User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 27

Query
Hello, my article on Complex Partial Status Epilepticus was deleted. I received no explanation and was curious as to why this occured, as I have video of this condition and it is mentioned in scholarly articles in sources such as PubMed. As a medical doctor, I would think that you of all people would understand the importance of education when it comes to health. The world's health is the responsibility of everyone, and I don't understand erasures such as this one. Thanks. Smithandrewjohn


 * No need to question my motives. Are you sure this needs its own article? If you think so, please revise the content to be more neutral. At the moment, your claim that CPSE is "dangerously underdiagnosed" is not sourced, suggesting that it is opinion. JFW | T@lk  00:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thank you for the response. I will revise it. I remember now why I forgot to source that comment- it was taken from the main status epilepticus page. Let me know if you see that it still needs more changes. And I didn't mean to imply bad faith, I was just confused, and respect the filtering process. I believe Wikipedia is an amazing tool, and to participate in it is an honor and a privilege. I believe this illness does need its own article because of the variance within epilepsy. The word seizure is nearly as general as the word cancer, and I think if it's distinguished from all other types than it is a valuable asset to the Wikipedia library. I do see where you could argue that it might need to be placed in status epilepticus rather than its own article. But I feel as a fatal illness, it needs a place somewhere. Thanks again, Drew

Torah4me links
Hello JFW Thank you for your warm welcome. i don't understand why you felt my addition of torahforme.com is invalid. i don't know of another site that offers free oral reading of Maimonidies text, classes in Medrash - free reading of Medrash text, free reading of Torah, not to mention with catillation marks - and especially noteworthy - the reading of Iyov, and Tehilim with cantillation marks. This is almost impossible to find. there is almost no one in the world who knows this ancient chalabi tune! i hope you have the time to explain to me why you feel these links are inappropriate. thank you for your time and continuous contributions to wiki. By the way, i am new to wiki, so i hope i am posting my comments correctly and in the correct place. i read the instructions in the link you left me. Samson Samson Ben-Manoach 13:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, then please explain in your link description why the link is so important. Alternatively, discuss on the talk page of the pertinent articles why these links may be useful. If the Torah4me site has subpages, tailoring the URL to the relevant subpage may be useful too, rather than the reader having to navigate the entire site to get to the content in question.
 * Wikipedia does not need external links as it does well-written, original and well-sourced content. You must have areas of interest that you could contribute to. JFW | T@lk  20:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I will try to bear in mind to add that information to the link description (in the future). The site www.torahforme.com doesn't have subpages, so it is impossible to tailor the URL to the relevant subpage. Thank you again, Samson Ben-Manoach 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Rabbinical literature
Thanks for reminding me. I have been intending to finish it up (or at least bring it to a useful plateau), but got distracted by other things. I will try to do it this Sunday. Thanks. —Dfass 17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I did about as much work on it as I have time for now, so I removed the "beta" designation.  Please feel free to make whatever improvements you see fit.  —Dfass 18:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

reliability check
Excuse I rally hate to intrude but is this site reliable? -www.gaucher.org.uk/living.htm-. I'm rather new at this sort of thing. I'm not sure what are things to check when you are checking for reliability( allthough it seems like a really well made site). Thank you, User: 8th sinn 21:07 (AST)


 * The site probably will not contain major errors, but the information was authored in 1991, which makes it 16 years old, and was produced by the Genzyme corporation that supplies enzyme replacement therapy for Gaucher. Not being an expert in the field myself I cannot vouch for the page's accuracy. JFW | T@lk  22:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK then but who do you recomend to check the site? 8th sinn 17:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)8thsinn8th sinn 17:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No idea. Why does the site need to be checked? If you are a patient, there is no replacement for a healthcare professional to inform you. JFW | T@lk  17:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No its that i would like for this site to be added to the articale(cant spell).

Jews in countries pages
Hello Dr. Wolff: Something needs to be clarified: The use of the term "Jews and Judaism" is for categories only. Thus Category:Jews and Judaism is the parent category for two main sub-categories: Category:Jews and Category:Judaism. Almost no articles are called by that name. There were a few instances where "Jews and Judaism" was used as a name for articles and I have tried to correct it now, to "History of the Jews in _____". The few remaing instances below require help from an admin because of problems with double-redirects and the risk of losing edit histories. I have spent a few hours going through the categories and articles to be found in Category:Jews and Judaism, Category:Jews by country, Category:Jewish history by country (a few hundred items) and the only exceptions that exist are the ones below. Once these are corrected there should be consistency. Most articles about Jews in specific countries are in the relevant Jewish history categories for those countries. In Category:Jews by country the contents (i.e. articles/biographies) for each country's category are basically just names of people who are Jews who were either born there or lived there. So after having sorted through a few loose ends I need some technical admin help, as well as the understanding that you have of this subject and the experience with it over the years. The following eight are the articles that need to fit with the basic naming convention in Category:Jewish history by country:
 * 1) Jewish history in Japan (and the Jews and Judaism in Japan redirect page) needs to be moved to History of the Jews in Japan (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)
 * 2) Jews and Judaism in Kazakhstan needs to be moved to History of the Jews in Kazakhstan (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)
 * 3) Jews and Judaism in Pakistan needs to be moved to History of the Jews in Pakistan (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)
 * 4) Jews and Judaism in Serbia to History of the Jews in Serbia (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)
 * 5) Jews and Judaism in Tajikistan to History of the Jews in Tajikistan (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)
 * 6) Jews and Judaism in Uzbekistan to History of the Jews in Uzbekistan (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)
 * 7) Jews and Judaism in Switzerland to History of the Jews in Switzerland (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)
 * 8) Jews and Judaism in Africa to History of the Jews in Africa (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)

Thanks in advance for your help. Sincerely, IZAK 08:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your hard work, but I'm a bit reluctant to get involved in this one. Could you show me where you have tried to gain consensus, and whether you have satisfied those people who seem to oppose you actions? JFW | T@lk  22:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I took care of it. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 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 05:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Coeliac Disease
Congradulations on the 5 star rating. The genetics reads well now, IMHO, but i think the AA AB is actually presented incorrectly, still, eventually a keen geneticists will catch the error. At this point I don't want to change the page unless you and I discuss it.

