the number of breatfeed children with diabetes compared to the bottlefed.

It's not medical science. In fact, it's not good science at all. At least in the breastfeeding article it will not be insulting to the readers of that article. But to those of us who read the diabetes related articles, controversial is a gross understatement. You degrade the quality of your own article by stubbornly sticking to bad science because it supports some aggenda of yours.

My child was breastfed, and still has type 1. Guess that didnt work. I can tell you again, in the womens war of the breasfed versus the bottlefed, that the unprooven and misunderstood link of bottlefeeding as a cause of diabetes is insulting, inflamatory, and ignorant.

It does not belong in an article about diabetes management. mbbradford 19:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Jfdwolff, No problem with the reverts. It's not an issue that I'm passionate about, but I was surprised to see that there was evidence for it. With the "citation needed" staring at me, I figured I might as well insert the links, but I didn't have time to give the full cite. It is for us to begin, it is not for us to finish.

I think the main significance is that it gives us a hint at the immunological mechanism. I don't think it has much effect on the practice of breastfeeding, since there are already overwhelming reasons to breastfeed.

And of course to be sure their immune system is properly developed, mothers should expose their infants to horse manure and e. coli, so that they won't get asthma. Nbauman 22:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Prayer

Reverting the entire section because of one mistake I was aware of, rude to say the least, and to say "creative rewriting" as if I were just making this up as I went along, I am giving up my own work to the general public out of the goodness of my heart, if you can't appreciate it then you can read it in my book about a year from now. Randy6767 02:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You are fixing something that ain't broke (the intro of prayer). Please discuss major changes to important articles on the talkpage first. JFW | T@lk 07:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Pyroluria moderation request

Hi JFW,

Thank you for answering my formatting questions, zinc status test inclusion question, and teaching me to fix my signature. :o)

However, another moderator has decided to take it upon himself to completely "reformat" the Pyroluria wiki and I do not agree with what he has done.

The following is from WLU, in the Discussion Forum of Pyroluria:

[edit] A mess

The page is a huge mess, I'm doing a big re-work. First, I'm re-formatting the references to make it more obvious that when you click on the link, it's an external link. I moved the sections that were just external links into the external links section. More to come. WLU 14:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

The sections I'm pasting below don't add anything to the article that I can see. Here's my problems with them, in bold italics beneath the sections:

Vitamins and supplements

Q: Is there another way to include the very important information about vitamin supplements that may be required by individuals that have this condition of high oxidative-stress, Pyroluria?

A:

I feel that it is very important for individuals to know what supplements may be benificial and which supplements may be harmful to someone that is inflicted with nuetracutically dependent condition, Pyroluria.

Q: How else might I convey this information?

A:

Thank you for your thoughtful and kind advise, JFW. I find the other moderator, WLU, very harsh and too critical and not very helpful, at all. The Pyroluria wiki community and I will appreciate any assistance that you may offer.

Thanx, JFW! I will continue my studies in my Web Contruction 1 course and patiently await your reply. With much appreciation, OnaTutors | T@lk 05:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Vanispamicruftisement. Troubling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have only given OnaTutors elementary advice on how to approach the task of producing a wiki page (e.g. references, NPOV). I am not moderating, nor do I take any responsibility in maintaining the content. What I feel we do need is reliable sources (not just someone's webpage) to back up the many claims made. Isn't it striking that diagnostic entities from the orthomolecular sphere are all treated with nutritional measures/supplements? I know nothing about the entity, its historical background, its popularity and the approaches taken by orthomolecular practitioners. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Medicine

Ah, JFW, nice to hear from you! I rarely make major edits these days; I've been too busy to really work on articles (medical or otherwise). In fact, there were several months where I wasn't on Wikipedia at all. If residency eases up a bit I'd like to get back into it more. Congratulations on celiac disease! I'll have to read it now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

narrow minded concepts

Copy of talk page entry refactored

How about for a purpose of mine...., that I would like to tell cancer patients, and their loved ones, that there are nutriments and chemicals that could help them, and that have few or no side effects; and by inference, that the conventional, medical, oncological/pharma establishment moves extremely slowly (if and when it moves at all....) to develop, study, test, trial, offer in clinics....., while literally millions of people die....

