User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 24

Shaken Baby
I was wondering if you would be kind as assist me with resorting the previous hypothesis information and deleting the inaccurate information contained in the "Nutriture hypothesis" section.

Thank you The Stroll 23:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a paediatrician and have a longstanding aversion against the whole ascorbate debate. I'm getting urticaria just thinking about it. I think having a sensible discussion on Talk:Shaken baby syndrome will be much more productive. For one thing, you will have to convince Fyslee and Alteripse that there is any point in exploding the whole nutriture thing beyond proportion. JFW | T@lk  14:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Help with new Halakha subject article
Hi Dr. Wolff, Shavua Tov: I have been asked by a new user "...what are your thoughts on heter iska? i would like to wikify it, what are the guidlines on halochos!? are they in the correct categories etc? thanks Chavatshimshon 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Could you please look at the Heter iska article and see how it can be improved. Thanks a lot. IZAK 07:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a long time I've last looked at that subject. An article on the topic should be brief and explain the main uses and requirements of a heter iska, and perhaps how it impacts on banking in Israel. JFW | T@lk  14:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
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 06:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Eclampsia
Hi. A while ago I pointed out a large copyright infringement on the article on pre-eclampsia and you agreed to replace it. I have marked out all of the infringing text on the talk page and cited the textbook from which it has been copied. PsychoticSock 11:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Will try to address this soon. I intend to summarise the deleted content and use the book in question as a source. Do you think that is reasonable? JFW | T@lk  16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Provided that the material is well adapted that should probably be ok, just bear in mind that what is currently there is word for word plagiarism. PsychoticSock 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Coeliac article
Kudo's on this much improved article. I started a few minor edits and will do a bit more. I'm going to try to avoid my susceptibility to sniping that has done me in in the past. Any chance you are going to DDW in Washington DC in May 07? Steve Kd4ttc 22:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

re consistently disruptive user
Hi, could you possibly have a look at a posting I've made to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. There was a previous posting (linked at AN/I) setting out this users repeated disruption to asthma and South London related topics, as well of apparent clear case of sockpuppetry, but this got time-guillotined with no admin choosing to comment. (see User talk:87.194.35.230 with warnings over precisely the same topics - Asthma, areas in South london, and used of "disease" for eczema).

Alec + sockpuppet repeatedly disputes the word "disease", see the AN/I (i.e. asthma, diabetes, eczema) and between the accounts a couple of blocks already. Tonights edits are typical of general disruptive influence across medical topics - often minor irriations but generally issues already discussed by other editors on other pages which set out consensus. So almost no single edit is direct vandalism, but the overall effect is disruptive. Further example was "What asthma is not" to Asthma and its talk page. See User_talk:ArmadilloFromHell and User_talk:ArmadilloFromHell/Archive_06/Month_Nov for several discussion threads amongst several editors trying to work out how to proceed.

Alec clearly has knowledge on the topics that could be added to wikipedia, sadly not only not working collaboratively but is having a disruptive effect on both complex series of articles and diverting the time of several editors.

If you wish to "admin" on the noticeboard posting fine, else any guidance on how ArmadilloFromHell, Regan123, MRSC and myself should proceed to resolve this would be appreciated. David Ruben Talk 23:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:ChosidFrumBirth
Hi Dr. Wolff: Admin, medical and Judaism help needed: Could you please take a look at the user page at User:ChosidFrumBirth as I think he needs to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a place to express vulgarity or obscenity, it's at least a violation of Etiquette and Civility and I am not quite sure who he is ranting at, breaking No personal attacks and Assume good faith. I was not involved with him at all, but it all sounds rather paranoid and primitive to me, it's sure no way to "advertise" one's "Chasidishe yichus." Take a look at it and decide for yourself. Have a very Good Shabbos. IZAK 13:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again, well I just checked again. It was not Chosid who said it, his page was vandalized by User:Greenbrook, as evidently they were having some sort of dispute, see User talk:Greenbrook, so I have reverted the nasty comments myself. IZAK 04:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