Certains things you should know. -Enteritis Associated T-cell lymphoma. New paper out. The association for DQ2.5 homozyogotes is very high. Therefore it does appear that homozygosity can affect the severity of the disease. [Early online Gut]

-PRD


 * Hey Phil, good to have you back.
 * What exactly is incorrect in the antibody section? I thought this pretty much reflected the papers I have cited.


 * Not Antibody The AABB part section. A = Disease, a = not allele at

locus DQA1, B = Disease, b = not risk at DQB1. You have two chromosomes. but you need gene product heterodimer ([alpha]A[Beta]B to have disease. You can have risk via AB on either chromosome but you can have transhaplotype risk if haplotypes are Ab/Ba Homozygotes AB/AB have the most risk and Single gene Homozygotes at risk are AB/aB for DQ2.5/DQ2.5 and DQ2.5/DQ2.2 respectively. I will read the section again.


 * I thought you were the keen geneticist!


 * I have to figure out a way to convey this in a simple matter.

The way it is written is good, but its not correct.


 * I will have to trudge to the library for the EATL paper. Frustratingly, my hospital is unwilling to pay for Athens access on important journals such as Gut etc. JFW | T@lk  10:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically the Gut paper is showing that this risk for EATL is 2.5 times greater if the individual is a DQ2 homozygote, most of the risk for EATL is for late onset or cryptic (de Novo) celiac disease and DQ2.5. We can argue that homozygosity can increase the risk of some of the most severe secondary condistions. Approximate 65% of Gluten Triggered EATL are DQ2 homozygotes, this is really high.--Pdeitiker 23:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For better or worse, probably worse, I have reluctantly created a wikipage on Gluten sensitivity because the chatter has now reached a dull roar in the patient community and all kinds of myths appear to be popping up. Its designed to be a catch all for idiopathic gluten sensitivities that might be intolerance, allergic, blood gluten or unclassifyably related, but not the actual conditions. I have subdivided it into GSE and IGS (idiopathic GS) and trying to keep the GSE portion as short as possible, but when there are two similar conditions with contrasting causes will be expanded on in each section. The entire section on Immunochemistry of glutens has been moved from Triticeae glutens, to this section as well as all information on health except overt allergic diseases and type 1 diabetes. Maybe this should go elsewhere also. The Triticeae page is looking up, the Triticeae glutens page is looking up. BTW there is a paper out on 'farmer's refractory' celiac disease. The cause appears to be inhaled gluten in cattle feed. Pdeitiker 20:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

7-13-2007. On the genetics section, I have added information on the new IL2/IL21 association genome wide survey done in Britian. On the issue of myoIXB I have added information on a study suggesting it has a general autoimmune association that is not specific to celiac disease. Pdeitiker 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 7-14-2007. For some reason the corrections of 7-13 did not show up. I corrected the completely incorrect explanation of cis and trans-haplotypes, trying as hard as possible to make it readable in spite of its complexity. I also integrated the new MyoIXB data into the 'other associations' paragraph and added information about IL2 and IL21. While doing this I found 2 'linking' errors which I did not correct.


 * 1. 2 q33
 * Should be
 * 2q33"?
 * 2. 15q11-q13
 * Should be
 * 15q11-q13"?

Userbox
Hello: I created a Userbox for the nephrology project. If there is strong feeling about changing the appearance, we can discuss that on the project talk page. The template is at: Template:User WikiProject Nephrology. To post it on your user page, paste. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 20:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Frustrated Wikipedian Requests Help

 * Pyroluria

I don't know what to do, anymore, JFW.

All my hard work in the past has be removed to the discussion page.

I'm afraid of "disturbing" the Pyroluria wiki. That whatever work I do will all be removed for "discussion".

Another moderator, SandyGeorgia, (I think that's their name) has made very BOLD comments about the condition in their edits:

(cur) (last) 09:47, 9 April 2007 SandyGeorgia (Talk | contribs) (rearrange to conform with WP:LEAD, a non-existent condition can't be "diagnosed" but it can be "described")

I do not understand how this moderator can be so sure that Pyroluria does not exist! I do not even understand why that individual would say such a thing. Unless he or she could "prove" that it didn't?!?!?!?!?

In fact, "I" do have Pyroluria. And my symptoms since the diagnosis of Pyroluria have now stopped, since taking MEGA doses of vitamin therapy and eliminating foods that might otherwise cause me to have Cerebral (Brain) Allergies.

JFW, you've been SO very helpfull, to me, in the past. :o) I'm at my wit's end with this wiki. If you could please tell me how to better post in the wiki, Pyroluria, so that my posts would not be removed for "discussion", I would be very greatful.

I just want to help other individuals learn about Pyroluria so that they do not have to go through what I went through, searching the Internet, and calling libraries and universities, just to "understand" the condition.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, JFW.