If you are a doctor, as you claim to be, perhaps you might try to be more helpful, rather than just critical about references... People who have cancer are hurting and dying now, as we speak, and many of the official, FDA-approved options offered by the oncological medical establishment are barely short of torture...I know, I have felt it.... and with limited efficacy.... Perhaps you could put yourself in the patient's shoes rather than look for large numbers of references as approved by you.... though if you truly looked for references on low-dose-naltrexone, you could find them.... but there are not many from double-blind studies....

do you think patients who are hurting and dying now have the luxury to wait 10 years for the studies to be finished? if they ever get done??? you seem to not care much..... I do.....

Perhaps if you watched/listened to the presentation by Jerry McLaughlin PhD., on "pawpaw from discovery to clinical trials," you would understand the troubles he had to try to move pawpaw extract to "official" trials (which have not happened yet, and may never happen because there is no financial incentive for the pharma companies to carry them out....!).... so.... do you want to educate people, and arguably try to help cancer patients, or are you still trying to ensure the "scientific correctness" of your references.... perhaps if you or a close member in your family was hurting from cancer, you might possible change your mind.... or perhaps you just do not care.... I do, and I will continue to look for alternative treatments that seem to be helpful, that have some scientific basis for their actions, and that do not entail torture.... it would be nice if you did not become an obstacle, as you did previously on my references to low-dose-naltrexone.... which I recall you eliminated some years back....

get a life, or perhaps better, get a heart....!!!!!

Marcelo1229

I will be an obstacle to original research, unproven and potentially dangerous treatments. Blaming pharma for not conducting the trials is an eternal canard that is already starting to disgust me. Cancer patients will be worse off is people keep on selling them snake oil. The "alternative" industry needs to work with and not against the establishment. There is good reason the FDA does not approve every single substance that someone dreams up. Accusing me of not having cancer patients' interests at heart, and telling me to get a life, is unbelievably uncivil. JFW | T@lk 06:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

cancer bacteria information removed

JDF: Have you spent your career researching the cancer bacteria association, or are you, based on pre-conceived notions and opinions, ASSUMING that this controversial area of research is meaningless? I invite you to visit my webpage with an OPEN mind, and read the dozens and dozens of citations---many of which PROVE a causative link between, for example, mycoplasma fermentans and oncogenesis. JDF, I have no axe to grind and nothing to sell. I am trying to convey extremely vital information which incidentally, is not a relic of the past as your infer, but is very much alive and well and garnering new evidence every day. For example, you will admit that h.pylori is, in fact, becoming almost mainstream in its recognized association with GI cancers? Then at the very least, how could you delete THIS reference?? And does the h.pylori evidence which is gathering a preponderance of worldwide support not even pique your interest as suggesting that bacteria may, after all, not be a subject relegated as you say, to the 'history books'? Please visit my website at: http://members.aol.com/CAbacteria/homepage.html

I invite you to e-mail me privately, debate me, discuss your opinions with me, but not castigate what I have to say outright. Will you do that for the possible good of furthering cancer research?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronsword (talk • contribs) 00:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I am not assuming this area of research is meaningless. I gave quite a reasonable edit summary when I removed your addition, and I'm not castigating anyone. No, I have not spent my career researching the association, and I do not take up my invitation to read your homepage. Of course I admit the role of H. pylori. Eradication of H. pylori is likely to reduce the incidence of gastric carcinoma and lymphoma to near zero in the Western world.

Please discuss new additions on the relevant talk page before adding more material to Cancer. JFW | T@lk 06:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

IP spammer

64.135.15.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just isn't gonna give up spamming NewsMax links and the opinions of the good Dr. Russell Blaylock, is he? I guess that weeklong block for spamming hardly slowed him down. MastCell ^Talk 00:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the cue. This is a fixed IP who keeps on spamming Newsmax URLs. I've reinstated the block for a week. JFW | T@lk 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't trying to be coy, but I noticed that you'd been reverting his spam and that he'd had a previous block for the same. Anyhoo, thanks, I think that was definitely the right thing to do. MastCell ^Talk 15:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got a spam allergy. Gives me hives. JFW | T@lk 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You ought to be desensitized by now...  :) MastCell ^Talk 23:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

{{cite journal}} template.