evolution
copied from Talk:Judaism and evolution s a biologist, I am glad to see the many orthodox authorities who accept the concept of evolution--even Hirsh in 1880 was willingto accept everything except the origin of life. But I would like to see some discussion of the current views that do not accept the theory. This article seems a little one-sided, as if it were trying to prove the POV that evolution is consistent with othodoxy. How about some discussion of the contrary? I would very much like to know how those who do not accept it justify their rejection of the secular evidence. Is it simply a matter that as it is inconsistent with Torah, it cannot be true & we will therefore ignore it, or is there an attempt at argumentation as is done by the Christian fundamentalists? DGG 04:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What is meant with "even Hirsh in 1880 was willingto accept everything except the origin of life"? That's a misrepresentation. Hirsch states that gradual development shows a Divine plan. That's implicit acceptance of the premise of the origin of life but with God's Hand guiding the forces of development.
 * Nowadays, there are many Orthodox people who either implicitly or explicitly agree that life may have developed in a way indistinguishable from natural selection bar the Divine intervention. Others find the concept heretical. Both views deserve equal exposure; one needs to cover Derush Or ha-Chaim by Lipschitz, Hirsch, and Slifkin (who bases his views on Hirsch and Dessler but also the Ran and Rabbi Avraham ben ha-Rambam). I'd be at a loss to give the names of Orthodox sources that explicitly adhere to special creation, but this does appear to be the default view. JFW | T@lk  22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Links on "list of dog diseases" page
Many (but not all) of the links on the "list of dog diseases" page actually link to human diseases, but the overall page layout tends to indicate that the links are about dog diseases, which of course could be significantly different to the disease in humans. The "wiki project dogs" is starting to think about how to organise their pages. This may be relevant to the "wiki project medicine" because the two data structure may impinge and I feel that early liaison between the "wiki project dogs" and the "wiki project medicine" will be beneficial. It sounds like the "wiki project dogs" would welcome some support. There is some discussion on the "list of dog diseases" talk page, which you might like to follow and perhaps bring the discussion to the attention of others for a consensus opinion. Snowman 11:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Disease pages on Wikipedia should be on human diseases by default. If there are well-studied and notable animal equivalents they should be disambiguated. Could you mention this on WP:CLINMED. I'm sure there'll be ample discussion there. JFW | T@lk  22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Coeliac and industrial breadmaking
JFD: First of all, thank you for all of your contributions in medical and halachic subjects. I would like to draw your attention to an issue related to celiac disease. I am a cheesemaker and traditional baker in, of all places, New Jersey, and over the years I have heard anecdotic references to a possible correlation between the rise of celiac disease in post-war Italy and the conversion of post-war bread industry from the traditional batch-process, slow lactic polyculture fermentation to continuous-process, high-speed yeast monoculture fermentation. I have found an journal article that may underlie the anecdotal references: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=126681

I hope that you'll have a look and let me know if this warrants inclusion in the celiac article. Again, thank you for your tireless work!

Yours, Curdnerd


 * Thank you for your kind words. I hope you'll be contributing to the Wikipedia articles relevant to your work in the future.
 * The article you quoted is indeed fascinating, although it doesn't quite make the claims that change in sourdough use may have altered the epidemiology of coeliac disease. I've not been able to find other sources that support such a claim (but then I haven't looked very well).
 * You may have noted that novel coeliac treatments are under development that involve enzyme therapy. A particular gliadin protein fragment seems to be the culprit in inducing villous atrophy, and predigesting this either with oral enzymes or during the baking process has been suggested as ways of treating coeliac. It seems the King's College group in London is also working on wheat types that are less immunogenic.
 * Let me know what you think. JFW | T@lk  15:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianics again
Hello Dr. Wolff: The Messianic Judaism editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. IZAK 19:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized the  Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously  plagiarizing the WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this.
 * User:Stjamie (contributions) created a new article (yet again) about "Rabbi" Isaac Lichtenstein (did this person even exist or this a hoax?), as well as about Boaz Michael (is this person notable or is this a vanity page?)

Adolf Jellinek and his Christian son
Does anyone know what kind of "rabbi" and Torah scholar Adolf Jellinek was (Orthodox, Reform, none-of-the-above, all-of-the above?) The question is important because he had a son Georg Jellinek who supposedly became a Christian, and the article about him says that "Jellinek, the son of Adolf Jellinek, a rabbinical scholar, converted to Christianity." Making it sound that the alleged conversion of George Jellinek is somehow "enhanced" (like a "hidur mitzva - lehavdil) by the fact that he had a "rabbinical father." Anyhow, the portrait of Adolf doesn't look like it would make it into an ArtScroll anything right now :-} In addition, in the List of converts to Christianity from Judaism Georg Jellinek is listed and his picture features very prominently. If anyone has any more information on this, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. IZAK 14:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Lupus
Hi,

I just made a bunch of modifications to the Lupus erythematosus page and since it hasn't received much traffic in the past couple days, I'd like some feedback on the content and edits. Stalking the history page turned up you as a contributor a while back, so this is me soliciting feedback. Could you have a gander please?

