User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 28
Tojo
[edit]Regarding Tojo, I need information about his latest edits. Fred Bauder 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 30 | 23 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
guidance
[edit]I am getting my posts deleted when I try to add relevant, informative links to the external link sections. I am not a spammer, just think that other people with endocrine diseases might find the hormone foundation useful. (i am only posting on endocrine related sites and the hormone foundation is the educational arm of the endocrine society - with info about those problems) I am also editing content and making notes to go back and add to some pages... however not if it is going to be erased. What can I do? Why am I being deleted when partner sites and sites who direct people to hormone.org pages are being kept?
Payot
[edit]There is an article entitled 'Payot', which seems to be the name of a company dealing in beauty products. As far as I can tell, the most common spelling is 'peyos' (even within the article!). Could you move 'Payot' to 'Peyos' ? --Redaktor 05:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
[edit]Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 31 | 30 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Re Unreferenced
[edit]Sounds very good :). When i do a next batch of article ratings, any articles i find unreferenced i shall put on a notepad and then when im done for the day, place them on the med talk page for people to go about and reference them. Should i look through the ones i did the previous few days and add them to the list as well or am i to hope u skimmed through my contribution list and already found a reference for some of those articles :P? Cya Later.petze 11:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Pseudoxanthoma elasticum
[edit]Pseudoxanthoma elasticum looks good to me. I did a quick literature search with UpToDate and SUMSearch. Didn't find anything to add as this rare illness does not get much study in clinical medicine. I put in a minor edit for one citation on ABCC6 and atherosclerosis; however, I am a primary care internist and not too good with diseases like PXE. Feel free to revert iuf edit does not seem helpful. Badgettrg 21:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Idea for Clinical Medicine
[edit]Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#Let.27s_make_linking_to_PubMed_easier
I have a hard time explaining this idea. Is the idea that is linked above seem intelligible? Thanks Badgettrg 21:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Time for Discussion
[edit]You have shown significant interest in certain articles. I think it would be a good idea to discuss this graph with MastCell.
Wiseoldowl 03:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- To be truthful, I have no idea what you are talking about. I think you are trying to draw me into a discussion similar to the one I was conducting with Jtclemens (talk · contribs) in June last year. At that point, this user was trying to convince me that there was such a clinical entity as "statin-induced myopathy with normal CPK levels and elevated triglycerides" (SIM-ETL). The only reliable source he could provide was an article he had written himself in a local paper. That was not very impressive.
- I am not a statin apologist, but I am weary of the fact that so many people make poorly sustainable claims just because a class of drugs is rather effective at something that was previously so difficult to achieve (modify cardiovascular morbidity and mortality). You never hear these noises about metformin (which has much more dangerous side effects if prescribed inappropriately) and budesonide, to name some commonly-used drugs.
- If you want me to comment on this, I suggest you provide a bit more information. What is your POV, and what do you want MastCell and myself to do? I've been involved in quite a few similar discussions about other drugs, where every claim of adverse events falls flat on its face when it comes to reliable external sources. JFW | T@lk 11:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read this peer reviewed and referenced paper. http://www.mitoresearch.org/Mitomatters%202004-1.pdf It establishes triglyceride increase as a marker for a statin reaction. Isn't this of value to the medical community and the general population of patients that seek valid information from Wikipedia? Mastcell felt so and he also agreed to rewrite the Statin Article, though he knew that it would be difficult and time consuming. You may wish to help him. The goal of a Wikipedia article is adhere to the Pillars of Neutrality and present referenced information in a unbiased manner, is that correct?. Since statins are the largest prescription drug class in the world, then shouldn't Wikipedia have a first class article explaining unbiased aspects of this class of medication. My basic POV is to increase the quality of Wikipedia, that is all. The choice is yours Dr. Wolff, from my side the discussion is ended, unless you wish to continue it. I would appreciate your chatting with Mastcell. P.S. - The above chart is typically seen in my research and confirms Phillips findings. For your personal information, Dr. Phillips presently has over 400 local cases in the San Diego area alone. I have corresponded with him. I have not included any of this material in any Wikipedia article, since it is OR. Wiseoldowl 14:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your arguments to include NOR just because it is "of value to the medical community and the general population" doesn't hold water. Obviously, if we cannot verify the information in question, it is doubtful whether it change the statin article from being first class to being even more first class.
