User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 23

Pyroluria
Hi JFD, as a doctor, would you have any knowledge about this condition. Is this regarded in conventional medicine? thanks 66.250.99.149 18:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

vechulu? --66.250.99.149 21:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Camman, cant you answer me or refer me to some other doctor or place


 * Sorry, I simply passed the buck and posted a message on this page. One of my colleages found a useful resource that he posted on Talk:Pyroluria. I have now incorporated it in the article itself.
 * Basically, pyroluria is a diagnosis from the realm of orthomolecular medicine. It basically means a group of particular chemical (pyroles) is present in the urine, and it interferes with the metabolism of particular nutrients. All sounds very legit. Problematically, only two papers in the "regular" medical literature have touched on pyroluria, and the last one is 20 years ago. If someone has made this "diagnosis" in you, you may want to find a different healthcare provider who practices proper medicine. Vedo"k. JFW | T@lk  13:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. and thanks for the additional clarifications on that page. shana tova. --66.250.99.149 18:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Indef block of User:Gerard Doyle
Greetings. Gerard has sent an email to unblock-en-l complaining that he didn't do anything wrong and isn't anyone's sockpuppet. On review of his contributions and the block message, I see no sign that he is in fact causing any abuse case.

Can you please provide the supporting information as to why you feel his account was a sockpuppet of General Tojo? Did you have a checkuser run or other info which isn't evident in the initial review?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Following the old "george bush is Bulgarian" spiel on PD talk page I am now convinced Gerard Doyle is GT. Why has there been such a long time getting the checkuser to come back to us do you think? Also I notice the PD page has been unprotected again. Think we may have to be vigilant once more... --PaulWicks 10:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Medication standardization
I started a discussion on the standardization of medication articles in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medication#Drugs_and_brand_names. If you have time and ideas, please join :) Sensei 10:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thalassemia question
Hello, I saw that you were quite learned about thalassemia on its talk page and I thought I'd take advantage of this opertunity and ask you a few questions on thalassemia. I have thalassemia minor (from my father's side)and I was wondering what this means to my life (will I get sick more often etc.) and I does it mean I have less endourence and get tired more quickly? Thanks for your time. AS Artimour 02:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the anaemia in β-thal minor is very mild, and generally no symptoms are to be expected. However, your blood count will show a low mean corpuscular volume (the red blood cells are smaller), which is compensated with the production of more RBCs. JFW | T@lk  20:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would add that you should consider genetic counselling from a haematologist or clinical geneticist if you are planning to have any children.--Gak 10:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

vWD
Hi Jfw, thanks for your comments. I am not a haematologist, nor do I have any paid access to journals, I'm just a PubMed junkie with a special interest in genetics. I am in the slow process of rating and updating all articles on the Medical Genetics project, and the genetics of vWD is one of the articles I hope to work on in time. I will keep my eyes peeled for recent developments in this field. --apers0n 21:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Psychosis FAR
The WP:FAR process changed recently: we now have a two-week review period, during which time the article will hopefully improve, followed by a two-week FARC period, when your vote will count. Your current vote doesn't count. Here's a doozie that needs attention, too: Featured article candidates/Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. I'm concerned that it was even granted GA: uncited, speculative, uncomprehensive, and uses poor sources. We need a better medical peer review process :-) Sandy 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We need more psychology/psychiatry editors. I know only the medical basics of psychiatry and rarely venture into those topics. With some help the psychosis article will improve, but presently I think FA status is totally unsupportable.
 * Medical peer review is not the answer. We need qualified editors first and foremost. I can review that article until I'm blue in the face, but I will not be able to distinguish between seminal papers and irrelevant writings without at least some background knowledge.
 * Psychosis incidentally also needs a better neuroscience angle - are there any fMRI/PET images available? JFW | T@lk  21:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know: I'm just a layperson who happens to know all of the Tourette syndrome research - including which is seminal and which is junk - thoroughly, and have picked up a lot of ADHD and other comorbid condition knowledge along the way.  I know enough to know that the Psychosis, Schizophrenia, and Autism articles are in very bad shape, and I just keep plugging away, hoping a good psychology/psychiatry editor will appear someday on Wiki.  And, I miss Encephalon!  Sandy 22:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Encephalon is an odd fellow. Works really hard for a while and then vanishes for weeks. Some people wiki like that. Sure makes us realise when he's not around!

We really need some psychiatrists to help out. Sadly, a potential I was developing rapidly got hounded out the building by editors with an antipsychiatry agenda. JFW | T@lk  22:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone I've not encountered before is at work on Psychosis. The antipsychiatry movement is formidable, but I'm persistent. Please ping me if you ever need help. Sandy 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I trust Vaughan implicitly (he has kept schizophrenia sane, no small feat) and Rmky87 has done some very good pharmacology work. Those boys can be relied upon to fix psychosis. JFW | T@lk  22:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * whew - thanks! Sandy 22:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done some rearranging and citing and got X + 1, X > 0 "no references whatsoever here" tags removed, we now have a history section cobbled together from other stuff, the "CBT is G-r-r-r-reat!!! for psychosis" piece of junk is now removed (I could really only see this working for people who don't believe everything they think and just need help not exacerbating the entire thing through stress) and there are now 49 citations. I don't think looking up Thomas Szasz without hurting something, possibly the laptop and/or other people's eardrums, though.--Rmky87 02:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S.:"Boys"? Um, I didn't think the hypertestosteronemia was that bad! And in answer to the inevitable, "what have you been doing not working on this?", the answer is something like, "I was literally too stupid to know what to do with this. And had absolutely no balls whatsoever. Argh.--Rmky87 02:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * JFW, here is Dr. Phelp's Bipolar II: Guidelines for Health Care Providers, created especially for nonpsychiatric doctors, specifically those practicing in areas where all the psychiatrists are booked up to their eyeballs and who are smart enough to know that not all depression are of the "clear up on the very first antidepressant persuasion." It's not the entire DSM, but it's a start. I don't know if I can keep this from getting FARCed, but I'll at least make it easier to get it refeatured.--Rmky87 03:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Constipation diagnosis, definition etc.
Dear Doctor,

You have removed edits to the constipation page with the explanation that the page is not about IBS.

Part of the edits you removed simply added information about stool form as diagnostic for constipation. Please explain why this information should not be part of the diagnosis portion of the constipation page.

Also, I understand that it would be inappropriate to dominate the page on constipation with discussions of IBS or other health problems of which constipation is a part. However, chronic constipation associated with abdominal discomfort IS the definition of IBS. This information should be part of a discussion of constipation so that those seeking information about constipation can fully understand it. Please explain why you think this is not so.


 * I'm sorry if I removed generic material not limited to IBS. Constipation is extremely common, and commonly caused by IBS, but the subjects should be seperate. I disagree fully with the assertion that constipation + dyscomfort equals IBS. Constipation due to immobilisation, low-fibre diet, hypothyroidism or hypercalcaemia will also be uncomfortable. The diagnosis into the causes is predominantly clinical; if you want to introduce diagnostic tools to seperate the causes then that's fine. But chronic constipation is not the same as IBS. JFW | T@lk  20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Doctor: I am sorry to disagree with you, but the ROME III paper on Functional GI Disorders specifically states that: "C1. Diagnostic Criteria* for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Recurrent abdominal pain or discomfort** at least 3 days per month in the last 3 months associated with 2 or more of the following: 1. Improvement with defecation 2. Onset associated with a change in frequency of stool 3. Onset associated with a change in form (appearance) of stool clinical trials, a pain/discomfort frequency of at least 2 days a week during screening evaluation for subject eligibility." (GASTROENTEROLOGY 2006;130:1480–1491)
 * Criteria fulfilled for the last 3 months with symptom onset at least 6 months prior to diagnosis.
 * Discomfort means an uncomfortable sensation not described as pain. In pathophysiology research and

Which I think directly contradicts your statement. I think the problem is that IBS is not a cause. IBS is a group of symptoms that are not known to have any specific cause. The definition of IBS is chronic constipation with discomfort or pain.