Thanks,

WLU 14:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look. JFW | T@lk  16:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism
Hello Dr. Wolff: I am having a difference of opinion with User:Inigmatus who insists that Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism be a sub-category of Category:WikiProject Judaism. I have tried to edit the page, and have even tried a compromise of having it be part of Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics instead which would be perfect for it, but each time he reverts me, claiming "We make that call, not you. We're not part of "normative" Christianity either." and this:" "We" is Messianics. either both Judaism and Christain categories, or none go here. We make the call, because Messianics know best what is Messianic." , and he adds on Category talk:WikiProject Messianic Judaism: "Either Christian and Judaism categories go here, or they both don't. Not one or the other. Messianics do not ascribe to Chrisitanity, and Judaism is an unrelated category. I didn't put either category in, so I request both be removed, but if one is to be listed, then I request both Christianity and Judaism be listed. "We" Messianics have the right to inform the readers who "we" are affiliated with. inigmatus 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" What do you think should be done? Thanks. IZAK 14:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
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 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic "Halakha" etc?
Hello Dr. Wolff : On 25 October 2006, User:Inigmatus moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha with the lame excuse "moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha: As discussed in prior archives, with the creation of the new Messianic Judaism template, this page can now be targeted for clean up: This entire page is better split into two articles" thus opening up a whole new can of worms. This fits into this new pattern of vigorous pro-Messianic Judaism POV edits, moves, categories, projects and articles, basically without warning and ignoring the consensus that has been maintained for some time. The main problem is that the over-all thrust of the recent pro-Messianic Judaism activity is to mimic and and get as close as possible to any and all Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, articles and efforts, so that anyone looking at the one will arrive at the other by sheer proximity and similarity. And I repeat this again, because of its relevance: *User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized the  Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this. I would suggest that a new template be develpoed that would be placed on Messianic Judaism pages with a "Note: This article deals with Messianic Judaism. It does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations." IZAK 03:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome the NotJudaism template
In view of the above, please see the new NotJudaism template:


 * Note: The subject of this article or section does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations.