I look forward to hearing from you soon. With Utmost Respect and Admiration, OnaTutors | T@lk  11:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Respect and admiration! Now now... Let's see where this takes us.
 * Wikipedia needs an article on pyroluria. It is a diagnostic entity from the realm of alternative medicine; I have not found any "mainstream" medical sources lending credence to it. But the fact that people are diagnosed with it and take treatment for it means we need an article about it.
 * Nobody disagrees that cancer exists. Or pneumonia. These articles can therefore state as a matter of fact that cancer is diagnosed in a certain way and treated in a certain way. With pyroluria this is harder; given that mainstream medics would not recognise pyroluria as an established medical condition, we need to make it clear in the Wikipedia article that this disagreement exists, and that those who regard pyroluria as a diagnosis would "diagnose" it in a particular way (e.g. constellation of symptoms, particular biochemical tests etc).
 * I hold SandyGeorgia in high regard as an editor, and a cursory examination of his (rather extensive) edits to pyroluria does not give me the impression that any specific policies were violated. I do however realise that you have invested an enormous amount of time in making the pyroluria article comprehensive. Still, SandyGeorgia must have felt that there were some content problems. I hate to rub this in, but at the bottom of the Wikipedia editing box it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I completely understand your frustration, but I would try to talk to SandyGeorgia at first instance. I see you've already left a message, and SandyGeorgia has come up with a reasonable response.
 * The best thing here is that you've been WP:COOL about this. Other contributors, when faced with similar situations, have previously lost theirs, leading to nasty exchanges and trolling. Good collaborative skills are the bread & butter of successful Wikipedia participation. Well done. JFW | T@lk  10:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're the BEST, JFW! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you, for all of your help! OnaTutors | T@lk  09:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Email
Hi JFW, I enabled email, so feel free to send a message. - Tekaphor (talk · contribs) 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem Talmud Template
The Pnei Moshe was written by Moshe Margoliot, 18th century (on the template). Your idea to include the names of the commentaries is excellent and pertinent, however I can't do it at this moment and it may present unexpected difficulties. It would be quite lengthly and complicated in that many commentators wrote dual commentaries on the Yerushalmi and some commenataries were written in longer works. What do you wish to do? Lostvelt 21:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you say to making a separate template of commentaries on Jerusalem Talmud? Both templates would complement each other, having a different purview. Besides, we could include more commentaries in a "commentary template" than in a "commentator template" as some comemtaries are of unknown or uncertain authorship - or joint authorship (I'm guessing on that one) Lostvelt 21:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 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 06:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hasidic Mediation Cabal case needs serious help
Hello Dr. Wolff : You may perhaps be able to help solve the logjam at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty) between and. An additional question being raised is if Wikipedia should define a "Hasidic dynasty," see Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty). Any attention and help you may wish to render would be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia has gained many diverse articles about Hasidic Judaism that can be found nowhere else on the web, and this case may help to resolve and establish some important precedants and guidelines. But right now, the matter is stalled and needs outside help before it heads for more serious mediation. Thank you, IZAK 12:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Coeliac external links
I'm not going to start reverting you on this :-). I think you may be making a rod for your own back by allowing a restricted set of support orgs. People will just ask "Who are you to decide what is 'useful' or not?" It wasn't really "discussed on FAC" – NCurse suggested a few and you added them. Anyway... On Epilepsy I linked directly to the information pages on the support orgs websites (where they were good enough) and provided links to quality web pages that listed support orgs (which are a bit more selective than a dmoz page). I don't know if that approach could be applied here. Cheers, Colin°Talk 08:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a longterm opponent to the use of Wikipedia for linkfarming. As you can see on my userpage I tend to remove links that don't meet my criteria.
 * That said, the large national support organisations for coeliac disease in English-speaking countries are definitely suitable. When my team diagnoses someone with coeliac disease, we generally refer them to the UK national associations for advice and support, because the NHS is unable to really provide the help that these people actually need.
 * It is clear that local groups, small/extreme pressure groups ("the Coeliac Liberation Front" strives to eliminate wheat/barley/rye/oats from all products, as they discriminate against coeliacs!) and other entities (e.g. personal webpages/blogs) are not suitable here.
 * If you look through the links on coeliac disease do you see any that do not meet these criteria? JFW | T@lk  09:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully support your views on the place of associations wrt help to patients post-diagnosis. I'm less convinced that listing (a select few) is Wikipedia's role or is even necessary (Google). However, I don't feel strongly opposed to such lists, if carefully tended like yours. It is a job for life, though.

Have you noticed this RfA?

Lastly, someone tagged the article I created, Manuel Rodríguez Gómez, with Category:Deaths from Parkinson's disease. This appears to be based on the line "He died after a long illness with Parkinson's disease.", which I sourced from the Spanish obituary. It is not quite the same thing. I'll probably have to double-check my "translation" of the Spanish obit to be sure but I don't believe it confirmed this as the cause of death. Would PD appear on a death certificate? These grey areas are one reason I don't like such categories. Colin°Talk 21:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be hesitant to put PD as "cause 1a" on a death cert. It is usually a complication (pneumonia, embolism). JFW | T@lk  22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Dor Yeshorim.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Dor Yeshorim.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You know what, bot, I really don't care. It is a logo. If you don't like it, the article will not have an image. JFW | T@lk  04:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ritual washing in Judaism
The Ritual washing in Judaism article has recently gone a major re-write, with much contentious material inserted. I've tried to clean up some of it, but I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Anemia & edit summaries
Thanks for the heads up on edit summaries from a new Wikiuser. I will use them. Rodrigotorres 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 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 07:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hasty Deletions An Appeal
Don't know how deletions are so quick. About a half dozen useful articles have disappeared from wiki in last week or so becasue of you. There seem to be 'votes' by three people within the space of 24hrs and then an admin delete. As a PhD scientist, I thikn this poor show ... is this librarian / editors dominating over active contributors? Please guys, take it easy. I haven't the energy to add back in the content that others had created.