 * Very good - so every person who meets these criteria automatically has IBS? This is why these guidelines are written for doctors and not for the public. You are correct that IBS is a functional disorder and that its cause is poorly understood. But the criteria are to be employed by healthcare professionals who - in the course of their contact with the patient - also consider the numerous other causes for constipation. Someone with acute intermittent porphyria may well exhibit constipation and synchronous abdominal pain, and may even get misdiagnosed with IBS! See my point? JFW | T@lk  21:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Doctor: Clearly IBS diagnosis guidelines call for the physician to exclude other obvious causes. However, the wikipedia article on constipation should include information on the fact that chronic constipation with pain, not explained by other organic disease, is IBS. Wouldn't you agree? Perhaps you would like to write the portion of the article in a manner that is both informative and contains the limitations you correctly identify? And while you are at it, would you be so kind as to add back the section you cut containing information on stool forms being diagnostic of constipation with the reference? Or shall I? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.11.69.198 (talk • contribs).


 * I don't want to be even partially responsible for people with a health problem trying to self-diagnose. It would be rather sad if someone diagnosed himself with CP-IBS only to find out years later that an important medical diagnosis had been missed. I have no objection to some elaboration on the functional causes of constipation, as these are very common indeed.
 * With regards to the definition of constipation - I think there are many more much better primary references available (e.g. medical textbooks, journal reviews) rather than a popular work on... IBS! JFW | T@lk  22:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Doctor: I am not following your thinking very well. Why have wiki articles about any health condition at all if not to give information about them? Any information at all can lead to ignorant persons trying to self-diagnose. Why not remove all the articles about influenza, the common cold, etc. to prevent people from self diagnosing when they have a more serious and treatable condition? This goes to the heart of the wiki philosophy - should information be free or should doctors like you censor factually accurate information because you think it could be harmful. Of course the information provided should include the caveat that non-medical professionals should not attempt to self-diagnose. But given that doctors vary widely in skill, knowledge, and communication ability shouldn't people be able to seek additional information. Why not on wikipedia? Who gets to decide what information is too dangerous for the public?


 * You've misunderstood me and I need not be lectured about wiki philosophy. All I want you to do is stop trying to suggest that constipation + pain must be due to IBS. That is simply incorrect. Otherwise the page can contain as much relevant information as you want. JFW | T@lk  07:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Move requests
Hi, doctor. I have three more requests for your that I believe are uncontroversial. Would you mind moving Retinal Pigment Epithelium to Retinal pigment epithelium and Bates Method to Bates method per Manual of Style (headings)? Could you also move Automated refractor to Autorefractor per the reasoning in Talk:Automated refractor? "Autorefractor" is commonly used where "Automated refractor" is uncommonly used. I know this can be time consuming for you, so I really do appreciate your efforts. Thanks again! -AED 04:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, again! -AED 14:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Help request
Hi Jfd. I've been working on balanitis xerotica obliterans for some time, and would like to get it to featured article standards. I was wondering whether you, or another medical professional you might know, could help? Thanks, Jakew 18:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would post such a request on WP:CLINMED, the doctors' hangout. The article looks very good. I would discourage linking to PubMed abstracts using the URL function of cite journal. Instead, I would suggest using id=PMID 12345678, which links automatically. JFW | T@lk  20:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do that. Jakew 20:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Doctor's mess
Thanks for your invite to the "doctor's mess". Yes, I am an infectious diseases specialist based in the UK. A commitment to Wiki forces me to review the literature and perhaps make some useful contributions that involve something a bit more than cutting and pasting bits that are already available on other parts of the internet. I try to restrict myself to things I consider myself an expert rather than wittering on about other parts of medicine on which my knowledge is far more superficial. --Gak 10:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Headache article
Hi, Jfd,

I just edited the treatment section on the Headache article to remove some vandalism. Someone had inserted "just get laid more." I'm sure there's info somewhere about how to report the vandal, but I'm on a publishing deadline and need to get back to work. Thought I'd mention it to you. Here's the entry from the history page that applies to the edit with the vandalism: 10:45, 2 October 2006 24.128.172.240 (Talk) (→Treatment)

--TeriRobert 16:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. The vandal seems to have made no further damage. Well done for spotting that and fixing it. Vandalism in progress gives some links for vandalism management, but generally works only for more prolific vandals. I tend to ignore vandals when they only do 2-3 vandalisms. JFW |  T@lk  19:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, JFW! Some people really need to find something to occupy their little minds. :-) It's bound to be difficult to do much about vandalism with only an IP address to go on.

--TeriRobert 20:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They could occupy their little minds by actually improving articles! There's been several attempts to block editing by anons, but so far we've been able to avoid that draconian step. JFW | T@lk  20:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article
– ClockworkSoul 21:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow - I see you've already started. Holy cow - you're fast! – ClockworkSoul 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Anaerobic metabolism? That's another article the needs some serious love. However, I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned, at least. – ClockworkSoul 21:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Bolding non-TOC headers
Regarding diabetes mellitus, I wonder why you bolded the subheaders prefixed with a semicolon. In the standard stylesheet, these are already bolded, and there should be no need to add additional markup. JFW | T@lk  22:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oooh! Very interesting. On Firefox for PC, I wasn't seeing bold(ness) in those headers. Let me try to get a screencap of the prev version. jengod 00:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As promised, screencap: Image:Semicolonsboldingetc.png Sorry to be causing the trouble! :) jengod 00:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is what I see in the source code:

 Acute   Main articles: Diabetic ketoacidosis, Nonketotic hyperosmolar coma , Hypoglycemia , and Diabetic coma

   Diabetic ketoacidosis</dt> </dl> <a href="/wiki/Diabetic_ketoacidosis" title="Diabetic ketoacidosis">Diabetic ketoacidosis</a> (DKA) is an acute, dangerous complication and is always a <a href="/wiki/Medical_emergency" title="Medical emergency">medical emergency</a>. On presentation at hospital, the patient in DKA is typically dehydrated and breathing both fast and deeply. Abdominal pain is common and may be severe. The level of consciousness is normal until late in the process, when lethargy (dulled or reduced level of alertness or consciousness) may progress to coma. The ketoacidosis can become severe enough to cause <a href="/wiki/Hypotension" title="Hypotension">hypotension</a> and <a href="/wiki/Shock" title="Shock">shock</a>. Prompt proper treatment usually results in full recovery, though death can result from inadequate treatment, delayed treatment or from a variety of complications. It is much more common in type 1 diabetes than type 2, but can still occur in patients with type 2 diabetes.

<dl> <dt>Nonketotic hyperosmolar coma</dt> </dl>

Hope that helps! :) jengod 18:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Metformin
Sorry to bother you with this, but I believe you've contributed a bit to the metformin article, and a somewhat disturbing situation has arisen on the talk page: On Aug 29th, someone added this comment. I responded (in hindsight, probably a mistake), and now, 63.226.201.249 has added this. Long story short: I know it's bad form to remove others' comments, but I found this line of discussion disturbing and off-topic. Can I delete, or would this be a Wikiquette violation? Thanks, and sorry again. Feel free to respond on my talk. Fvasconcellos 01:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your help. I also couldn't tell the point of the question, and thought it best to err on the side of caution. Still, some things have no place in an encyclopedia... Fvasconcellos 13:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Categorizations on Medical articles
Re your reverts of my posts--- As I read the guidelines, categorizations linking several subjects together are encouraged. E.g., the same ischemic cascade that works in stroke also operates in MI and they all seem to involve reactive oxygen species, etc. Same with, e.g., hyperuricemia and the Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, e.g.. It is true that I was trained as a pathologist and a clinical pharmacologist. So my orientation is likely more to the basic science and mechanistic aspects of disease processes. Pproctor 16:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, sorry about the revert on Uric acid.  I did not realize that you had reverted my changes and thought that I had just missed this page and so did not check the history.  Usually,  I do not revert without discussing the issue first. Pproctor 16:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your comments: AstraZenica is probably going to market soon with the antistroke drug NXY-059, which is nearing the end of its clinical trials-- final results out in a month or so. Promising results of the first trial were in NEJM a few months ago. This is a free-radical-scavenging neuroprotectant nitrone, which works on the free radical component of the ischaemic cascade. Basically tissues go bad only by a few narrow pathways. I have been following this agent for some time.

Likewise, uric acid is the dominant antioxidant in the extracellular space,  is responsible for over 50% of plasma antioxidant power and may actually be the main natural neuroprotectant in stroke. There is even a clinical trial, last I heard.

Conversely, by participating in redox cycling,  uric acid can also mediate free radical oxidations (as can the enzyme-- Xanthine oxidase-- that makes it). Superoxide dismutase is even effective in the treatment of hyperuricemia in Dalmatian dogs. Not to mention some direct evidence of oxidative stress in Lesch-Nyhans.