Feel free to use it where applicable. Thanks. IZAK 05:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:POINT, methinks. But rather to the point. JFW | T@lk  16:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FA nomination for Bacteria
Hi there. I've nominated this page for FA. Your comments or corrections on its nomination page would be very welcome. TimVickers 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * An editor has made some major changes to this article, could you please return to the FAC and provide some feedback on whether or not these are an improvement? TimVickers 21:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Health Wiki Research
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 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Myocardial infarction
Hello, again. I'm somewhat back, at least for a while. :-) I sometimes get frustrated by the wikipedia process and may need to take a break again. :-( I just wanted to hopefully get you to weigh in a bit on myocardial infarction before things get out of hand for me. The problem is article length, of all things. I know, you wish this was more of a problem. Anyway, it's my intention to make this article significantly larger, and then break out sections as needed. (I still haven't talked about the rise & fall of facilitated angioplasty, IIb/IIIa inhibitors, the role of stress testing for risk stratification after NSTEMI and after thrombolytics, sex variations in treatment patterns, etc.) Also, a lot more references will be added with time. :-) Ksheka 00:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your memory about this article might be needed here: Talk:Myocardial_infarction. A site seems to have copied your work!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is RNA interference!
– ClockworkSoul 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Noahide Laws cleanup
Hi, I was hoping we could collaborate on cleaning splitting and writing up more articles related to 7mBn. I've tagged Noahide laws for a cleanup. I'm not rushing in, I've read them all up, I'm waiting for the readiness of a few others so we can take this on together, and have it featured on the main page sometime. Its possible, there are quite a few of us and will potentialy be a subject of interest. Again, I'm one for words and think the parent article should be Seven Laws of Noach, as in 'Sheva Mitzvas Bnei Noach'. Anything that is should be another 'ism'. Chavatshimshon 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Chavat: Do not change that title, it is the accepted English name for it (why is it that you have this great urge to change the titles of long-establishe Wikipedia articles?) Not everything has to be a direct translation or transliteration from Hebrew. Many Judaic and Hebraic topics do and should retain their English titles. Please contact the following to help you: User:Noahlaws; User:Jon513; User:Dauster; User:HKT; User:PinchasC; User:Shirahadasha; User:Shuki; User:TShilo12, they all have knowledge of Jewish Law and experience as Wikipedians and may be interested in working on this with you. Sincerely, IZAK 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
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 05:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and for informing me of Rav Yosef Rosen. It is not my intentino to suggest that all or the majority of Yemenites go according to the Mishneh Torah in regard to every halakha. I'ld like to see what I wrote that you're referring to. I do suggest (I know) that the majority of Yemenites go according to the Mishneh Torah much more than the majority of non-Yemenite Jews, in some cases even when it is contrary to Shulhhan Arukh. It is also true, as is documented in many books and papers, that historically Yemenite Jews were even more strictly going according to the Mishneh Torah than most are today. In fact, this is the case with many Middle Eastern Jewish communities; See. Mori Yosef Qafehh without a doubt identified with that aspect of the Yemenite Jewish community which promoted more strict adherence to the Mishneh Torah - which they considered a return to the way Yemenites traditionally were. One who has read his intro to the Mishneh Torah and is familiar with his commentaries should have no doubt about this. I myself know so not only from books but also from affiliating with some of his most serious students (before his passing away) which I have been doing for the past 3 years. I have attended shiurim from Rav Rasson Arusi in what was his beit knesset (synagogue) in the Nahhlayot neighborhood of Jerusalem as well as attend every week a more local beit knesset of the same mindset located in the Shmuel haNavi/Bar Ilan area of Jerusalem - the Gabbai of who was also one of Mori Yosef Qafehh's closest students. As for sources, I don't know how more conclusive you want. About long quotes, my mistake for not having thoroughly read through all the guidelines. Thanks for pointing these things out to me. -- I'll try to keep in mind to not write Mori as well... though I think it should be noted somewhere that Yemenite Jews as a whole traditionally (and very many still do) call their community leaders/rabbis Mori in much the same way that Ashkenazim called their Rabbi and Sefaradim called their Hakham, and Ethiopian Jews called their leaders Kessim. The use of Mori in this context isn't limited to the meaning 'my teacher.' It was used as a general title. Someone who was an actual student of such and such Yemenite rabbi would not call him 'Mori Yosef Qafehh' for example, but would instead only say 'Mori.' One last thing, please check out the discussion board on Tachanun. Thanks for the encouragement in your message. All the best. Yosef Omedyashar 09:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at Tachanun. JFW | T@lk  16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Chofetz Chaim
Is there any evidence, that Chofetz Chaim was a Kabbalist? None of his sforim, as far as I know, indicate any Kabbalistic ideas. He probably have privately studied some Kabbalah (as almost all Torah scholars did and do), but I do not think, it's appropriate to call in a 'Kabbalist'. Laplandian 01:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It depends how you define "kabbalist". He certainly quotes kabbalistic sources (e.g. Zohar), which makes him more of a kabbalist than for example S.R. Hirsch. I don't actually care much about whether we label him a kabbalist or not; as you rightly said, most gedolim of the time were fairly well versed in kabbalah. JFW | T@lk  16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your 'Friend' Trevor Marshall
I have noticed today a Wikipedia-entry which is a quasi-resume of Trevor Marshall. I have filed it for deletion. I thought it might interest you. Thanks for defending the Sarcoidosis article from his questionable practices! --Savisha 09:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Friend? I've voted, anyway. JFW | T@lk  16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I was joking. I noticed that you had some trouble with him trying to push his treatments on the Sarcoidosis site a year ago. Thanks anyways.--Savisha 16:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

--Savisha 21:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again, is it possible to check someones IP if you are an administrator? I have a slight suspicion that the same person might be contributing using two newly established user accounts. See Articles_for_deletion/Trevor_Marshall at the very bottom.
 * The medical/scientific articles at Wikipedia seem to be prone to be misused. People don't seem to understand what evidence based medicine is. And then there are all these inclusionists who think everyone should have a chance on WP...
 * Sorry for bothering you again.


 * Try WP:SSP. I agree with your assessment viz EBM. But then there is a lot of misunderstanding of medicine in the public discourse anyway. It is one of my aims on Wikipedia to avoid making the same mistakes here. JFW | T@lk  22:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.
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 05:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin opinion needed
Hello Dr. Wolff : Could you please take a look at what I have said so far at Articles for deletion/Orthodox Halakha, someone is playing the fool one time too many and something needs to be done about it before things get out of hand. Thanks a lot and Good Shabbos. IZAK 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a redirect now. FrummerThanThou should be banned for having an inflammatory username. JFW | T@lk  22:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My username is inflammatory? frummer


 * It is. WP:U is quite clear on that. JFW | T@lk  22:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I meant it to be humorous as apposed to arrogant. Anyways i already changed my name once. Also, I don't see how its grounds to be "banned", without establishing it to be inflammatory, and giving a warning. WP:U's terms are broad. Anyways, thanks for replying, never had a reply from you. I like your contribs, please can you check out mold mites, am looking for details on their causing pneumonia. Thanks. frummer

Uhh, usernames that can be interpreted in multiple ways, with one meaning being quite inappropriate, have previously been grounds for banning. It seems I'm the only person who is concerned about your username, so I'm not going to kick up a massive fuss over something minor :-).