Jfdwolff, thanks for giving me the link to the {{cite journal}} template. I couldn't find it. Nor was I sure how to use the repeated citation. Nbauman 15:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

cancer bacteria data removed again

okay JFDwolff. You don't think my insertion of published peer-reviewed studies on mycoplasma fermentans are relevant to a discussion on cancer, but you do think that a few paragraphs on viruses are. I don't know who you are or what your background is, but I'm assuming you know quite a bit about cancer. Thus I ask you in a spirit of open dialogue and common purpose (being to convey pertinent information on cancer to the public) the following question: do you suppose that peer-reviewed studies (of which presently there are well over two dozen) which have established a nexus between mycoplasma and cancer is not relevant, but information on cancer viruses are? Are you aware that mycoplasma are among the smallest prokaryotes and that they also resemble virus-like phases and display filter-passing forms? How then isn't this information extremely relevant to a discussion on cancer? It doesn't take a brilliant mind to see there might very well be a nexus between viruses, bacteria and cancer. But unfortunately, you only feel that one part of this equation is okay in an encyclopedia article on cancer, but the other is not. May I ask you sir or madam, what is it that disturbs or upsets you about a discussion on cancer bacteria? Do you feel that your deletions hurt, or help progess in better understanding this horrible disease we are all trying to learn a little more about? Can you please reply? —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|Ronsword 15:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)]] comment was added by Ronsword (talk • contribs) 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Please await reactions on Talk:Cancer and don't bother me here. What disturbs me is firstly your inability to distinguish between established and tentative research, and secondly your lack of cooperation - you keep on inserting your material without prior discussion on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 17:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why have the peer-reviewed published study references been removed regarding mycoplasma fermentans and cancer? Why do you deem it appropriate to allow paragraphs on cancer viruses, but not virus-like bacteria? Could you please explain this? You seem to keep avoiding this question.

You can edit and delete me all you wish, but I'm not going away until this information is given a fair and partial review. Have a wonderful weekend —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|Ronsword 18:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)]] comment was added by Ronsword (talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

They were removed because not every theory needs to be given airtime on a very high-profile page. Some people attribute cancer to aliens from outer space. Where do we draw the line? I think mycoplasma fermentans is below the notability horizon.

This information will be given a fair and impartial review on Talk:Cancer. I suggest you adopt a measured tone and calmly explain on that page why you think this admittedly controversial theory should be addded. JFW | T@lk 19:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cholesterol

Hi, I would be glad to move my comments on the lipid hypothesis to the relevant page, which you said is is hypercholesterolemia, which you mention should be on the "criticism" section. But I can't find a "criticism" section on either of those. Would you give me the proper WP link, and I'll move the text there, from the cholesterol article.Gekritzl 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Replying on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 17:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Perhaps I'm not going to be good at NPOV additions to this article right now, as I've gone through Dr. Keys' work and noticed, like others, the data has been "hand picked" to artificially create the famous corellation (he had detailed data on studies from 22 countries; why did he only offer the "cholesterol proof" for data from 6 countries?). Let me sit back a few days and try to contribute again, restore the historical material from NPOV, and note that there is currently controversy (while citing studies from both sides). Question, though: you said I went "quite far in quoting evidence to debunk his work" but it seems that is a complaint for too much "proof". Had I put only one citation, someone probably would have deleted it immediately as not being suffiently cited. I'm interested in your opinion on this. How many citations are too few, how many are too many, is there a "just right" number of them? Thanks. :) Gekritzl 19:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, it seems we're in agreement now - to present highly regarded, referred sources from both sides, along with the history of the research and publications. I'll take it as a challenge to do this while retaining NPOV. I have esteemed friends (surgeons, physicians, dieticians) who agree that Keys was in error, and moreover that statins are very dangerous, so it's a little difficult for me to stay totally NPOV but I will do my best. Thanks again. Gekritzl 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's very conforting to know others also see how difficult it is to maintain NPOV, thank you. Again, I'll make an attempt here, then maybe just let it go, and do like you mentioned - stay away from pages where I might have a conflict of interest.Gekritzl 20:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Lipid hypothesis redux