BTW, there has been a recent suggestion that oxidative stress may also explain the association between metabolic syndrome and hyperuricemia. So there are two camps-- one that says that UA is primarily a protective antioxidant and another that says it causes oxidative stress. Personally, I do not know, but in the interest of NPOV,  report both camps. Pproctor 17:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * More on oxidative stress in LNS at E.g., here,here and here.


 * Also see: "A Causal Role for Uric acid in Fructose-induced Metabolic Syndrome"


 * Uric acid: "A new look at an old risk marker for cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes mellitus: The urate redox shuttle" Pproctor 18:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You said: "I reverted because it was obvious that you were doing something that would need to be undone at some point, and I explained those reverts instantaneously on your talkpage. What does surprise me is that you've proceeded along exactly the same lines on Lesch-Nyhan syndrome despite my explanations. I hope this was unintentional. JFW | T@lk  17:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)"


 * I reply: Uh,  Sorry.   In a belated response to some nagging "categorization-needed" tags and after a reading of the guidelines,  I have been going through some relevant pages.  Bit of a chore,  really.   Apparently,  as fast as I could post, you were simultaneously reverting, well before I could read your comments. Here in Texas,  we call this "Quick on the Draw".


 * Naturally, you can have it your way-- I DO NOT engage in edit or reversion wars.  Complete waste of time and destroys the fun of this.   Was intending to set up the relevant categories as soon as I figured out which ones needed setting up.Pproctor 17:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dr Allen
Thanks for blocking. For what it's worth, is almost certainly the same person. And I'm fairly sure that I have encountered other incarnations with exactly the same m.o. (adding some usefull info plus persistent efforts to include a link to a website called [drugname]resources.com) at other drug articles, but I can't recall which ones at the moment. Deli nk

DM intro length
I have removed the tag from DM's talk page. I think that it's now vastly better. Cheers, Storkk 01:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think it would have been better to keep it on the article's main page, where it belongs... but that's history. No worries, and thanks for any help you gave (I haven't checked the history to see who cut it down) resolving the problem, Storkk 01:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Sukkot
As the holiday of Sukkos is rapidly approaching, I took a look at the "Sukkot" article. I was astonished to find therein an outrageous reference to the holiday as: "Feast of --?"

It seems to me that what Wikipedia refers to as vandalism, in this case defamatory antisemitism, should be deleted immediately. I would aver that the reproduction of such defamatory remarks on the "talk" page is not a sufficient remedy; accordingly, I plan to delete the defamitory language.

I would appreciate your support in keeping this offensive language from site.

--Lance6968 02:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Be bold, I'd say. I don't normally refactor talkpages unless the attacks are specific. In this case it was just boring vandalism. The main article was fixed fairly soon after it was vandalised. I do agree that we should keep nivul peh on Wikipedia to a minimum. JFW | T@lk  07:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Asbestosis References
SeanMack recently tagged the Asbestosis article for lack of references. I've tried to help out here, but would appreciate your opinion / suggestions for better refs. Regards Wikityke 18:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Protein structure images
Hey... I have noticed that you have added protein structure images to quite a lot of articles... However I find your space filling pictures hard to grasp. I think it would be more informative if you used the "cartoon" option instead. Something like this is prettier and more informative: Kjaergaard 22:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. Please list which images bother you and I will redraw them using the cartoon feature. JFW | T@lk  22:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

SBS needs help
Hey, I don't know if you're the right person to come to about this, but I noticed that the Shaken baby syndrome page is in need of some serious help. There's one IP that's very passionate about questioning the validity of the diagnosis that's edited the page more than 50 times since yesterday, and I think seriously compromising the integrity of the article (look). I left a note on their talk page. Unfortunately, I haven't had much time to be involved in the project lately. I know you've edited the article in the past and you're not afraid to put the smackdown. Let me know what I can do if anything. Peace,delldot | talk 16:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I reads fairly well, actually. There may be some NPOV issues but I'm much more worried about the new editor's poor grasp of cite.php. JFW | T@lk  22:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I spent some considerable time sorting out the refs (the number of url inline links failled to match the number of manually maintained references) and placed teh whole lot into cite.php. 70.171.229.32 has reverted this twice back to "their" version without edit summary explanation or talk page discussion (just posted unsigned unpleasant initial accusation at me see User talk:Davidruben) and now instructs me to leave the page alone ! David Ruben Talk 00:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Laitman is back
Hello Dr. Wolff. A Gutten Mo'ed: Someone has repasted the Michael Laitman article after it was voted for deletion in July '06. I have put it in WP:PROD for deletion, but in fact, the one who has now reproduced it should have first taken it to Deletion review which he did not. See the discussion at Talk:Michael Laitman. Thanks. IZAK 05:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see someone speedied it. Good. JFW | T@lk  12:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


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 16:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Immune System
Hi JFD- I have been working to improve the state of the Immune System, and it seems to be pretty much just me (and the ubiquitous vandals)over there, and thus I have gotten very little real feedback, suggestions and the like. I noticed that you have contributed to a lot of science articles and actually suggested a great outline for the Immune System article, which I found really helpful and pretty much followed.

Since it is really just me out there, would you mind taking a look at it? Let me know what you think. Also, I am not really sure what to do with the references. I don't think the article would be improved by linking every other statement to either ref 1 or ref 2, but I am not sure how this situation fits into the Wikipedia Guidelines?

If there is a more appropriate place to solicit a review I would be happy to take my request where ever you think might be better. Cheers--DO11.10 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally reference heavily, even if there are only a few main sources. The article looks very good for an overview. All it needs is the relevant sub-articles to be linked properly. JFW | T@lk  16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks you for taking the time to review the page (an for your kind words). I will go through and reference, per the guidelines. I have one question, how should I cite information that I got directly form another Wikipedia article, if no primary source is listed?


 * Also, I am not sure what you mean "linking to relevant sub-articles". Currently Innate Immune system and Adaptive Immune system (and permutations) redirect to Immune System, should I sub out the information on the main page to those pages (remove the redirect) and link to that from the main Immune System page? Is that what you mean? Thanks very much for your help--DO11.10 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Shaken Baby
RE: References - citations -

I copied the following instructions for listing citations from an AMA web site.

How should an article be cited? An article should be cited using the citation of the final published version. Readers should refer to the final published version when citing the literature because the published version is the fully redacted version of record

70.171.229.32 21:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk  16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Category vote
Hi Dr. Wolff: Please provide your view at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10. Good Mo'ed. Thank you. IZAK 04:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Have no preference here. JFW | T@lk  16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Feingold diet
Hi!

We need a few second opinions on the Feingold diet page. It started out as a crib from QuackWatch, and was re-written by Shula and me. It's now pretty much in the Feingold camp. What we need is some fresh eyes to get it encyclopedic and balanced. Hope you can help. --Slashme 07:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm rather busy at the moment, but the article looks fairly NPOV at face value. JFW | T@lk  16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote to delete Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)
I have written the following to the nominator:

Meshulam: You should avoid this kind of move (the hasty nomination to delete Articles for deletion/Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)) because it's a slippery slope and could lead to the nomination for and deletion of similar articles about smaller Hasidic dynasties - by people who are not experts and don't care - with unintended consequences. Votes to delete are open to the world and you are inviting people who have no idea what this topic is about at all to cast a vote, which is very unfair and lacking insight. It seems that you may have been better off trying to add a merge to template or considered MERGING the material at some point perhaps and WAITED (at least a month!) to do so. You should also have first started a discussion at a number of places where people who know something about this topic could have given their intelligent input, such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia talk:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. Or you could have contacted other editors who deal with topics like this to solicit their views. This action of your is extreme and I do not condone it. I urge you to withdraw this nomination. Thank you. (I am cross-posting this message on a couple of relevant places, to get people's attention.) IZAK 10:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect some small Hasidic dynasties may not be encyclopedic (e.g. <200 members, little public impact). JFW | T@lk  16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding Satmar naming confusion, can you help?
Hi Dr. Wolff: Perhaps you could help sort this out in the meantime, as I have not heard from the editor who changed the name of the Satmar article without thinking of the consequences. This is what I wrote to him (User talk:Mets501.) Thanks for your help. IZAK 10:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC):