To my knowledge, mold mites are not known to cause parasitic pneumonia. That said, in allergic individuals the combination of a mild infection and allergy to mold mite excrement can exacerbate asthma. JFW | T@lk  00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had a further look, but Pubmed agrees with me. JFW | T@lk  00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Others are also concerned
Regarding User:FrummerThanThou's user name, see my comments and discussion at User talk:FrummerThanThou. Thanks, IZAK 07:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD:NeshAir - more problems with User:FrummerThanThou
Hi Dr. Wolff: Latest chutzpah at Articles for deletion/NeshAir. Thank you, IZAK 13:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.
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 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Palestinian rabbis
What does one make of the new Category:Palestinian rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine, should they be renamed to something like Category:Rabbis of ancient Palestine? so that it does not connect, and become confused with, the way the word "Palestinian" is used today (meaning the very unJewish modern Arab Palestinians, who have nothing to do with these rabbis!) Thanks. IZAK 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi: I have created a solution: See Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel and Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel. Thank you. IZAK 14:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis to avoid confusion
Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis
Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dfass: Note: The term "Land of Israel" is an old one of Biblical origin, whereas the name "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews because it was coined by the Romans after they crushed the Jews of Judea-- and needless to say today it refers exclusively to the Arab Palestinians and never to Jews. Note also that the "Land of Israel" article is not the same as the "Israel" article because the latter refers to the modern post-1948 Jewish state. My main concern was about rabbis from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, up until about a hundred years ago being called "Palestinians" on Wikipedia as a follow-through from the many articles that have been copied and pasted from the old Jewish Encyclopedia and which collectively create the wrong impression. Such are the hazards of relying on dated information, long-discarded terminology, and unsuitable writing and communication styles. Wikipedia as a modern encyclopedia should not be relying on archaic terms such as "Palestinian rabbis" that could potentially cause grave misunderstanding. I think that from the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, also shortened to "the British Mandate" and sometimes "Palestine," that Jews were associated with those terms from 1923 until 1948 when the modern State of Israel was declared. I hope that you have noted that I am most definitely NOT saying that whenever the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" that the single word "Israel" should be used -- obviously I do not mean that because when Israel is used alone on Wikipedia it refers to the MODERN State of Israel only. On the other hand, what I am saying is that when the word "Palestine" is used in archaic sources that predate modern Israel, and when writing about Judaic topics that relate to the Middle Ages, Talmudic, or Biblical times, then the better, more accurate, less controversial term for Wikipedia to use is "Land of Israel" which is historically what the Jewish people, and everyone else in academic life, have and do still call it. Hope I have clarified myself, and thanks for caring. IZAK 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I get the drift. I will pay attention to it in the future.  (Don't be so down on the Jewish Encyclopedia though!  It's an incredible work, written by some tremendous scholars.  I think these articles significantly raise the quality of Wikipedia, whether their English is somewhat archaic or not.  If you compare a JE-borrowed Wikipedia article to one written by "the masses," you can't but be struck by the difference in quality and scholarship.  The typical Jewish Wikipedian (myself included) is not capable of producing articles of anything like that caliber.  Most Wikipedians cannot even be bothered to cite the sources for the couple of factoids they manage to dredge up from their memory of 10th grade.)  Thanks again for the clarification. Dfass 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dfass: I am not down on the old Jewish Encyclopedia at all, and I fully agree with you that it is a more than masterly work of scholarship. But is was written in the context of the culture of over a hundred years ago as a product of the nineteenth century! My specific concern at this stage was only about how the meaning and application of the word/s "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are getting "lost in the cut-and-paste process" because one hundred years ago, "Palestinian" was used as an academic adjective as for example, together with "rabbis" ("Palestinian rabbi/s") or the Talmud ("Palestinian Talmud"). Up until 1948 the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" still had application/s to Jews because of the existaence of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1948 in the territories of historically Jewish Land of Israel. Since then, the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has shed any connection to Jews and the modern Jewish State of Israel which was set up in contradistinction to an Arab Palestine. Particularly since the rise of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), following the 1967 Six-Day War, the term and notion of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has become thoroughly and exclusively connected with the Arab Palestinians to the point that no-one (not in politics, academics, the media, religion, etc) associates the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" with the Jews or Judaism, so that it can safely be said that the notion of a "Palestinian Jew" is an archaic anachronistic discarded notion. So when cutting and pasting articles from the one hundred year old Jewish Encyclopedia, one should not fall into a "time warp trap" and by blindly pasting articles from it without some sensible updates, and not to inadvertantly recreate and foster terminology for Jews and Jewish Israelis that neither they nor the world accepts or recognizes. One needs to be conscious that the term "Land of Israel" is a well-established name that has survived for a long time and is still the preferred term of choice when speaking in modern terms, so that Jews not be confused with Arabs and vice versa. By speaking of the Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, meaning rabbis (or any Jews) associated with a historicgeographic area, one also avoids problems such as calling pre-1948 rabbis or people "Israelites" -- used only for people in the Biblical era or "Israelis" -- which refers to citizens of the modern State of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK 07:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Frummer creates User:Jesus
Hi Dr. Wolff: Unfortunately, User:FrummerThanThou has crossed the lines of acceptable editing. He has now created a provocative new "user" User:Jesus. See User talk:Jesus. I do believe that admin intervention is overdue. Thanks. IZAK 08:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion
Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion FYI: Hi Tomer! A WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Shira: I noticed this comment. Their assertion is outrageous and false and should be rejected and disputed to the full. There is no "supreme council of religion" on Wikipedia and there never will be. Each religion has its experts and contributors on Wikipedia and none of them will ever tolerate interference from outside busy-bodies. Judging by their user pages, the members of this "religion" project are obviously coming from a Christian POV and seems they now wish to "double dip," pretty funny actually. See my notice on that page, below. Thanks, and may the Lights of Chanukah dispel all ignorance and darkness. IZAK 10:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism
Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Thanks, IZAK 10:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:


 * 1) No-one has the right to take upon themselves to be the controlling "project" for every religion on Earth!
 * 2) WikiProject Judaism has been, and shall remain an independent project and will not accept interference in its work based on the assertion that editors not familiar with Judaism's traditions have a self-appointed "right" to interfere with Judaism-related articles by mere dint of being members of a "religion" project.
 * 3) So far, as of 12/21/06 the mere six members of this project, are mostly Christian, (as self-described on their user pages) and raises the question, why don't they do their work in WikiProject Christianity (81 members as of 12/21/06)? How can a project with six members "pass judgment" on other projects with one hundred and twenty four members?
 * 4) What will members of other projects, such as WikiProject Islam (64 members as of 12/21/06) think and react when "religion project" editors will advise what's best for Islam-related articles or not?
 * 5) Note: WikiProject Judaism adheres to WP:NPOV and is one of the oldest Wikipedia projects with over one hundred and twenty members (as of 12/21/06), a number of whom are respected sysops as well, highly knowledgeable about many matters relating to Category:Jews and Judaism.
 * 6) It would not be advisable for anyone to interfere with Judaism-related articles or Hebrew Bible-related topics that ignores the broad based consensus and general agreement that exists between Jewishly-oriented editors of Judaic articles, many of which touch upon Jews because being Jewish includes being both a part of Judaism as well as being part of an ethnicity, and a project on "religion" alone cannot and does not have the scope to touch upon issues that effects not just Jews and Judaism, but also Israel and Jewish history, see WikiProject Jewish history (with 33 members as of 12/21/06) and a broad range of related issues and projects, see WikiProject Jewish culture (19 members as of 12/21/06) and WikiProject Israel (23 members as of 12/21/06).
 * 7) Finally, Wikipedia is not the forum to create a de facto neo-"ecumenical project" which is only bound to cause confusion and resentment and will result in confusion and chaos and inevitabley violate No original research; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and Avoid neologisms.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism
Hi Dr. Wolff: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For the sake of peace, could you start off an RFC instead of messages everywhere? This is a major issue, and I can see an ArbComm case (relative authority of WikiProjects) coming. On the whole, it is my view that WikiProject Religion should have a coordinating rather than an article content task. JFW | T@lk  23:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Seven Laws of Noah
Hi, thanks for your edits to Noahide Laws. Please can you move it to Seven Laws of Noah. Alike to the Six Laws of Adam and the eventual Ten Commandments they should be titled as close to the traditional term as possible. They are all remez to sefiras, as you may know, the 6 was before shabbos, Adam was given them before shabbos, to keep even after he broke them, and all his decendants until noach, the seven laws where at the next oppertunity, after shabbos which was after the mabul. eventualy the last three sefiras came into play at revelation at sinai.