 * Without the names of the articles in hand I cannot be sure which articles you are referring to. However, I suspect you are referring to a number of nominations I made on 28 May. The articles in question were largely speculative prose unsupported by reliable sources. I don't disagree that there may be a J curve to many medical phenomena, but your contribution violated several of our content guidelines (e.g. WP:NOR - a new synthesis of extant information). Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia, not a platform for radical new ideas or interpretations.
 * There are fairly strict rules to AFD, and I think the discussions were closed appropriately with deletion actioned in most cases. This is not a criticism of your ideas per se but a consensus that the content is not best suited for Wikipedia. If you remain convinced that the deletions were "out of process", please consult WP:DRV. Do be aware that DRV only reviews whether the deletion was justified on the basis of the votes, and will not decide on the merits of the content.
 * You say you are a PhD scientist. I'm sorry if this experience may have put you off Wikipedia, but your expertise is welcome as long as you stick to the basic content guidelines. Have you had a look at extant articles to see if they would benefit from improved sourcing? JFW | T@lk  18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA :)
Thank you, JFW. Your support, and your comment, meant a lot to me. I only hope I can be a good admin! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hologic
You wrote on my personal page:

When creating articles about companies, please do adhere to WP:CORP. Hologic sounds notable, but I notice that you rely exclusively on the company's own promotional material on its website. Perhaps some external information might be useful. User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | T@lk 10:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jfdwolff: Frankly, I'm not that invested in the Hologic article and therefore am loath to do an alternate source search. I only created the page because I was just surprised that the company had no page on the site. Since this encyclopedia is constantly evolving, I figured that other users (perhaps those who have started a WikiProject concerned with maintaining medical company/organization articles) would help round it out.

I am familiar with WP:CORP and with other wikipedia rules and (as in this case) guidlines. As for its notability, Hologic, a $10 billion company (see ), is one of the most prominent manufacturers and sellers of mammography, medical imaging and other women's health equipment in the world. With almost half a billion dollars in sales in 2006 (see ), it competes primarily with the medical equipment divisions of General Electric (i.e. GE Healthcare), Koninklijke Philips and Siemens AG (among other conglomerates and medical device companies). In 2006 they actually sold more digital mamography units than G.E., making them (I believe) the #1 provider of such equipment in the U.S. (verifiable via the Hologic annual report and 10-K form with the SEC). Hologic affects millions of doctors and patients around the globe and has been a pioneer in 3-D imaging technology (see information from the Radiological Society of North America, a.k.a. RSNA, at ) and digital tomosynthesis (see for a broader definition), two processes most oncologists believe to be superior screening tools for many types of cancers (check American Society of Clinical Oncology, a.k.a. ASCO, archives at ). All of these factors make the company "notable," per Wikipedia guidlines, warranting an article. So, although, it's little known outside the medical and financial analyst communities, Hologic has a massive presence in women's oncology and is among the most prominent players in that field.

As for sourcing, you are absolutely right, the article needs more diverse referencing. I'll see if anyone in a relevant WikiProject wants to take up the process of rounding it out... As for my investment, though, this article is unfortunately not high on my list... ask123 16:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

After I posted the above response, I read a bit on your user discussion page and saw that you are a doctor and interested in articles related to certain medical issues. Perhaps you can help direct me to an appropriate WikiProject to help with the Hologic page! Any guidance would be helpful, as I only rarely dabble in medicine-related articles... Many thanks! ask123 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 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 02:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mikulov (Nikolsburg)
I need clarification before I proceed. The section called "Jewish Mikulov" has been removed on the basis of WP:SU. I didn't quite understand why an entire section would be removed even if its editor was later banned, as a lot of truth is spoken through false teeth.

Redakter was the first to notice it and recommended its reinstatement, on its talk page. I thought the same but decided to wait for an explanation. Today before proceeding to reinstate it, I first checked out on what premise it was deleted, and this is what I found.

That all articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia that was copy-pasted by that editor is going to be deleted, see WP:SU. The question is; there are a lot of edits since then added by other editors; does all that go down the drain. Besides the Jewish Encyclopedia from 1901-6 I understand, is in the public domain, therefore its information may be copy-pasted.

All this also applies to the many articles mentioned there that are due for deletion. How do we proceed? Itzse 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that JE articles should under no circumstances be copy/pasted without editing. Too much POV junk has landed on Wikipedia because people copied stuff from JE.
 * I have always found SU's contributions very odd, and am not surprised that his edits are under scrutiny. If you could find the necessary sources, I would simply restore the material that can be sourced. Even JE has a list of sources at the end of each entry. JFW | T@lk  07:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. I was thinking of JE in terms of expediency; but in the long run, you're right; it's better that all data get filtered by editors who have knowledge of the subject even though the articles will as a result grow slowly. I'll add only those information that I am personally familiar with and can eventually find references for, as I don't sit with books around me when I edit. I do actually have some references for Nikolsburg which I'll edit in when I find their names. Itzse 19:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

List of fascial diseases
I think you're right about the fascial list. I'll change it to the category you suggested and edit the articles on the list to be part of the new category. (I'm a noob, but I'm trying...) Massagenj 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fascial disease List
You can go ahead and delete the list. I'm adding the articles to the category you suggested, however I'm not sure if I'm making the new category right. I added -Category:Diseases involving the fasciae- to a few items from the list Adhesions, Frozen shoulder and Hypermobility. Is that the way to do it?? Massagenj 23:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've finished moving the articles into the new category. You can delete the old list.  Thanks for your help. Massagenj 00:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the WikiProject Preclinical Medicine active? Massagenj 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dank U well
Thanks for the barnstar! I lived in Groningen for a few weeks in 1995! I miss osseworst! Orangemarlin 15:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dor Yeshorim Welch paper
The abstract of the paper referenced by Welch on Dor Yeshorim page:


 * Tay-Sachs disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that has plagued Ashkenazi Jews for centuries. The disease has a relatively high frequency among the Ashkenazi Jewish population, which is maintained by autosomal recessive inheritance pattern. Tay-Sachs disease is a painful ordeal for the child as well as for the family to go through, as a result a program of genetic screening was created to prevent potential carrier parents from breeding. This paper will explore Tay-Sachs as a disease, its history and frequency among Ashkenazi Jews. It will also discuss the process of carrier screening that is conducted in the population and demonstrate, using novel mathematical models, the paradox of carrier screening- how heterozygosity is not being lost in these populations. The model will demonstrate how carrier screening will affect carrier frequencies in future generations of these populations.