 * Hi Mets: Why did you move the Satmar article as it is part of a series, see Category:Hasidic dynasties? You are re-creating a problem here. The original problem was that originally with "Satmar" alone you run into disambiguation questions as you can see for yourself from the following: The Szatmár article (Szatmar redirects to Szatmár) and the Satu Mare article (see Satu Mare (disambiguation); (and Szatmárnémeti, Szatmarnemeti, Satu-Mare redirect to Satu Mare) (are similar sounding to Satmar as used by Jews) all are spellings used by Eastern Europeans but not used by Jews, and therefore on Wikipedia we long ago found a way to avoid conflicts between non-Jewish editors and Jewish ones by adding "Hasidic dynasties" to make it clear that the article/s were reflecting Jewish (Hasidic) usage. Kindly revert your move back to Satmar (Hasidic dynasty) as soon as possible. Thank you. IZAK 07:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved here, sorry. JFW | T@lk  16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychosis and Tuberculosis
Hi, JFW. I'd like to enlist your help on Featured article review/Tuberculosis; if you're really busy, perhaps you can get someone to have a look at the status of this article relative to the concerns raised on FARC? made a great effort to get the content referenced, we've both attempted to restructure and copyedit the article, and we just need a new set of eyes to look over the article and see if it's accurate and if my concerns about comprehensiveness are warranted. Also, since psychosis has moved to FARC, you can now vote to Keep or Remove at Featured article review/Psychosis. Sandy 17:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Alzheimer's and THC
Hi JFW. If you have time, could you please weigh in at Talk:Alzheimer%27s_disease? User:Jnx has requested an administrator to mediate a debate about whether a recent biochemical study indicating THC blocks AChE and AChE-mediated Abeta aggregation from the journal Molecular Pharmaceutics merits a paragraph on THC as a potential Alzheimer's treatment.--Ipeltan 15:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. Hopefully we'll bring this debate to a close soon.--Ipeltan 05:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Color blindness
Hi, doctor. An editor in Talk:Color blindness refuses to sign his edit, or allow his edit to be signed. It appears they are having difficulty with him in Talk:Destroy All Humans! 2, too. What should be done? Thanks! -AED 14:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One more vote for the coordinator of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject
Since two of the three editors nominated for Coordinator of the MCB Wikiproject declined their nominations, one more vote has been posted: should the remaining nominee, ClockworkSoul, be named as the coordinator, or should nominations be reopened? Every opinion counts, so please vote! – ClockworkSoul 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


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 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

pulmonology
Hello! In the following article, there was a list of Diseases managed by the pulmonologist, including "sleep apnea or restless legs syndrome". I'm guessing this was a mistake, so I removed it, but if the information was corect, please let me know (I'm pretty shure it is, I'm even embarassed for asking about it but...) Thanks! algumacoisaqq 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Advice needed
I was searching the California Board of Optometry's website to check on David Rudiak's credentials. Although in the public domain, would it be inappropriate to use that link as a reference in the article because an address that may be his home address is supplied? -AED 23:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd wait until after the AFD. I'm not sure, but if the optometry site is publicly accessible anyway there is no added problem by linking to it. Should've left the UFOs alone, this man. JFW | T@lk  06:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! -AED 16:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links to EPGOnline
I have (tried) to add some quite relevant links to a number of wikipedia articles today only to have the links repeatedly 'reversed'/'deleted'. Each time the other person has quoted the same links regarding spam or external links as the reason for the change, however the site to which I have linked (http://www.epgonline.org) is - if anything - far more useful than some of the links and in some cases the content which is already in place.

Does WebMD or eMedicine own shares in Wikipedia? the bahaviour of some of the admins on this site would indicate a vested commercial interest is being protected, rather than the betterment of professional knowledge or access to more in depth study resources?

I have noticed that these organisations appear to have no difficulty whatsoever linking from Wikipedia, why then is it so difficult for an independent site, frequented by physicians and sanctioned by a not for profit, non political medical association have such difficulty providing a few quite inocuous links?


 * WebMD and especially eMedicine are widely seen as authoritative, which cannot be said about your site. Those "organisations" were not linked by their own webmasters (as in your case) but by doctors and medical students who found the content useful.
 * Complaining about the motives and behaviour of admins and launching conspiracy theories is in direct contradiction to WP:AGF, a crucial Wikipedia policy. Please also review our external links guideline before making further attempts to promote your site on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk  20:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply

You are fully entitled to express your own opinion, however it is only that, an opinion. Firstly, I am not the webmaster for http://www.epgonline.org although I am affiliated to the site. Contrary to your opinion the sites you mention, whilst excellent in many respects are frequently viewed by a 'professional' audience (ie non patient, non public) as confused and difficult to navigate, US biased and limited in terms of content. I can provide you with independent research involving sample groups of 1000 + doctors in the lead 5 EU Countries which will support this statement. Wikipedia itself is often viewed with very little respect, I have often asked myself why this might be?

Yesterday I added a link to the Wikipedia entry for Entacapone (Stalevo) to the EPGOnline page detailing the UK prescribing information for the drug. The reasoning behind this is simply that the current links both lead the manufacturers US web-sites, there is currently no point of reference for Europe or European Wikipedia users whatsoever. Like the other links placed yesterday, it was quickly removed.

An example - this link is to the eMedicine page on Rheumatoid Arthritis http://www.emedicine.com/pmr/topic124.htm for comparison the same information warrants a far more detailed interactive resource entirely devoted to the condition - also includes Osteo Arthritis) within EPGOnline http://www.epgonline.org/page.cfm/pageid/829 (you will need to register to view this content as it is for professionals, however your profile states that you are a doctor so you can register for free to view the material). This is just one example of many similar resources available at EPGOnline designed specifically for a European Audience, fully referenced where applicable and written by members of your own profession.

I understand that the first reaction to a new user adding external links - rather than content - is that there must be some hidden agenda. My only objective is to share the availability of a European resource, one of few available today, which genuinely provides content for an EU audinece. It is a free resource and to my knowledge the placement of external links - where appropriate - within Wikipedia forms no purpose aside from making the service visible to doctors who may not be aware of it, I do not understand the relationship with 'spamming'.

As you are clearly an established and very respected Wikipedia contributor I will of course respect your views, however I would ask that if you have a few minutes to spare you take some time to look properly at EPGOnline and form an opinion on the content available. With kind regards and congratulations on your many excellent contributions to Wikipedia. --Bizflyer 08:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The email you sent me originated from the EPGOnline domain, so you do seem to be associated with that site. Nevertheless, even if the site was not your own, people would revert your links. Whatever your motivation, inserting many links on many pages is regarded as "Spam" by the Wikipedia community and generally perceived negatively. This is not just "my opinion" - it is the stuff of widely recognised Wikipedia guidelines that the community generally agrees on, as crystallised in WP:EL and WP:SPAM.
 * I tried to look at EPGOnline. It was fairly difficult to access material, and it was immediately clear that it was written on personal title without the authority of national or international organisations. Of course this is true to a degree for emedicine and webmd, except those sites are almost universally recognised as sources of impartial and heavily peer-reviewed science. EPGOnline does not (yet) have that authority, and Wikipedia is not the medium to gain that authority with.
 * Please use your obvious expertise to improve Wikipedia as a free high-quality information resource. In theory, EPGOnline articles would be suitable as references (although primary sources are much more desirable). You will find that well-written content will be very much welcomed. JFW | T@lk  11:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Seven Worlds
Articles for deletion/The Seven Worlds Hi Dr. Wolff: What do you make of this Articles for deletion/The Seven Worlds 2? Thanks. IZAK 09:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Tip on referencing CFIDs
Hi JFD. Thanks for the Tip on referencing the CFIDs section. I think I have it figured out now! Cfidsguy 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Orthodontics
Dear Jfdwollf!

Would you please be so kind to have a look at this article. Dr. Risse (a german doctor) is placing advertisments for his company in this article. Please read:. See also the discussion in Kieferorthopädie. In this lemma he copied his complete webside. We removed it several times. Now he is trying the same thing in the english wikipedia.