Also in Google, one gets 1,110,000 hits for "Seven Laws of Noah" whereas Noahide Laws  being a new age term gets 99,100 and a few thousand of those are mirror sites or referrals of the article here.

I am currently rewriting the article, and would appreciate useful edits and contributions. I hope to get it featured some time.

RE asserting it to be the world oldest religion please can you advise on what sources are no good. I've heard on can't derive a statement from facts even if they're portrayed in the article itself, so here's a source; the book:The Path of the Righteous Gentile mentions many times. Is it good enough?

Good Shabbos.

frummer 07:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact "seven commandments" gets even more hits, but then that might be because of these. frummer

Move Myocardial infarction -> Acute coronary syndrome
Thought you would find this interesting, since I suggested to you that we move the article from Heart attack to Myocardial infarction a while ago. Ksheka 01:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Opps... The link to my proposal is here. Ksheka 01:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

TTP and Ehrlichiosis
Just thought I'ld point out the recently created Ehrlichiosis Induced TTP Mimic. Its wrongly capitalised, a poorly phrased title, title containing an abbreviation and most importantly an article comparing one condition against another seems inappropriate - else roll on pneumothorax chest pain being like an MI, costochonditis MI mimic etc. I've placed merge proposal on Talk:Ehrlichiosis (along with copy over of a previously incompletely taged and wrongly located merge proposal for an alternative spelling used as a fork between disease in human vs animals) David Ruben Talk 02:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring at Chabad-Lubavitch and...
Hi Dr. wolf, would you be able to take a look at Chabad-Lubavitch, Menachem Mendel Shneerson and Yechi, Theres a relativly new editor  who's been making some major edits and deletions to these articles. He has been asked a # of times by numerous editor to use the talk pages before changing the articles. but he keeps on reverting back to his own version. This is causing an edit war. would you be able to take a look? Things look a bit calm for the moment, but perhaps you can keep your eyes on the watch and weigh in when needed? thanks allot for your help. Shlomke 20:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.
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 07:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Three pilgrim festivals" vs. "Three pilgrimage festivals"
Hi Dr. Wolff: Question: What should be the name for the Shalosh Regalim: the Three pilgrim festivals or the Three pilgrimage festivals? Please see the discussion at Talk:Three pilgrimage festivals. Thanks you. IZAK 17:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

PACES exam
JFD, I just noticed that you wrote you sat for your PACES board exam this December. Hope that went well. See you round! Rob Droliver 05:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've emailed you. JFW | T@lk  18:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people
Hi Dr. Wolff: Have you ever had a close look at this strange article: Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people? It's full of red links for the supposed Jews he had contact with (do they deserve articles just because they were Hitler's alleged dentist/shoe-shine-boy/chimney-sweep/whatnots etc?) It's weirdly prurient. The heading stinks. Do all the Jews killed in the Holocaust get to be in it? How about all the theories about Hitler having a Jewish ancestor, does that also count as him having "contact" with Jewish people? I doubt that the originators of this article and those who worked on it have rational objectives. It should be merged with something else involving Adolf Hitler or even deleted for its stupidity. (If not, how about Adolf Hitler's contacts with gypsies, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Italian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Russian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with retarded people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with murderers this can go on forever, and then we can even create [[:Category:Adolf Hitler's
 * That was quick. It's already gone. IZAK 17:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good. What dreadful cruft. JFW | T@lk  18:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Kavod HaBriyot#Requesting Comments
See: Talk:Kavod HaBriyot. Thanks, IZAK 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Rambam was a "Muslim" for a while?
Hi Dr. Wolff: Ever heard of this? See List of Muslim converts: "Maimonides - Jewish philosopher, theologian, and physician forced to convert to Islam under pain of death during the Cordoba massacre of 1148. Reverted to Judaism when his life was no longer under threat. " I don't see which book by "Lewis" is even cited here, and does "Lewis" even say that? (I assume this refers to the Arabist Bernard Lewis.) I had once heard that the Rambam did issue a heter for this kind of procedure (it must be written somewhere) but I had never heard that it had also happened to himself personally. I read an article in the English Yated a couple of years ago that the Mashhadi Jews in Iran relied on such a ruling from the Rambam, and that it was controversial, yet acceptable according to Halachah. Can you help with verifying this, especially if it happened to the Rambam? Thanks. IZAK 17:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is nonsense. The Rambam never converted, and I have never heard of the Lewis resource. All we know is that the Rambam supported (in his Iggeres ha-Shemad) those pretending to be non-Jews in hostile surroundings. I've read a fair bit about him, and never have I ever seen even a hint of a suggestion that he actually converted to Islam. The family had already left Cordoba before the Almohads truly took over. JFW | T@lk  18:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of WP:DRUGS and WikiProject Pharmacology
Hello JFW. I'd like to bring to your attention that a merge between WikiProject Drugs and the newly-created WikiProject Pharmacology has been proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs, and I would appreciate it if you could weigh in. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
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 07:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Tribune (UK)
Please can you copyedit The Jewish Tribune (UK). Thanks. frummer 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, didnt know u knew of it. frummer 18:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Article just needs sources. There is little else to add. JFW | T@lk  18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny Swastika
Hi Dr. Wolff: Take a look at these templates: with the displayed prominently. Honestly, of all of Hinduism's symbols' did this one have to get "headline" billing on these templates? Alternatives are aplenty if one were to look around on articles listed on Hindu Deities and Texts where there are dozens of less offensive symbols that could be chosen for the same purpose. While the swastika may be ok with some Hindus, it should not be flashed around "in all innocence" because for the rest of the world that was caught up in World War II it was the symbol of literal EVIL, DEATH and DESTRUCTION emanating from the Nazis. It was Hitler's personal diabolical "symbol of choice" and for that reason it is VERY far from neutral, no matter in what context it is used. It violates Civility to have it displayed in such an "in your face" fashion on these Hindu templates, giving it a dubious "place of pride" it does not deserve. Need one say more? IZAK 23:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hindu Links (top left)
 * Hinduism small (bottom)
 * HinduFestivals (top right)
 * Hindu Deities and Texts (top right)
 * User WikiProject Hindu mythology (left)