For full paper, contact bmw4@utah.edu. It has not been published in a journal yet. This paper clearly supports the statement made and is a reliable reference.


 * This is not a way to reference a paper. Until it has been officially published it remains WP:NOR. I can make claims and then write that the evidence is a 200-page Word Document on my hard drive that I intend to publish in the future. How about you wait until the paper is actually published? JFW | T@lk  05:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 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 08:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Patient Registries at Slone (Boston University) wiki deletions
Hello,

We have noticed the deletions suggested during your review of our recent wiki additions. At first, we thought that adding ourselves to the wikipedia would be helpful to those seeking information about myeloma and MDS cancer. We did not intend for the pages to sound promotional (this is an academic project).

Upon reviewing your comments, we understand your points. Perhaps, we must reformulate the content of the wiki page to only briefly describe the objectives of the project. Or, perhaps the entry should wait until we have published or presented some results in a peer reviewed setting.

Any further input you may have for us would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, PRS Webmaster (Elsirt) Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University


 * Thanks for your message. The PRS page does not quite assert why it is notable in comparison to similar large patient registries. Its aims are commendable (it is hard enough recruiting patients in this area), but I cannot quite see whether PRS would ever qualify for an encyclopedia entry. Regardless of the outcome of the deletion, I wish the project success. JFW | T@lk  18:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Spamming" of Sites
Hello, I received your message regarding the "spamming" of sites. While I understand your point regarding the repetition of information, the goal of inserting an external link to our website was to provide a legal way of presenting UVA's hematological images to the public without allowing permission for Wikipedia to utilize them for commerical purposes. The information on most sites is very comprehensive, however I feel that good quality realistic images are lacking and should have a chance to be presented free to the public. If you can think of any way I can present these images through Wikipedia without reliquishing UVA's intellectual property rights for commercial purposes please let me know. Thank you. User:linzhoo2u

Hello again, ''Thank you for your speedy response. Yes, I am one of the two authors of the website. It is designed to provide a free educational image database to the public but it is also unfortunately protected by UVA's Intellectual property laws. As an employee of the hospital, I am unable to even submit images from my collection, as the software and specimens (as well as my time) are all property of UVA. Our concern with allowing images to become free is future utilization of our work for commercial entities, for example if a company decided they wanted to take an image of a flame cell and insert it into a promotional text. I was advised after having one of my images removed that the best way to resolve this without interfering with UVA's copyrights is to list the image location under External Links which provides some protection.''

''It is unfortunate that there are so many legal loopholes you must go through for education. We have an original chart of human bone marrow hematopoiesis with actual photographed cells which is the first I have ever seen, but we aren't allowed to present it to the public through this website because of the copyright concerns. Again, I would be more than happy to donate it for education, but I am unsure how to do that without giving permission to commercial entities. Thank you again for your concern and interest. User:linzhoo2u''

Hello, Thank you again for your response. I am honored that you would take the time to look into this issue. UVA operates through the Patent Foundation, and their e-mail address is patents@virginia.edu. Our parent website is named "Microscopic Hematology" and is located within the Hematology/Oncology Division. As a former student, I have spent some time browsing Wikipedia, and it has proven to be helpful in answering many of my questions. It would be nice for Wikipedia to make image sharing less complicated as I believe it may shirk away users such as myself who only want to share their work for the good of education.

I am very excited to have contact with a person who is equally excited about and committed to the subject!

User:linzhoo2u

OK, I have just activated my e-mail through Wikipedia. I hope this works! User:linzhoo2u

Asthma
User_talk:194.44.134.242 is at it again. I've reverted the Allergy spam, but in your last warning you said you would block the IP if they continued to spam (last time it was apparently for Asthma). Please revisit that and, if appropriate, take action. Thank you. Ante lan  talk  00:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone has blocked that nefarious character for one month. Good. JFW | T@lk  22:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Admin
Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Jfdwolff. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is already seriously getting my help, and I don't think I should get involved in your case given my complete unfamiliarity with the subject. Generally, if you feel an administrator has committed a wrong it would be preferable for the complainant to make his case on WP:ANI. JFW | T@lk  12:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for such humble honesty and assistance!!! 68.110.8.21 13:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

PD
Hi JFW. An editor has requested that the protection on Parkinson's disease be downgraded to semi. Do you feel this would be a good idea? I must say I'm wary of pages being fully protected for such a long time, but I'd like to hear your opinion. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Tojo is not a normal vandal. I think anyone who has a good edit to propose should ask on the talkpage to have this edit actioned. There are several administrators watching that talkpage, so no real worry. JFW | T@lk  18:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well—another admin has since changed it to semi-protection. The joy and sorrow of collaborative editing... :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Parkinson's "See Also"
You really mean to tell me that the "See also" link to an astronomical conference didn't belong on the Parkinson's page? ;-) Ante  lan  talk  19:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh. The editor was clearly trying to make a point re. some pathophysiological mechanism. The problem is that PubMed doesn't link SIRT2 to Parkinson's, and if there was ever an article on AGK2 it hasn't yet been indexed.
 * I appreciate that AGK2 refers to something rather unrelated. JFW | T@lk  19:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 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 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Query regarding Jewish Education
Hello, JFW. I'm a newbie to the 'talk' process, so I hope this is the right place to address your comment on my last addition:

I'm sorry I had to remove your contribution on drama in Jewish education. When I removed it the feel was that this was your own opinion, rather than that of a major Jewish educationalist. There are certainly instances where drama is traditionally used to convey ideas (e.g. portraying the Exodus from Egypt by slinging the Afikoman over one's shoulder on Seder night), but your seem to be suggesting a trend that I personally don't think exists. Try discussing on Talk:Jewish education. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you define "a major Jewish educationalist" but I have over 20 years of experience in informal Jewish education around the US and England, as well as rabbinical ordination from one of the great educators of the 20th century, Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg. I hope this qualifies me to at least offer an alternative point of view based on facts on the ground of which you may not be aware.