Sincerely Yours -- Andreas Werle 17:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on Holy of Holies
FYI copied your comment over to Talk:Holy of Holies. Chodesh Tov!! --Shirahadasha 00:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, other editors on Talk:Holy of Holies have responded to your comment. Perhaps you might want to comment further on that page. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Todd's paresis
Somewhat surprising this hadn't been made already. Good pickup. -- Samir धर्म 05:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Had a patient presenting with this classic presentation. Discovered that the German WP had a fairly good article, but EN did not! I'll expand it in a bit - have a reprint waiting to be incorporated. JFW | T@lk  05:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Would be a brilliant DYK. Picture of homunculus? -- Samir धर्म  06:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ?why homunculus. JFW | T@lk  06:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Seizure area correlates with activity on motor homunculus? Neurology was a while ago, excuses if incorrect -- Samir धर्म  06:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Aaahhh, that homunculus. JFW | T@lk  08:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


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 06:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you
Hi Jfdwolff, wanted your opinion on something. I'm a teensy bit cautious about new users on Parkinson's disease, and our new Professor (whilst welcome) must be a very busy man. In addition to being the chancellor of Malta's university he is also the former health minister. I have emailed the university to ask whether he is in fact the real mccoy or being impersonated for some ulterior motive. I remember GT and his puppets having posted about Malta before so this may be another in-joke. --PaulWicks 09:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This was partially a welcome, partially a sign of WP:AGF and partially an expression of mild paranoia. If this user is an impersonator he should be indef banned. JFW | T@lk  10:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's just most vice-chancellors of universities I know don't edit wikipedia... --PaulWicks 11:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The prof. is clearly a sock puppet based on his editing idiosyncracies...but he seems to be well-behaved so far, so I figured no need to agitate. Andrew73 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Should really be banned for impersonating. JFW | T@lk  22:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He's a GT sockpuppet? He seems more knowledgeable, and hasn't yet said anything about the bridgman view of PD pathology. He does have the usual one-track subject matter and a certain familiar high-handedness. --Dan 18:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at the "professor's" contributions on parkinsonism, the most logical conclusion is that the "prof" is a GT sockpuppet. Andrew73 19:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Cerebellar thoracic outlet syndrome? What a joke. I'm watching our man from Malta. I'm rather trigger-happy. Any more Tojoesque nonsense and we're looking at WP:ANI or an immediate block. JFW | T@lk  22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And we're keeping an eye on user:mergeneed? The business about nutrients is suspicious. --Dan 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mergneed looks benign; no edits about nutrients were made. But I've invited him/her to supply some CITEs. JFW | T@lk  22:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

'''Is this the paranoia club ? You really don't know who's who but you like to think that you do. When I look down the list of General Tojo's I see dozens that are nothing to do with General Tojo. Also, there are over a hundred GT SP's that have gone completely unnoticed. Some of them have been adding to the Parkinson's article without even being suspected. You are obviously far more concerned about who adds what, than what they add. Consequently, the Parkinson's article is even more trash than it was months ago. A lot of novices have lined up to add rubbish, but because it's not your dear friend GT you do nothing about it. Snowy's error ridden garbage about epidemiology is particularly bad. There are so many mistakes in that, but he doesn't care. His inadequate ego compels him to be only concerned with him being the one that adds it. I find this all hilarious - the illogic, the ignorance, the paranoia, the inadequate egos, the arrogance. It is obvious as far as Parkinson's Disease is concerned that none of you are more than beginners. Yet unfortunately you don't realise it. Not knowing about CTOS is one example of being ignorant AND arrogant. They often go together. Isn't is a bit odd that the only people that you now fear are me are those that really know the subject. I'll continue to have a bit of fun now and then, with the knowledge that you don't really have a clue who is doing what.''' --Archduke Ferdinand II, of the Austro-Hungarian Empire 14:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Get a life, Bridgeman. I know about CTOS, I just have given ample reason why it should not be included. All those novices are either bona fide users whose work is open to scrutiny, or they are mindless Tojo sockpuppets created for misinformation.
 * You must realise by now that we take your assessment of the Parkinson's article with a pinch of salt. You've been asked to either behave or leave Wikipedia alone. You have done neither. Thankfully there is a number of editors who take Wikipedia's goals serious enough to risk your endless wrath and silliness. You can turn Doyle, or Rizzo Naudi, but you cannot aspire to be a respected Wikipedia editor. JFW | T@lk  17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori
In Featured list candidates/Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori, I've raised a problem that I believe there is with the use of references in that article. The key events in the timeline often have references that are the key papers associated with the event. However, the actual references used by the editor are books and review papers, not those historical papers. As such, I don't think they belong in the references section. I would appreciate your experienced opinion. Are my concerns valid? Any ideas on how to modify things? I appreciate that it is useful to mention those key papers as a historical point of fact so I am keen that they be maintained in the article somehow. Thanks. Colin°Talk 16:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that Wikipedia should provide the original references. I personally feel that the historical dimension of any topic is greatly enhanced if the first paper is cited properly, as I have done myself on many articles. In contrast to peer-reviewed science, on Wikipedia it is not compulsory to have seen or read the paper in question, especially when it's hard to find (e.g. Gaucher's PhD thesis). JFW | T@lk  19:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

on Hitler and Parkinson's disease (from Voice of All's talk page)
Perhaps I overlooked the consensus you mention, but I took a look at the Parkinson's disease talk page and saw one brief exchange on Hitler. That's probably a good argument against bots doing the editors' job of "enforcing consensus." Also, there is no evidence to support the claim that Hitler suffered from Parkinson's on the talk page or in the article (that I saw). WP:V and so on... --Media anthro 20:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Parkinson's article has been under attack from a difficult editor. Even if you are completely right, the present version is to be regarded as the "consensus" version, and changes (especially when "politically" sensitive) should be discussed on the talkpage. Longstanding well-trusted users sometimes get away with making undiscussed edits, but an edit like this would have to be discussed even by such users. JFW | T@lk  23:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

 * Nice one! -- Samir धर्म 00:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Credit to you for expanding it! JFW | T@lk  04:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Coeliac Disease
"About 20% of normal people carry HLA-DQ2, which raises the question of what other factors cause a subgroup of about 5% of those people to develop coeliac disease.[1]."

For americans I have the latest study 1799 individuals - - - -Genotype- -Phenotype (sq root method) DQ2.2. . 11.08 . . .20.93 DQ2.5. . 13.16 . . .24.58% DQ2.3. . 0.08 . . . 0.16 DQ2. . .24.32 . . .42.72

In terms of bearer frequencies 42.72 is the correct answer.

Klitz W, Maiers M, Spellman S, Baxter-Lowe LA, Schmeckpeper B, Williams TM, and Fernandez-Vina M (2003). "New HLA haplotype frequency reference standards: high-resolution and large sample typing of HLA DR-DQ haplotypes in a sample of European Americans.". Tissue Antigens 62 (4): 296-307. PMID 12974796.

In Ireland the DQ2 gene frequency is about 59% and random phenotype frequencies are around 83%. Estimate is based on DR3 and DR7 frequencies In western Ireland the DQ2 phenotype frequency could be as high as 90%

Finch T, Lawlor E, Borton M, Barnes C, McNamara S, O'Riordan J, McCann S, Darke C (1997). "Distribution of HLA-A, B and DR genes and haplotypes in the Irish population.". Exp Clin Immunogenet 14 (4): 250-63. PMID 9523161.

Williams F, Meenagh A, Single R, McNally M, Kelly P, Nelson M, Meyer D, Lancaster A, Thomson G, Middleton D (2004). "High resolution HLA-DRB1 identification of a Caucasian population.". Hum Immunol 65 (1): 66-77. PMID 14700598.

Michalski J, McCombs C, Arai T, Elston R, Cao T, McCarthy C, Stevens F (1996). "HLA-DR, DQ genotypes of celiac disease patients and healthy subjects from the West of Ireland.". Tissue Antigens 47 (2): 127-33. PMID 8851726.

Savage D, Middleton D, Trainor F, Taylor A, Carson M, Stevens F, McCarthy C (1992). "HLA class II frequencies in celiac disease patients in the west of Ireland.". Hum Immunol 34 (1): 47-52. PMID 1356956.

In Japan the DQ2 gene frequency is about 0.3% and phenotype frequency is 0.6%

Saito S, Ota S, Yamada E, Inoko H, Ota M (2000). "Allele frequencies and haplotypic associations defined by allelic DNA typing at HLA class I and class II loci in the Japanese population.". Tissue Antigens 56 (6): 522-9. PMID 11169242

One the at risk DQ2 phenotype frequency by the following:

= 100 * (2 * DQ2.5%/100 * (1 - DQ2.5%/100) + 2 * (DQ2.2 * DQ7.55)

An example would be caucasian americans:

= 100 * (.2458 + .0247)

= 27.06% At risk DQ2 population.