- How certain are you that MitoMatters is peer-reviewed? The article looks very nice, but I can make something look very nice on my word processor. I don't think I need to liaise with MastCell unless new evidence is published. At the moment, SIM-ETL or whatever we shall call it probably is not quite notable enough to include it. Given the wide uses of statins, I would expect a paper in a core medical journal (e.g. high-impact journals such as Am J Med, Ann Intern Med or such) to achieve the necessary notability. JFW | T@lk 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Listen, some of Phillips' research has made Ann Intern Med (PMID 12353945), but without mention of the triglyceride thing. This article is certainly notable enough to be cited.
- Incidentally, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.02.049 talks about Q10 and the limited evidence for its role in statin myopathy. JFW | T@lk 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this will answer your first question - Is this a peer reviewed journal? http://www.mitoresearch.org/publications.html
Another point you should consider is that Wikipedia rates the Statin Article as a B-Class article. Not very good for the largest selling group of medications in the world. The article is, unfortunately not "first class", I am just trying to make it "first class". Wiseoldowl 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly, Mitochondrion is peer-reviewed (and indeed indexed by Medline). The page you are quoting is awfully quiet on the peer review status of MitoMatters. I presume you are mixing the two up.
- Obviously the "B-class" status is awarded by some Wikipedia user going around pharmacology pages and seeing if they fit a set group of criteria. I can guarantee you that addition of your theory will not suddenly make its class jump to A-class.
- How about you leave a message on Talk:Statin shortly outlining what you want to say and providing the references for it? I'm sure that if you follow these simple instructions the ensuing discussion will be relatively straightforward and may well achieve the effect you desire to achieve. In other words: I will support claims of "normal CK statin myopathy" and am open to persuation with regards to the triglycerides thing provided adequate sources can be advanced for every claim. JFW | T@lk 19:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Dr Wolff- I do not wish to contribute to the article or effect its outcome. What I want is for MastCell and yourself to get together and write a Class A article on statins, that is neutral and unbiased. Statins are the most widely prescribed drug family in the world. Such an article will benefit all concerned. Many people now look to Wikipedia to provide them with information in the medical field. As physicians and researchers, is it not our professional obligation to provide the most accurate informaton that we can obtain. As to whether Phillips research is theory and my validates it - I will allow the medical journal that is now reviewing it make that decision. Wiseoldowl 20:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- At the moment I'm having too much fun on scleroderma to really get drawn into the statin thing again. Thankfully, the article lipid hypothesis has a couple of very useful references to Steinberg's J Lipid Res papers that I will be using (when the time is ripe) to bring statin up to A-class.
- You are very right that Wikipedia is a very popular resource, and that the public deserves this resource to be accurate, neutral and reliable. To that purpose, every editor needs to continuously examine content in the light of its main content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. I also happen to believe that not every hiccup in medical research should automatically be included. For instance, my suspicions with regards to dichloroacetate were rapidly confirmed (see Talk:Cancer) - the DCA saga is a case study in how careful we need to be in reporting hyped-up science.
- Please let me know when the new Phillips study has been published. I'm sure we can do business at some time in the future. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 32 | 6 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 08:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
My talk
[edit]JFW, can you have a look at my talk page and see if you think a checkuser is in order relative to past ArbCom decisions? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I get your point, but I cannot see much of an overlap with editors presently restricted by ArbComm decisions. In any case, this particular editor will remain disruptive until someone bans him for it, and will probably become progressively more difficult until a community ban is instituted. Let me know if the disruption continues. JFW | T@lk 15:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia, and I am not sure how this is supposed to work, so I am assuming I just post my question here. My question to you, good Doctor, is this; is it true that studies in Europe have shown a link between Marijuana usage and psychosis? I read this somewhere recently that they have done studies in Sweden and a few other countries where drugs are legal and the rate of psychological problems is supposedly higher. I am curious to know if this is true, or if it is just more propaganda for my government to use to oppress me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.1.118 (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Email?
[edit]Hi Jfd - I wonder if I could ask your (Wiki-related) advice about something. Would it be alright if I emailed you? Jakew 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Of course you can. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
CFS
[edit]hi JFD, I have actually left messages with several contributors, sorry if i missed you, not intentional, quite happy to discuss if you consider too bold Jagra 23:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have not yet addressed the merits (or lack of them) of your addition, but I suspect Orangemarlin and Filll will have their objections. Did you notify Orangemarlin, who has made substantial contributions to the article in the last few weeks? JFW | T@lk 06:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Sir Iain Chalmers
[edit]You have made an unsubstatiated claim about Sir Iain Chalmers in the discussion section of the Talk:Iain Chalmers stub article about him. In keeping with the spirit and indeed rules of Wikipedia, please cite the source of your claim that he supports an academic boycot of research from Israel, or remove your comment.