Informal drama-based education is a lot broader than your afikoman example. The earliest instance of which I'm aware is Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzatto (Ramchal 1707-1746, b. Italy), who wrote plays with multiple character on Jewish themes. See one at. In the famous Etz Chaim school of Jerusalem where the tzadik Rav Aryeh Levine was a teacher, the students had to put on a play putting David's general Yoav on trial for his various crimes. There was a judge, advocates and a jury, all based on extensive research of traditions (heard from Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg, a student at the school at that time).

In more modern times, drama is being further developed as an educational tool. Please see Rabbi J. Krug's paper on drama in Jewish education at. I am authoring a paper on this myself which is still in process, but from my own experience doing programs in the US and England, I know that many schools are becoming more aware of the value of this mode of teaching as opposed to pure lecturing. I have actual quotes from educators and principals across the Jewish spectrum to this effect here. In Detroit there is an ensemble theater devoted to education and outreach. . The Lookstein Center at Bar Ilan, a think tank geared to Jewish educators in the Diaspora, has many drama-related programs listed on their website. 

The key is that now more than ever, Jewish audiences are consumers of 'entertainment' and are exposed to drama more than perhaps any other time in history (who saw a play in the shtetl?). Educational theater utilizes this medium to impart timeless lessons. Perhaps I should include the above information since you felt this was merely an opinion.

Thanks for your input. User:Shlomoh


 * The Ramchal example may be quite useful to support your assertion. I'm less certain about Reb Aryeh (given its anecdotal background), but either way this may be sufficient to update the article with a reliable source. There is relatively little entertainment in "traditional" Jewish education (even if you include the Ramchal), so I would make it very clear that these are innovations.
 * I'm sorry to give you a hard time, but the content will look much better when it is supported with sufficient evidence. JFW | T@lk  16:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Moratorium
"Can we have a moratorium on articles from Medical Hypotheses?" Hah... if only. The impact factor of Medical Hypotheses is right around that of the NEJM or Annals of Internal Medicine, if Wikipedia citations are considered. In fact, maybe that would be a good Wikiproject: Wikipedia-specific Journal Impact Factors. Tagline: The results might shock you... MastCell Talk 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not in the business of advancing novel or fringe theories. Such a WikiProject would only serve the purpose of extirpating these citations from Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk  20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You saw through my ulterior motive! If (as I suspect) Medical Hypotheses and its ilk are cited way out of proportion to its real-life impact factor of 0.0001, or whatever, then that would say something about how effectively WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE are being applied (or not being applied). MastCell Talk 20:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yekusiel Yehuda Teitelbaum
JFD: Could you please help me out of a mess of my own making? In order to disambiguate the article at Yekusiel Yehudah Teitelbaum and the one formerly at Yekusiel Yehuda Teitelbaum, I moved the latter to Yekusiel Yehuda Teitelbaum (II) and intended to move the former to Yekusiel Yehuda Teitelbaum (I). However I got it wrong and cannot extricate myself without admin help. Would you please fix a move from Yekusiel Yehudah Teitelbaum to Yekusiel Yehuda Teitelbaum (I)? Once that is done I shall set up a disambiguation page for these two and a third person with the same name. Thanks. --Redaktor 13:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Am working on resolving the links now. --Redaktor 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 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 07:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about Genetics link on FAP page
So I like the change that you made to the genetics link on the FAP page, I wish I knew how to do it. But, the link doesn't do anything when I click it - and is it supposed to be listed below now in the references? Or am I supposed to make that change? --ladeedadeeeverybody 12:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) --

Re: Rivaroxaban (Blog authenticity)
Hi,

You made a significant wiki contribution in medicine. Truly, praiseworthy! About your comment on Rivaroxaban's RECORD trial reference, I would like to say that blogs can be reliable and in-fact most up-to-date sources at many instances. The linkout I've placed is of my blog which I keep up-to-date and quote with authentic information from Pubmed and related resources. Since I can not post each and everything about I have came to known about medical update every day, I rather put linkout on wiki, so interested people can find relevant info. more quickly. Since you are an admin. level user, I leave final decision at your discretion. Thanks! Samir

Signpost updated for July 9th, 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 07:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Tojo, part 42 (at least)
These two edits reminded me of a question I meant to ask you a month ago: Would you mind taking a minute to look at the contributions of the accounts listed below and whether they fit the WP:TOJO pattern?


 * - This edit in particular.
 * - User page states "Qualified neurologist. 35 years medical experience"
 * - First edit? "(rv vandal)" who added  tag to User:210835a's user page....
 * - Adding masked viartis.net links to Arvid Carlsson
 * - First edit? "(rv vandal)" who added  tag to User:210835a's user page....
 * - Adding masked viartis.net links to Arvid Carlsson


 * - seems likely, but I'm uncertain.