 * Please join the central discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism. --tjstrf talk 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi: NOTE: Talk about this is now centralized at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism. Thanks. IZAK 02:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease
Do not agree with your comments regarding Sailor Malan, he was a famous (one of the top allied air ace in WW2) victim of the disease in a time that it was not well known. On account of his death in 17th September, 1963, a "Sailor Malan Memorial Fund" was started to promote study of this illness at the University of Witwatersrand ('Group Captain ‘Sailor’ Malan Fellowship ) as well as a Sailor Malan Award for research into Parkinson’s Disease. Not to sure why you would think Kenneth More or Vincent Price's illness would have altered the public perception of Parkinson's any more than him. Bolayi 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are free to remove More & Price if you think they are outside those strict notability criteria. Has the research performed with his fellowship sparked any interesting results? JFW | T@lk  17:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Are institution contact details permitted ?
Hi trust you are well. Is there any guidence on whether a WP article on an institution (e.g. Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi) can include its full address, telephone and fax numbers? I suspect not, as WP is not a directory, and in any event contact details presumably can be located by a reader following an external link to the institution's own website. Please let me know your thoughts rather than directly taking action, as I would wish to take any appropriate action myself - I've had constructive positive interaction with this user over a number of hospital articles and in turn their observations helped me update the Template:Infobox Hospital to be more worldwide in its scope :-) David Ruben Talk 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Contact details are not encyclopedic, totally agree with removal. JFW | T@lk  17:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
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 06:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

General Medical Council
He's back. You might want to keep an eye. The account he used is now indefinitely blocked. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!
– ClockworkSoul 18:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally Disputed
We have a raging edit war going on over at Ebionites. Please help. Ovadyah 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
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 05:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Help needed regarding Category:Deaths from diarrhea
Hi Dr Jfdwolff, I would be grateful for your advice on the following issue:

Category:Deaths from diarrhea is repeatedly being categorized as Deaths by infectious disease, where as diarrhea is in it self not an infections disease. I would be grateful if you could comment on this.

Thank you. Nazli 14:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Doc. this is your ref. Infectious_disease. Thanks --Kartoos 14:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and have removed the category. Let me know if you need any further help. JFW | T@lk  04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As always, doctor, thank you for your help and support. Best regards. Nazli 11:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Zelda and Vangelis
Hello and I'm sorry. I should have read Wikipedia's editing policy first. I insisted on that article because I thought some sort of angry Zelda fanboy was trying to remove it, but it's clear that's not the case. I understand now the implications of original research.

I don't have any reliable source for that, though. I realized about the resemblance between the two songs while listening one and comparing to the other and that's all I have to constitute a 'proof' (which obviously doesn't). And... come to think of it, I don't have any idea where to go to make valid my statement. I'll just leave it as it is for now

Thank you! Out. Dualistico 20:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)