This percentage assumes that cis and trans haplotypes are at equal risk.

the DQ8 at risk population is

= 2* .1055 * 1 - .1055 + .1055^2 = 19.09% phenotype frequency.

However a portion of this has DQ2.5 So the uniquely DQ8 at risk group is 16.448 The combined at risk group is: 16.45 + 27.06 = 43.5% for caucasian Americans.

If celiac disease is at a frequency of 1:133 and 98% of this population is in either of these 3 at risk groups then we can argue that coeliac disease is at 1/59 or 1.7%. The 5% figure is elevated.

The problem I have with this statement is that there is no "about ~20"%. In some groups the number of individuals carrying _a_ DQ2 phenotype is close to 90%, in other groups it is zero. In addition the section on the CELIACX genes is confusing and could be simplified. The number is meaningless and if it had meaning, it would be about 'wrong'. Given that I don't know what the best way is to repair the problem.

I don't think it is neccesary to discuss every gene, for example "CELIAC1 to CELIAC6 were identified as genes associated with increased prevelance of Coeliac disease. CELIAC1 Locus is the DQ locus[ref]. The other locus believed to be involved is CTLA4 locus, however the allele more found at higher frequency in Celiacs is only modestly higher than the normal population[ref]". [That's all I would say about CELIAC genes] I have a stack of papers on celiac associated genes where the association have been disproven, only CTLA4 remains in one study 11% higher in another 22% more elevated in the CD population. Pdeitiker


 * You're free to update the article as you see fit. If you can think of a way to simplify the CELIACX gene stuff - be my guest. I inserted that only because I regard OMIM as reasonably authoritative in gene nomenclature. JFW | T@lk  23:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to think about a way to do it without being verbose. I think its better to keep the technical stuff on the HLA-DX pages, For example on a page dealing with CTLA4 (if it does not already exist) Pdeitiker 05:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

diabetes insipidus and tuberculomas
You said in the edit "individual case reports not notable; TB is well recognised as a cause for pituitary dysfunction)" but when dealing with my daughter's situation it was an obscure possibility never well defined and a literature search revealed perhaps 4 documented cases and this one you edited out seemed to be the best documented. Are you sure it's not worth noting? The article itself warns doctors should be more on the lookout for such occurances especially in light of drug resistance--Smkolins 22:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Infiltrative processes of the pituitary are listed in all medical textbooks as causes for any form of hypopituitarism, and sarcoid and tuberculosis are the granulomatous conditions typically listed in those entries, together with the also pretty obscure causes such as histoplasmosis, histiocytosis X etc. In Harrisson's Principles of Internal Medicine (16th ed) it can be found on page 2078.
 * I would support a more generic reference to a medical textbook. That is, unless your daughter has made worldwide headlines with politicians making speeches in the House of Representatives to increase public awareness.
 * That does not mean I don't sympathise with your daughter's situation and I hope she is doing well now. JFW | T@lk  20:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Special:Chemicalsources
Hi! I was going through previous comments on the talk-page of chemical sources and saw your comment, so I decided to give you a note as well. Since a couple of days there is a wiki running on http://chemistry.poolspares.com (a site created by Nickj from the wikimedia IRC channel, the site will be taken offline again in a couple of weeks), where I have now hosted a small wikipedia. It runs two extensions I have written to the wikipedia software, a special page (for chemical sources, see also chemical sources and a chemform tag (for easy input of chemical formulae). Could you have a look, and comment on it (if deemed useful I would like to try to let Tim or Brion enable it on wikipedia).  Cheers!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect the main hurdle will be to have a generic identifier (compare CAS, ISBN) that will facilitate linking to such a facility. I would warmly support such a feature. JFW | T@lk  20:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I have used a couple of identifiers, not only one. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 02:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Beck Depression Inventory
Hi there, we've got a query on the Beck Depression Inventory talkpage. Is it ok to external link to a Google search which links to a site which violates copyright? Input or signposting to someone that knows appreciated. --PaulWicks 12:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Chief Rabbi of Ireland?
Hello Dr. Wolff: Could you please verify the veracity and validity of the article about Rabbi Yaakov Pearlman. Is he really recognized and accepted as Ireland's "Chief Rabbi" by all in the UK etc ? Thank you. IZAK 02:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no access to direct evidence on this matter. If I meet anyone who should know I'll ask. JFW | T@lk  21:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete mis-spelled category
Hi Dr. Wolff: I need an admin's help to delete this mistake Category:Northen Irish Jews - (left out and "r") on my part. Thanks so much. IZAK 04:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


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, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Parkinsons
Thanks for advisory comment. Had been most frustrating having located full ref details for incompletely cited reference to have this reverted (along with expansion of markup for a book which the other editor agreed was correct yet still reverted) as being in error. Only on their second revert did they indicate that the original stated page number had been wrong ! (ie I had given the correct details but for the wrong paper). The reference still fails to give author or title of the paper and without these or any obvious google direct hit, I am unable to search PubMed for the details. My subsequent edit (technically I agree a revert) was just to for the book details that the other editor had agreed with. David Ruben Talk 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You should feel honoured to be edit warring with a Maltese geriatrician. JFW | T@lk  20:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is proteasome!
– ClockworkSoul 22:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Headache article
The Headachearticle has been seriously vandalized. I think the best way to fix it would be to revert back a couple of edits, but I don't know how. Can you help, please?

Thanks!

--TeriRobert 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the page!!

--TeriRobert 06:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Page protection?
I've noticed that Vision insurance has been blanked multiple times recently by an anonymous editor with multiple ISPs. Would it be appropriate to protect the page at this stage to prevent new users from editing it, or should some other action be taking? Thanks again! -AED 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -AED 22:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey Participation?
A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 14:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Source for particle size etc
No., my understanding is that overall lipoprotein concentration remains a stronger predictor but lipoprotein particle size also remains an additional differential predictor. In a previously reply to your question on January 16, 2006, I sent several relevant references to you, including several from Christie Ballantyne's site http://www.lipidsonline.org.

Can I attract your attention again to the lack of references in Electron beam tomography. Response: Much of this comes from multiple sources, including (a) nearly two years of work, 2001-2003, researching CT diagnosis of CAD as part of an entrepreneurial business venture, including tours of manufacturing plants (e.g. Imatron, before purchase by GE) and clinical application experiences (a few years before most of the cardiology establishment was willing to acknowledge the value. see: http://www.aeha.org/National%20SHAPE%20Program%20-%20Home.htm, etc.), (b) extensive data and research from members within the Society of Atherosclerotic Imaging www.sai.org, (c) ongoing interactions with Jim Otvos (see: photo @ http://www.ncsu.edu/research/results/vol6/6.html, http://www.columbusfdn.org/otherprograms/christophercolumbusfoundationaward/1999.asp, etc.), (d) a few interactions with Sergio Fazio, M.D., Ph.D., Co-Director, Atherosclerosis Research Unit (see http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/nutrition/cnruInvestList.html) and head of preventive cardiology at Vanderbilt, (e) a number of other leaders in cardiology research and practice, etc...

On hypercholesterolemia you keep on inserting that LDL particle size is relevant, but despite my above message no references have been provided. Response: (a) See my comments above about Christie Ballantyne's site. (B) The whole concept of lipoprotein functions remain largely tied to particle size, the historic basis (along with subtle differences in density) for differentiating the VLDL, IDL, LDL and HDL subgroups. [However, genetic variations within the lipoprotein shell proteins (e.g. see the Apo A1-Milano research) and variations in the interacting surface proteins within macrophage membranes are also highly relevant.] Measurement accuracy and further subclass differentiation also correlates with outcomes, treatment options and responses. (c) Professional guidelines and third party payer policies, which are inherently quite conservative, expect practitioners to use the least expensive lipid measurement/estimation methods, despite marked drops in cost differential?

Has its use been clinically validated? Ans: Yes, lipoprotein electrophoresis research in the 1970 was a key basis for a Nobel prize in medicine in 1988 and Jim Otvos' (James D. Otvos, Ph.D., Liposcience.com) NMR spectroscopic methodology was recognized by the CDC as an international reference standard shortly before I discovered Liposcience in the late 1990s. Is it cost-effective? Ans: as of 1980, the cost was !$5,000 (US 1980 dollar value), but this has decreased over time, now ~$90 full retail (US 2006 dollar value) for more accurate measurements directly keyed to Framingham Mass, 1st generation offspring data.