It may help you to read the open letter to The Guardian from representatives of the British academic community calling for said boycott. Of the 120 signatories to the letter, Sir Iain is not one.
CTMB 04:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I need not be lectured about the "spirit and indeed rules of Wikipedia". The evidence is all over the place. The URL is on the talk page you have referred.
- So what, he hasn't signed that horrible piece of work that is the Guardian letter. That does not absolve him from his support in other forums. JFW | T@lk 09:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Vomiting protection
[edit]Well I know you have protected Vomiting on the 7th April 2007 due to vandalism. But I never had a chance to edit the topic so somone must unprotect it please. I've requsted unprotection for vomiting becuse I never had a chance to edit it. Can you unprotect it please mate? All the vandalism is gone so there is no need to protect it now. Cheers mate! 86.151.139.214 12:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to edit vomiting, you will need to get a username and show - for a few days - that you are an editor in good faith. The article is only semi-protected.
- You say "all the vandalism is gone". We can only tell if we actually remove the protection. I can guarantee that the morons will be back within 5 minutes or so, adding a slur on a friend or the latest slang they've just invented. JFW | T@lk 09:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Portal maintenance
[edit]Hi, JFW. Do you know that NCurse is looking for someone to take over the maintenance of Portal:Medicine? You are ideal for the job! :-) [I would volunteer myself, but unfortunately I don't think that I have enough time.] Best wishes. Axl 18:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that NCurse was looking for a replacement. I have the feeling that I will not be able to find the time needed for a task like the maintenance of a portal. I will happily assist whoever will be the new portal czar. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Axl 06:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment
[edit]Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. LyrlTalk C 00:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 33 | 13 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 20:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Magnesium SPA
[edit]I see you've already left a message at Ianupright (talk · contribs); I just removed a magnesium addition at Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree with your actions and explanations, don't you think it would be more polite to discuss it on Pukkabosh's talk page? Pdfpdf 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have twice given very clear edit summaries. It seems Pukkabosh is reading those edit summaries when reinserting the trivia. Editing would be a complete nuisance if we had to explain our every action in talk page posts. True, Pukkabosh is a new editor, and we shouldn't WP:BITE, but I don't think that extends as far as explaining every revert in extenso above and beyond what is already in the edit summary. JFW | T@lk 06:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
To quote an experienced Wikipedian: "Pukkabosh is a new editor, and we shouldn't WP:BITE", but it seems to me that although you're not actually "bite"ing, you're not exactly "introducing him/her gently" to the requirements of WP either.
Yes, your second WP:ES was unusually detailed, and I understood it and thought it very clear. But given his/her newness to WP, I can imagine that it might have gone straight over his/her head.
Yes indeed, Editing would be a complete nuisance if we had to explain our every action in talk page posts. And I, too, don't think that extends as far as explaining every revert in extenso above and beyond what is already in the edit summary.
However, I'm not talking about every revert. I just think we should be a little more polite to (and tolerant of) new editors, and should make some effort to direct them back onto "the straight and narrow".
Given his/her latest comment (viz: if a partner is not valid, then majority of all entries are invlaid on this site(sic)) he/she doesn't seem to have much idea about what "the straight and narrow" is!!
Regards, Pdfpdf 13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
More on Matt Bianco
[edit]Thank you. Nicely done! Cheers, Pdfpdf 03:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
re:Heart Failure
[edit]Thanks for finding a source for the content. That is all that I wanted. I don't have anything against improving the sources that we cite. However, removing the citation for previously sourced content without replacing it with a better citation (or at least a fact tag) is what I found problematic. Since you have restored the content with a 'better' source, I am satisfied with the state of the article. I just hope you understand my concern: that simply removing references makes the article worse by making content unsourced that was previously sourced. Didn't mean to annoy you.-Andrew c [talk] 00:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- We can't "fact-tag" everything in an already unsourced article. I reserve {{fact}} for articles that are generally sourced but have a few unsourced statements.