Thanks for your advice - much appreciated. -- MarcoTolo 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * -- Colin°Talk 10:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a strong pattern. Any user who puts perfunctionary information on the userpage as one of the first edits (e.g. just their username), then insert a link to viartis.net, and revert for no reason are presumed TOJO accounts. If you want to get trolled, send them through checkuser. If you don't, just calmy revert any inappropriate edits and keep whatever is good. JFW | T@lk  14:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sound advice, JFW :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent - thank you for your insights, JFW. Since I'm not particularly interested in (unnecessarily) becoming a target, I think I'll take you advice. -- MarcoTolo 03:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Autism peer review
Thanks for your peer review of Autism. I responded in Peer_review/Autism. Eubulides 08:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I followed up there again. Eubulides 16:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Viewing Deleted Entries
To examine ideas or original research go to the History tab and click on the date of deleted articles. Good ideas without valid sources are deleted, however they are stored in the history. Knowing this can allow you to access original concepts in any topic.

Only editing an article once, allows many people to get articles into the history section without wasting wikipedia space.

Even if your article is deleted immediatly, fear not it is stored in the history section for inquiring minds to read.

So when researching a topic, check out the history page as well. Just remember not all entries are good, however some might be.

See the history of the Nissen fundoplication page as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.57.8 (talk • contribs)


 * I know about the history. I have been on Wikipedia since 2004.
 * Please see the article's talkpage, where I have offered some advice. JFW | T@lk  08:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Re:Blog, Rivaroxaban
Thanks JFW for comments and WP:CLINMED I'll look forward to compile open access archive in a team-work. --SBAmin 09:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Ping

re: Bronchitis, colorectal
JFW, Forgive my inexperience - I mistook your message as a call to replace the links I had provided, and have never used a talk page. Indeed, I did refer to new and still widely-unavailable material, hence the use of a secondary source. Regarding your previous message wrt my affiliation, as far as my understanding goes, wikipedia external links are not significant generators of traffic, and, moreover, IM is not supported by any external interests which would benefit from said traffic.

Sorry for my poor communication -- please explain how I can be of more help, and less hindrance, in this area in future.


 * Will respond on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk  18:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 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 20:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your Constant Removal of the POV tag
Please stop removing the POV tag without further discussion with other editors such as myself. I see (and think many others too) see the article very, very baised. Also, please do not acuse people of being trolls for no reason. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. — Ian Lee (Talk) 20:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

no problem
I saw he is a stalker. I'm bored too (in real life) which then I stalk newbies. :D I'm an Indonesian but physically I am not there. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 14:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh wow! The article is here: nasi goreng, and there are a lot more. ;-) &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK
Hi,

At some point you expressed an interest in supporting Wikimedia UK. We're now ready to begin receiving applications from prospective members. If you would like to join, application forms and further information can be found at: http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/join. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions, either via my user page at the English Wikipedia or by email (andrew.walker@wikimedia.org.uk). Thanks, Andreww 14:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Membership officer, Wikimedia UK)

POV pushing
I don't know who's been undoing your reversions of my colon cancer edits, but I'm glad he's doing it. You've characterized my edits as persistent POV pushing but consider your own POV as perfectly reasonable.

This is unfortunate, because your advocacy of the fiber theory is out of step with the latest research is not shared by the medical community. You are perpetuating a myth.

The facts I have presented about Denis Burkitt are true and relevant to the article. I suggest you refrain from pushing your POV and suppressing these facts. --Jonathan108 17:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Deep sigh. Show evidence that the profession shares your view, and I will agree with your edits. JFW | T@lk  22:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My view that the squatting theory is correct has little evidence to support it. But that's not the view I am trying to insert into the article. What I am claiming is the following:
 * 1) The theory was born from the same mind as the fibre theory and is mentioned in almost every book and article published by Denis Burkitt.  You clearly have great respect for this scientist, whose other theory has held sway for over 3 decades.
 * 2) The theory was considered plausible enough by the editors of many peer-reviewed journals (BMJ, JRSM, etc.) to allow it to appear in their august publications.
 * 3) The fibre theory is generally considered defunct by the medical profession, and this has created a vacuum to be filled by another plausible theory.
 * 4) Most MD's are unaware that Burkitt had an alternate theory, but when it's clearly explained to them, they almost always find it fascinating.

My evidence for the above claims has been appearing on the colon cancer talk page over the years. The edits I did a few days ago succinctly summarize these claims, so I'm not insisting on devoting a lot of space to the subject, as I'm doing in this message.

By the way, in case you're curious as to why I'm so convinced that the squatting theory is correct, please have a look at http://NaturesPlatform.com/health_benefits.html

All the best, --Jonathan108 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not addressing my point, as usual. Please demonstrate that the profession has taken these "new theories" on board. I absolutely couldn't care less about your squatting stuff. This has nothing to do with personality (I am not "a fan of Burkitt" more than of William Osler or Charcot) and your insinuations are getting tiring. Please SHOW which major surgical and oncological textbooks have now officially deprecated the fibre theory and which ones quote your squat toilet stuff.
 * Wikipedia is not about disseminating theories that otherwise have no support (see WP:WEIGHT). It is about describing what is already held to be the prevalent view. This is why I refer to your recurrent edits as "POV pushing". I hope you will one day understand.
 * I'm happy discussing this on WP:CLINMED if you question my judgment on this matter. JFW | T@lk  05:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Very deep sigh. If wikipedia has to wait for textbooks to be published then it's going to be out of date most of the time. I won't waste any more of your time (and mine) discussing this subject. --Jonathan108 14:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is, if Wikipedia doesn't wait for textbooks and other reliable sources to be published, then it's going to be wrong well more than half the time. Being a few months behind the curve in popularizing squat toilets is the lesser of two evils. MastCell Talk 16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jonathan, you still have not addressed my question: where is the evidence that your theories have found acceptance? Once you can produce this, my objections are immediately irrelevant. JFW | T@lk  18:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'll give you more evidence that the fibre theory has been dismissed by the medical community. Your statement on Mastcell's page that I called the fiber theory disproved based on only one study is not correct. I based it on all the major fiber studies published within the past 8 years and on 2 reviews of these studies, one by the AP and one by the Boston Globe. I'm sure you've read the Globe article by now and the AP article is here: http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/333/7228/300409.html

I also read a column by Richard Lehman in the BMJ which flatly said that Burkitt was wrong about his fibre theory. I don't know any serious authority who still considers it "controversial".