Much of my information comes from both direct clinical and research knowledge and experience and is ahead of much of what is in journals, though with effort, some journal references can be found. My focus, as with clients, is helping people better understand the basic issues and not rely solely on old beliefs and standards, given the many limitations of these older approaches. Im my role as a cardiologist practicing preventive, non-invasive and invasive/interventional cardiology, both cardiac and peripheral, do I apply these principles (and many more not mentioned) to myself and family along with those who rely on me for guidance? Absolutely!

A fundamental problem, given time limitations, is researching and providing typical medical literature reference sources. I wear multiple hats, but I'm not an academic physician who spends lots of time on these issues, although I do also stay quite current with the better professional literature articles. If what I am doing is on the right track, these articles should be catching up with what I am already doing. If not, then probably I would have gone astray. No one, including myself, has a monopoly on truth.

Thank you. User:MAlvis 00:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect peer-reviewed papers are much better than a link to a website. Just a recent systematic review would be all that is necessary.
 * Given that you seem to have supporting information on the EBT issue, could you insert those references in the article using footnotes? JFW | T@lk  12:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Response:
 * I suspect peer-reviewed papers are much better than a link to a website. Ans: This is why I don't put website links into my article edits.
 * Just a recent systematic review would be all that is necessary. Ans: "Just" and "all" implies easy and little time; good "systematic review" requires considerable time and effort.


 * Given that you seem to have supporting information on the EBT issue, could you insert those references in the article using? Ans: Most of the references are from industry insider engineering and medical information, not published articles. This is why I have chosen to focus primarily on technical accuracy of issues. e.g. The current commercial generation of the GE 64 slice spiral CTs. in cardiac mode, physically rotate at 3 revolutions/sec (i.e the "3 x 360°/sec rotation speeds" I added to the EBT article). The Siemens pseudo 64 slice (actually 32 row detector with 2 anode focus points in their X-Ray tube source) also rotates at about the same. The Imatrom C-150 and C-300 (the majority of machines in use) typically do 100 ms (i.e. 10 sweeps/revolutions/sec, though only ~270 degrees each sweep, inherent in the Imatrom design), though they can also be set for 50 ms (i.e. 10 sweeps/revolutions/sec). The later model GE E-Speed (successor to the C-300), with GE's engineering team sharing technology between the mechanical spiral and electronically rotated CT designs, now both owned by GE, is designed to do cardiac sweeps routinely at 50 ms intervals (i.e the "50 x 360°/sec rotation speeds" I added to the EBT article). There are also significant differences in modulation of X-Ray intensity and gating to heart cycles between the two designs, both issues significantly affecting X-Ray dose to the body being imaged and image spacial and timing (less blurring) accuracy. These are a few of the many differences I learned about previously through entrepreneurial efforts, efforts I am no longer involved in. I've gone on to more complex and globally relevant issues concerning the health vs. eventual-disease-recognition and partial-treatment conundrum.


 * Being a solo practitioner and entrepreneur with limited time, people and monetary (well below average for cardiologists as a group, in my observation) resources also limits how much time and effort I can afford to devote the wikipedia.org effort. User:MAlvis 3:48 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand you are strapped for time but that is not a good justification for leaving your work unsourced. There must be systematic reviews that you cite (I wasn't expecting you to write a systematic yourself!) Our articles are improving all the time, but they need adequate sources to make them reliable, easy to fact-check, and authorititave. Please have a look at WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR. JFW | T@lk  16:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

More move requests
Hi, doctor. As you know, articles are typically named after the condition not the person who has the condition (e.g. Diabetic redirects to Diabetes mellitus). Per this reasoning, would you be willing to move: If so, I'll be happy to fix Template:Color vision. Thanks! -AED 07:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Monochromat to Monochromacy,
 * 2) Dichromat to Dichromacy,
 * 3) Trichromat to Trichromacy, and
 * 4) Tetrachromat to Tetrachromacy?


 * I hope to do this later today when I can tidy up any double redirects at the same time. JFW | T@lk  12:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help with that; just let me know. Cheers! -AED 23:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of the redirects. Thanks again! -AED 04:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dronedarone
I've just uploaded an SVG structure, without noticing your PNG. I'm rather reluctant to replace it, as yours is a very good image, unlike some low-resolution PNGs or GIFs I've replaced recently. What do you think? Thanks, Fvasconcellos 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not the only one. Following an earlier discussion with Fvasconcellos, I wanted to try out BKchem's SVG export facility. I saw the note on WP Drugs, the lack of a picture, and decided to use the opportunity. It was only when I went to add it to the article that I saw you'd beaten me to it. You can see mine here. It was created simply by entering the SMILES string from PubChem into BKchem, rotating it and pressing Save. Well, you have a choice, and I won't mind at all if mine gets deleted. Can your MDL/ISIS DRAW save to SVG? BTW, why didn't you upload to Commons? Cheers, Colin°Talk 08:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

W00t, I've sparked a craze! Who-creates-the-dronedarone-image! Fvascostellos, I have a problem with SVG - it doesn't scale. I have a strange preference for PNG. Colin, I prefer to upload to EN as it's harder to keep track of my work on Commons. But I'll consider it. Frankly, I think both our images are OK. I've been unable to save anything in MDL/ISIS DRAW. I use an oldfashioned trick of copying to the clipboard and modifying it with a paint program. JFW | T@lk  13:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you mean by "it doesn't scale"? I'm curious now, as I've uploaded about 200 SVGs by now – I wonder if other people might have trouble with them? As for dronedarone, I have absolutely no problem with the PNG, as I said before. I only wonder if the drug will be as popular in the medical community once it's available in meatspace as it became here... :) By the way, if you're having trouble with IsisDraw, I can't recommend ChemSketch enough. I've used it for nearly 3 years and no trouble yet. Fvasconcellos 14:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin help.
Hi Dr. Wolff: I need some help please, could you please delete Category:Jews and Judaism in Georgia (which I subsequently corrected and renamed as Category:Jews and Judaism in Georgia (country).) Category:Jews and Judaism in Georgia (country) is the correct Wikipedia terminology, because Category:Georgia (country) is not to be confused with other places that have that name. Thanks a lot. IZAK 07:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

North East Jewry
Would appreciate some help with above named article. You suggest it, or something sounding like it a while back! Chavatshimshon 05:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
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 05:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Death rattle" article
"Death rattle" needs the attention of someone who's been here longer than I, and you seem to be as much in charge of that article as anyone. Would you mind taking a look at its discussion page, re the Anthony Hopkins item? Cognita 21:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look. But "death rattle" is, like the article says, a phenomenon that occurs in the moribund. Some of the quotes need to go to Wikiquote. JFW | T@lk  11:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Week
WS 19:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi, doctor. I have been involved in an ongoing edit dispute in Selig Percy Amoils regarding verifiable information and style issues. I have discussed the issues with the other editor in Talk:Selig Percy Amoils and have requested second and third opinions in Requests for comment/Biographies, Village pump (assistance), and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). I have largely ignored insults from him, but he has recently began posting in articles in which I contribute to and just posted on my Talk page what I perceive to be a personal attack: User talk:AED/Archive 2. Could you advise what my next step should be? Thanks again! -AED 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you again! -AED 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Statins
Check this out - http://www.ptbo.igs.net/~stanb/CHD_vs_Cholest.jpg - --Hubie59 01:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And your point is...? JFW | T@lk  19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's data from the WHO's Monica Project--showing a lack of a relationship between rate of CHD-related death and % of a country's population with hypercholesterolemia.