Looks like you've got your hands full, but your input might be useful at Talk:Lipid hypothesis. That article really should have been deleted as a POV fork... MastCell ^Talk 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

blocking vandal(s) of Samuel de Champlain

jfdwolf, I saw your recent sprotected on Talk:muscle and i've got three questions for you, if you have time:

• This is my first request for a block, so could you point me at the right policy pages regarding requesting a block?
• a user that appears in good standing, Zweinstein (talk · contribs), claims this vandalous ip, 216.8.139.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), is a static IP that belongs to him and his family, and that it was his brother that was vandalizing Samuel de Champlain, and that he spoke with him and concluded that the brother would continue to vandalize. An old comment on my user page. a) can we temp block the anonymous IP from editing without blocking Zweinstein? b) is this sufficient for a block of an IP? There have been 2 vandalisms from this account that I can see in the record, so perhaps we should first place some sort of warning on the IP talk page? I already did an ipwelcome
• Regardless of this particular spammer, on the Samuel de Champlain page we've had more vandalism/revisions by a number of IP's since april 1st than we've had real edits. Can we put a temporary sprotected status on it?
  • And that might be just pushing the problem over to someone else or another page, so I also listed the IP's that might need a slap on the wrists here (or here if it gets edited)
• Thanks. -- Jethero^Talk 03:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Found Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection and requested sprotected for Samuel_de_Champlain. Thanks for your time Jethero^Talk 04:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your post. Good you've found the solution. Let me know if you need any further assistance. JFW | T@lk 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi again. The sprotected request was denied by Alison because there was not enough vandalism (only 37 reverts since april 1st). I made sure to 'welcome' and 'uw-vandalism' each of the IP's in question so far. So the lack of sprotection turns me off wanting to monitor it for further vandalism...is there anything else we can do, or just welcome and warn? Jethero^Talk 06:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, it's awfully boring. I presume the vandalism is from different IPs? JFW | T@lk 06:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, 19 different IPs if I recall correctly. Different types of changes, most of them juvenile, some a more sophisticated sequence of 3 changes which leave an 'authentic' editor or BOT 'reverting' a change that leaves an error in a date unless they are careful. Yes, boring. Jethero^Talk 05:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tachanun

There is never Tachanun on days with Musaf. Also, the change which you made is not considered minor. See the definition of a minor change at Help:Minor edit. Davidyonah 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, of course. I mixed up Tachanun with Hallel. JFW | T@lk 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

How do you expose a sockpuppet?Mmoneypenny 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Wait... don't tell me... they expose themselves!? All the best.Mmoneypenny 16:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 05:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Parkinson's Disease

I was testing you solely to see if, when somebody followed all the correct procedures, you were capable of rational and objective discussion. You proved that the answer is obviously no. You could provide no prevalence data in support of your contention. You could provide no scientific rationale. There is none. You were repeatedly asked if the same very low standards for inclusion can be applied to all medical disorders. Of course this would mean that diabetes, hypothyroidiam, even leprosy could all be described as Parkinson's Disease symptoms. So you dodged the question in order to make the obvious inconsistency very apparent.

The average Wikipedia article gets less than 20 visitors per month. The alternative Parkinson's Disease web site, banned without reason on Wikipedia, now gets thousands of visitors per month. That is despite not being affiliated to any large organisation. That means that statistically it is very likely that it is getting far far more visitors than Wikipedia's useless Parkinson's Disease article. It is referred to on all the Parkinson's Disease Forums. The Wikipedia article is not referred to on any of them, simply because it isn't any good. The article is even worse that it was a year ago. Because of you, it is going backwards and deteriorating.

The article is added to either by childish vandals, or by people that like you clearly don't know the subject. That is why it is so poor. Yet you cling on to whatever is there for no apparent reason apart from that it's already there. I have been puzzled as to why you would want to do this. My conclusion is that you don't want to feel that what little you know is not right. If it's in your very basic text book on your bookshelf then it must be true according to you. This is despite most general medical textbooks being full of fallacies and inadequacies concerning Parkinson's Disease. You suffer greatly from conservatism and intolerance. You can not stand being contradicted, esepcially when you are wrong. It's too stressful for you. So you try to shut up or eliminate anyone that proves you to be wrong. It's really irrational behaviour. You have added to the Tojo list dozens of editors that are not actually anything to do with me. You use it as a spurious excuse to shut up anyone you don't agree with.