Regarding your question about the acceptance of the squatting theory, I don't regard that as a valid criterion for inclusion in an article. Many articles about diseases include theories about their etiology which vary widely as to their level of acceptance.

The Reliable sources article simply requires "authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." I believe that Burkitt falls into that category, as do the publications in which his work has appeared. An encyclopedia that restricts itself to the "general consensus" would be pretty useless, especially in this case where the general consensus (the fibre theory) has been discredited. --Jonathan108 00:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So why does the NCI still support a diet "low in fiber"? Obviously, these things change slowly. The best we can say is that "some studies question the role of fibre", which is much fairer than "disproven" until this feeling is generalised in the medical community. Richard Lehman is a blogger and not an authority on colorectal cancer.
 * You are simply wrong that the squat toilet stuff could be on Wikipedia. Again, you show me that it has serious support and I will reconsider. Just because other articles contain garbage inserted by people who cannot tell mainstream theories from what they dreamt up over dinner does not mean you can have your go as well. JFW | T@lk  06:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The NCI didn't mention the link between smoking and lung cancer till the mid-70's, decades after everyone else knew about it. The NCI is a perfect example of the ignorance of the medical establishment.--Jonathan108 01:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In my >3 years on Wikipedia, I have learnt that any user invoking the "medical establishment" argument is simply unable to comprehend WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, not to mention WP:NOR. You have repeatedly insisted on making edits that violate these content guidelines.
 * I have nothing more to say to you, because I am clearly a representative of the "medical establishment" - which, in reality, is simply a loose association of everyone who went through medical school and is therefore fairly well trained in appraising scientific information. The NCI is an extension of this. If you don't like it, go collaborate with ongoing clinical studies that further disprove the theories that you clearly cannot stand. But stop pushing your POV on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk  18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Jfdwolff here: if you think that the NCI, and the medical establishment in general, are unutterably backwards or ignorant, then Wikipedia may not be the best venue for you. Wikipedia reports on views in proportion to their acceptance among experts in a given field. If you categorically reject a field of expertise, then your tenure at Wikipedia is likely to be quite rocky. Certainly minority or "non-establishment" views have a place here, but dedicated advocates for such views are rarely happy with the proportionate and contextual representation required by policy. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. That means it lags behind primary sources and even secondary sources (e.g. the NCI position statement), but is also less speculative. Hence, it is not going to be on the vanguard of the squat toilet revolution, and efforts to advance that particular agenda, as Jfdwolff mentioned, might be better focused elsewhere. MastCell Talk 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I did the NCI an injustice (at least in this case.) I had taken your word for it that the NCI recommended fiber to reduce CC risk. Today I went back and actually clicked on the link. Here's what it says:

There is inadequate evidence to suggest that a diet low in fat and high in fiber, fruits, and vegetables decreases the risk of colorectal cancer. However, these studies were powered to detect differences in adenoma incidence and not cancer incidence. --Jonathan108 16:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that carcinomas start off as dysplastic adenomas. On that basis, the generally held view is still that fibre does play a role in prevention of carcinogenesis. You are correct that the theory is being questioned. So if you want the article to reflect this, please PROVIDE SOURCES (as I've asked numerous times) and insert something like: "The generally held view is that adequate fibre intake reduces the risk of colorectal cancer [REF]. Recent studies [REF], [REF] have cast doubt on this view." This, Jonathan108, is what we call NPOV. As you indicated, science moves slowly, and long-held beliefs may be hard to overturn (e.g. that stress causes peptic ulcer disease). JFW | T@lk  18:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you or MastCell do the edit. The sources I've provided from the AP and the Boston Globe should be sufficient. If they are not, the studies discussed in those articles can easily by looked up in their original form. It would be too complicated if I have to do the edit with someone looking over my shoulder. --Jonathan108 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm quite happy the way things stand, actually. You have shown on your website to be quite good at tracing & citing the studies in question. JFW | T@lk  21:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for your information, this is what the NCI tells patients about the protective value of fiber:

It is not known if a diet low in fat and high in fiber, fruits, and vegetables lowers the risk of colorectal cancer.

Some studies have shown that a diet high in fat, proteins, calories, and meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer, but other studies have not.

That's from this webpage --Jonathan108 01:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already given you my opinion and suggestions as to the exact phrasing. Please stop posting on my talkpage - you must know by now that as a dyed-in-the-wool member of the medical establishment I am unlikely to change my views anytime soon. JFW | T@lk  01:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Medical technologist links
Hey, I hope I'm doing this "talk" thing right. I've never responded to one before. Do I respond on my discussion page or do I respond here on your discussion page? I'm a med tech and we are pretty much invisible in the hospital and healthcare in general. Most common people that don't work in healthcare have never heard of us. So maybe I shouldn't be using wikipedia to correct the great injustices of the world. I'm not sure I should type a sentence in articles about diagnositc lab tests saying "this test is performed by med techs in the lab and nurses and doctors with point of care testing." Or should I just add a "see also." Maybe I shouldn't do either. What's your advice? Am I doing this "talk" right? Thanks doc.Ozmaweezer 14:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Perhaps you can help with this. I was looking at the articles on people named Geiger. Abraham Geiger, religious reformer, and Ludwig Geiger, historian, seem to have something remarkable in common: a face.