Moreover, Paul Ridker, MD noted from a 2003 evaluation of 122,458 patients enrolled in 14 international trials that only 34.1% of men with CHD had hyperlipidemia. Therefore, 65.9% of men with “normal” cholesterol levels still had CHD. (Ridker, Dr. Paul M. “C-reactive protein in 2005. Interview by Peter C. Block.” Journal of the Amer Coll of Cardiology. 46(1):CS2-5, Jul 5.). Continuing,

There were 10,990 women in primary prevention trials (PROSPER, ALLHAT-LLT, ASCOT-LLA, AFCAPS and WOSCOP). For the women, only coronary events were reported, but once results were pooled and analyzed these events were not reduced by statin therapy [rr=0.98 (0.85-1.12)]) www.ti.ubc.ca/pages/letter48.htm

Professor of Chemistry Emeritus at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, Joel M. Kaufman, made this summary statement about statin studies performed before 2000. “Long-term use of statins for primary prevention of heart disease produced a 1% greater risk of death over 10 years vs. placebo when the results of all the big controlled trials reported before 2000 were combined.” (Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001;52:43946)

Controlled, randomized statin trials that included women have not shown to provide a mortality benefit in females. An article in JAMA stated, “For women without cardiovascular disease, lipid lowering does not affect total or CHD mortality.” Moreover, for women without cardiovascular disease this meta-analysis showed lipid lowering did not affect nonfatal myocardial infarction, revascularization or CHD events either. For women with CHD, article states, “… does not affect total mortality.” This meta-analysis was based on a search of published articles from 1966 through December 2003. 13 studies were included. Six trials included 11,435 women without cardiovascular disease. Walsh, JM, Pignone, M. “Drug Treatment of Hyperlipidemia in Women,” JAMA, ©2004 May 12;291(18):2243-52.

In the Japanese Lipid Intervention trial (41,000 subjects) the CHD-related death rate progressively went up as LDL progressively dropped from 120 to 80.

This "statins" page is slanted. --Hubie59 01:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise that you were a statin critic. Welcome. Most of the results you have mentioned mean different things to different people. The MONICA result, for example, is before correction for other risk factors (e.g. smoking). Perhaps there are fewer smokers, diabetics etc in Switzerland. The point you are making in quoting Ridker is similarly meaningless - it is well known (and the statin page mentions this) that statins have pleiotropic effects not solely attributable to cholesterol.
 * I've heard the argument about women & statins before (from Eddie Vos). I agree that CHD risk in women is underresearched - from symptoms to benefit of interventions studied mainly in men. Walsh & Pignone mention that statins are effective for several other endpoints in women - are you really only interested in mortality?
 * If you provided a reference for the JLI I could comment on it.
 * I take strong issue with your accusations of slant. This kind of terminology is not beneficial to the discussion. Please leave messages on this subject on Talk:Statin so other interested contributors can comment on your views and agree on the right wording the page should carry. JFW | T@lk  13:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Statin critic? To the extent the drug companies have bamboozled patients, health professionals, their own reps, etc., I'd say they deserve criticism. When taken as a whole the statin studies (HPS, 4S, J-LIT, PROVE IT-TIMI, REVERSAL, PROSPER, ALLHAT-LLT, CARE, ASCOT-LLA, WOSCOPS, LIPID, MRFIR, EXCEL, AFCAPS, etc.) are umimpressive in terms of absolute-risk reduction for total death. Whereas myalgias and CHF seem to be "off the table-not-worth-studying" "adverse reactions," the side effect profile gets a pass. Statins are touted as "well tolerated."

Will eventually post the Italian study citation.

Am I only interested in mortality? No. Not having a myocardial infarction followed up with open heart surgery is appealing too. I'll tackle that perhaps at a later date.

Accusations of "slanted" are valid as there's still much to be decided about the impact of the various pleiotropic effects exerted by statins. To arbitrarily elevate the importance of cholesterol-lowering over the other pleiotropic effects speaks of manipulation, not science. The disclaimer in Lipitor, Crestor and Zocor commercials about statins not being proven to prevent CHD-related maladies is vastly underplayed in comparison to the bullying message about lowering one's cholesterol. I imagine it would be hard to sell these meds if the commercials emphasized the importance of not activating endothelial nuclear factor Kappa B, TNF-alpha, VCAM-1, etc.) I'm certain if I edited the section in the statins entry that currently reads (Non-cholesterol related actions section), "Statins exhibit action beyond lipid-lowering activity in the prevention of atherosclerosis. Researchers believe that statins prevent cardiovascular disease via four proposed mechanisms..." to "Statins exhibit action beyond modulating inflammatory processes and improving endothelial function in the prevention of atherosclerosis. Researchers believe that statins perhaps prevent cardiovascular disease via cholesterol-lowering as well," that it would be edited out in short order to comform to the standard mantra.

I'm not aware of any studies that sought to alter the various pleiotropic effects in treatment v. control groups so the effects of cholesterol lowering could be better assessed. What could we learn from a study wherein the simvastatin 80mg per day + high-cholesterol diet arm (achieving higher LDLs in participants) had equal CHD-related deaths to the simvastatin 80mg +negligible cholesterol in diet arm? Is it not possible this would shift emphasis away from statins' cholesterol-lowering properties to their other pleiotropic effects? I don't expect that will be studied--it could affect stock share values and aggravate owners of such.

I still need to learn about using talk:statin. Thanks for your patience. Hubie59 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to have discovered Talk:Statin. We'll carry on over there, I suppose. Just out of interest, what is your background? JFW | T@lk  22:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Hospital upgrade proposal
I have a proposed upgrade to Template:Infobox Hospital which would allow the merger with Template:Infobox NHS hospital. See Template talk:Infobox Hospital for details and my subpage User talk:Davidruben/Templates/Test1 with demonstrations. I don't think there should be anything too controvertial as any current article using the template will be hardly affected (just request to insert a country to the location details). The additional optional parameters will though allow a little more more precise data to be given for US hospitals and in a manner that will be less US-centric (essentially adding some extra features from the Infobox NHS Hospital), or indeed UK/NHS-centric (can be used for UK private hospitals as well as NHS). Whilst almost all of the extisting parameter names need to be kept for compatibility reasons (only 'Classification' for trauma coverage gets a newer more functional alternative parameter), some of my new parameter names seem awkward - any thoughts on these ? David Ruben Talk 04:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think NHS hospitals should have dedicated boxes. A hospital is a hospital. JFW | T@lk  19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

CfD Orthodox Jewish communities
Gut Voch Dr. Wolff, please add you learned opinion at: Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 12. Thanks. IZAK 11:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.
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 05:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Open Orthodoxy" & Avi Weiss
Hello Dr. Wolff: User:Shirahadasha has created an new article called "Open Orthodoxy" - about a new notion (that is "neither fish nor fowl") recently coined by Rabbi Avi Weiss. After having been asked about it, I attempted to redirect Open Orthodoxy to the Avi Weiss article and post all its content there because on it's own it's a neologism in violation of Avoid neologisms, but Shirahadasha has reverted my redirect. What do you think should be done, please add your views at Talk:Open Orthodoxy. IZAK 09:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks for replacing Etiology with Pathogenesis
Hi there, I just wanted to thank you for inserting the proper word in the pulmonary hypertension article. When you're not familiar with all of the terms, and you don't have a dictionary at hand, it can be difficult to use the correct word (as is the case with me at this moment). Thanks again! -- Kyok o  21:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your views please
Hello Dr. Wolff : I have just contacted new User:Chavatshimshon who has made some big moves in long-standing articles about Jewish topics. Please read what I wrote to him and add your expertise and intervention. Thank you. IZAK 08:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * STOP your changes NOW!


 * Dear Chavatshimshon: Welcome, and thank you for contacting me. Regarding your changes @ Chavatshimshon edits Please do not make any more changes or moves to Jewish articles. You are too new to Wikipedia. You are not even reverting articles correctly (by creating multiple double reverts). You are also creating duplicate articles of existing articles, which creates even more problems. The articles you are fiddling around with have been worked on for many years. You cannot move and change these articles without discussing it with the nearly one hundred known members of WikiProject Judaism; WikiProject Jewish history; WikiProject Jewish culture and others. I am going to ask some experienced editors, who are also admins, to examine your recent changes and to revert your moves until we can get some better idea of what it is that you are doing, and if it is going to help the Jewish and Judaism articles on Wikipedia. Stay tuned. This message is being shared with User:Jmabel; User:Jayjg; User:Jfdwolff; User:TShilo12 and User:Humus sapiens. Thank you. IZAK 08:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

new MCOTW
Hey,

myocardial infarction is nu MCOTW, voor moest je zin hebben, ik zag dat je er ook actief bent geweest de laatste tijd...

grtz, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hello Dr. Wolff : Care to comment? Please see: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa. Thank you. Good Shabbos! IZAK 12:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

French Jews
Hi Dr. Wolff: Please revert French Jewry to its original title of History of the Jews in France until the issues surrounding the usage of "world Jewry" can be sorted out. Thanks. IZAK 13:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)