The first priority is supposed to be the reader. However, your first priority, as is unfortunately the case with many editors, is your ego that you put above everything. You clearly have no regard for the readers. On many occasions you have deleted information solely out of resentment or because it makes you feel as if what you know is wrong. Consequently, the article will continue to be badly written, until you no longer have anything to do with it. --Godzilla Gorilla 10:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to tell you. You are banned for your complete inability to cooperate with other editors. You could be a Nobel Prize winner for all I care. Further posts here by any of your unwashed sockpuppets will be deleted. JFW | T@lk 10:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You've got a "fan"

This guy, a newly created account, is running around reverting your edits. Just a heads-up since you don't have a watchlist - you may want to look at his contribs to survey the damage. Seems likely to be a sockpuppet of someone you've crossed paths with before. MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. JFW | T@lk 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Halakhic - sp?

I'm trying to determine if the adjective "Halakhic" should be capitalized when not at the beginning of a sentence. Both the Jew and Halakha articles are internally inconsistent on this point.--Steven J. Anderson 23:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Our friend

Hi there, our boring friend is reverting changes to pages I have made, under the following user names: Maurice Whyte, Rastamana, LDV17 Since I'm not an admin would you mind telling me how to block these? Ta muchly. Mmoneypenny 19:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC) PS. None of these users have, of course, told me that they are the same boring guy but they are all new single article edit accounts and have that funny smell about them!Mmoneypenny 20:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Couple more (vandalism of user page): TTT6, JorgeBouche. If I should go somewhere else with these or just ignore the poor wee fella please say so. Cheers.Mmoneypenny 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying Hello, Asking for your interest:

Hey, I saw your name on the Harmonious Editing Club page (great idea BTW).

I'm an Australian research student from Sydney currently writing my thesis on collaborative online communities and wikipedia is one of my case studies. As such I am looking to interview wikipedians for my research.

As someone involving extensively in editing and also in organisations like the harmonious editing club, i was wondering if you'd be interested in being interviewed (via email) for my research?

The interview can be done anytime between now and june, via email, and anonymity is ensured by the University's ethics standards.

Would love to know if you're interested, and would love to interview you if you have the time. Please let me know on my talk page or email me.

tamsin 07:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to participate. Please email me with the necessary details. JFW | T@lk 15:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish descent" versus Jew

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 09:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

sockpuppets?

Looks like User:Robin 1000 and User:LDV17 (a user you had blocked recently) are sockpuppets of a banned user from their edits to Botulinum toxin. Could you please check? Thanks. TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:TOJO, who is going around reverting Mmoneypenny's edits. I have blocked Robin 1000. JFW | T@lk 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Statins

Hello there JFW. I notice you've been a major contributor and voice of reason at the statin article, and I've got a question for you.

Kyoko (talk · contribs) has raised an interesting point on Template talk:PAH rx regarding the use of simvastatin in treating pulmonary hypertension. It's currently in Phase I–II trials at Imperial College London, and a quick PubMed search suggests there might be something interesting here. Do you think this merits inclusion in the simvastatin (or statin) article, or is it too soon/not relevant enough? Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I generally oppose inclusion of phase I and II trials unless they have received very significant media coverage (e.g. the Northwick Park incident). JFW | T@lk 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and keep an eye on how things pan out. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Free time

We should talk about peer reviewed publications. I will formalize some stuff (may take some time) that NCurse and I spoke about, and send to you -- Samir 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still sitting on something that Berci sent me. When I'm done with my night shift I will examine it in greater detail. I agree we should go ahead with this. JFW | T@lk 01:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Upchuck

Thanks for the advice--I've done as you recommended :) Cheers! Wysdom 03:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 17	23 April 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator goes rogue, is blocked	Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized	Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war	Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time	WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Inflammation

Hi Jfdwolff, just thought you might like to know that the page for Inflammation is looking a little healthier... -- Serephine ♠ talk - 13:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin help

Hi Dr. Wolff: There is a mix-up going on, see User talk:Hmains#Duplicate category?. The guy is screwing things up. IZAK 09:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Please take this to WP:ANI. Is he running an undeclared bot? That is a blockable offense. In any case, he seems to be doing this unilaterally to other religions (e.g. Hinduism) without trying to obtain consensus. JFW | T@lk 15:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

COPD

I replied to the comment you left on Talk:COPD and would be interested to hear your views on the issue since it doesn't appear to have attracted much attention from anyone else. Thanks --Scot^t 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

chronic fatigue

I copy-edited chronic fatigue syndrome from the beginning through the first couple of sentences of section 8.5.4 ("depression.") For the most part my purpose was to clean the article up. If I accidentally introduced any POV then please edit further. As for the {{POV-check}} tag, as I may have mentioned on my own talk page, I think it's far better looking than the "warning" posted by another editor working on the article; I myself do not think that it's POV. Indeed, I feel the article is close to meeting GA criteria and at this point it probably needs copy-editing more than anything else. 69.140.164.142 06:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Haredi rabbis

What year was this term invented? The fact is the Vilna Gaon was also a haredi. With the arrival of Reform and all the others maybe the term orthodox has become obsolete. It seems to me that non-haredi rabbis should now be considered "modern orthodox" as Orthodox and haredi seem to be the same thing?! Chesdovi 10:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,

may I ask you to take a look on the Antidepressant article, specifically on the section on Tolerance and dependance, please?
I did pose the question about its objectivity and my concerns on the factual or academic support for such claims, that I personally find inappropriate to be an accepted part of an article dealing with medication on the discussion page; however, I'm not a psychiatrist, nor a pharmacologue or physician, so I don't feel too familiar in the subject.
Could you, or some other expert in the field of medicine on Wiki take a look on this particular section? It seems quite a lot a bunch of unsourced pseudo-antipsychiatry claims; if the "addictive potential" of common antidepressant drugs was so obvious and well-known, woudln't there be red and black bold warnings all around the packings, patient informations, not speaking of expert medical sources? Far as I know, the only antidepressant drug following ATC with primary addictive potential is amineptine, with some distinct intrinsic psychostimulant and euphorisant effects. Neither SSRIs, nor other major AD classes are known to cause addiction, dependency or even the tolerance towards therapeutic effects that is mentioned. Thank you in advance.--Spiperon 13:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, OK, I'll move the paragraph by C-P onto the discussion page; should I left the section in article or not? For first, I'll leave it in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spiperon (talk • contribs) 06:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Quick ask?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ophthalmology#Correction_to_Eye_Injury_please.3F as you contributed to the article and may feel qualified to alter it. --BozMo talk 08:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not leaving an edit summary

Sorry for not leaving an edit summary also i included the list because people may want to know --Java7837 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

CFS article

I left a comment in the "forking" section (with the requested suggestions at the end). I am interested in your feedback regarding forking and what I should do with the research I would like to add to the article. - Tekaphor 11:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A "new" category that is not new.

Hi Dr. Wolff, Gut Voch: I have a question. I have just come across Category:Jewish diaspora, which someone claimed was a "new" category, but unbeknownst to him when he created it as "new" in July 2006 [3], the category was actually voted for deletion in October 2005, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16#Category:Jewish diaspora. What is the procedure in such a case? Can it be automatically deleted or does it need to be resubmitted all over again? Thanks for your help. IZAK 10:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would it need to be deleted? I agree it is quite a meaningless category, but it could be useful if its inclusion criteria are carefully delineated. JFW | T@lk 15:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Rambam vs. Ramban

Dear Jfdwolff,

Please see Talk:Maimonides#Rambam_vs._Ramban and add your feedback as necessary.

Regards,

Iampayam 08:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of votes

Just hoping to pick up some deletionist support: (one, two). Biruitorul 01:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, although I would have advised a quick word to the author first to explain your considerations. JFW | T@lk 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Coeliac archive

Do you think it is time to archive some of Talk:Coeliac disease? Perhaps everything before 2007? I also wondered about the benefit of having a prominent message at the top regarding the name issue. It could link to the previous (archived) discussion. Colin°^Talk 18:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Most of the old discussion was in the days before FA. JFW | T@lk 19:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)