- While I understand your concern, I found your repeated reversion against consensus bordering on WP:POINT. JFW | T@lk 00:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused regarding my "repeat reversions". My first edit to heart failure was to undo SailorMD's edit, which I felt was made to make a WP:POINT (that editor was chided for using eMedTV, so to get "revenge", that editor went around removing WebMD references). You reverted my revert, which left a fact in the article unsourced (even though it was previously sourced). As stated in my edit summary of my 2nd edit to heart failure if the fact is disputed, don't just remove the source, remove the content as well, and therefore I removed the content. I made one edit that restored the source, and I made one edit to remove the disputed content. I don't see how that was repeated reversion, nor was it made for WP:POINT. In retrospect, perhaps my second edit to heart failure should have been to place a fact tag at the end of the sentence, but I was confused on why WebMD was deleted. I figured it must have been deleted because it was a poor source giving unreliable information, therefore the content should have been removed as well. This ended up not being the case.
- As for the consensus... There isn't a flat out consensus that WebMD citations should be deleted on contact. Fvasconcellos said "why remove the WebMD ref?" and David Ruben said that those WebMD articles that are attributed to an author are secondary sources and therefore acceptable. As for replacing sources, SandyGeorge said If it's likely accurate, you leave the text and find a new source. SailorMD however only did not find new sources for the deleted references. In fact, you basically said the same thing as well Hey, why not dive into PubMed and see if you can find a suitable academic source instead? I see no consensus there that suggests its ok to delete sources from articles, without replacing them with better sources (or fact tags).
- Oh, I think I see why you are mad at me. You said I must urge all contributors not to delete the referenced content unless it sounds blatantly wrong. And in your eyes, my second edit to heart failure was just that. From my perspective, we had a bold, unsourced claim. We had editors attacking WebMD as being unreliable. If we were to remove the source, why not remove the content behind the source as well? I understand now that this is not always appropriate, but I still feel strongly that in order to improve these articles, the sources MUST be replaced with better sources (and it seems like this is the general consensus from Clinical Medicine). I believe we are basically on the same page. We both want the encyclopedia to be verifiable and well sourced. We both prefer pubmed sources to bulk online web MDs. Hopefully we can put this misunderstanding behind us? Or have I missed something about my recent editing behavior?-Andrew c [talk] 01:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- You haven't missed anything. I'm sorry if I've come accross irate or unreasonable. What I'm trying to achieve is improved referencing with no cost to existing content, and I was trying very much to prevent content removal in our drive to raise our level of citations. I share your point to a large extent, but I feel that we need to allow more time for other editors to introduce better references over time. Other CLINMED people seem to be sharing SandyGeorgia's quote from WP:ATT, and I acted on that presumption. Let me know if there is other unsourced content you are worried about; normally it doesn't take me very long to trace something back to its source (depending on the nature of the fact and whether the relevant papers are available free on PubMed). JFW | T@lk 01:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up. There were 3 other articles where I reverted SailorMD: Phenobarbital, Bunion, and Dilation and curettage. Looking over the content sourced by WebMD, I believe all of it is plausible, if not accurate (therefore I'm not really worried that the content is inaccurate/unverifiable). What do you think of the use of WebMD and e-Medicine as sources in these 3 articles? Here is my take. It seems like the symptoms sections of bunion is verbatim copied from WebMD (maybe we should at the very least rephrase some of the longer sentences, and try to find a better source here). The e-Medicine articles citations for Phenobarbital seem actually quite good because they state the authors (who all are medical professionals in appropriate fields) and the authors cite multiple sources. As for the D&C article, the WebMD source used over and over claims to be reviewed (presumably "peer" reviewed?), and cites sources (well 3 sources in total). What do you think should be done, if anything, to these articles regarding these sources?-Andrew c [talk] 02:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with Emedicine, although ideally we should avoid it. This is a highly popular thoroughly reviewed resource. For phenobarbital it will do temporarily. The D&C article needs to be reviewed completely. Why is an encyclopedia citing a commercial medical content provider? In Bunion, the symptoms are classical and will stand without a reference. JFW | T@lk 02:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- As, if memory serves, I added one of those references, I feel compelled to "defend" it; it seemed very accurate and reliable to me at the moment, not to mention comprehensive (i.e. no need to cite half a dozen scattered articles—one did just fine). If you feel strongly about it, I've no problem looking for another source when I have time—just remind me to :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. One more thing to bug you with. SailorMD went back to bunion and reverted me. While I have nothing against replacing WebMD sources with better sources, I have a problem with us copy and pasting text from WebMD and at the very least not crediting them. It would be nice if the content for the symptoms were source with something better than WebMD, but if we aren't going to cite webMD, I believe it is extremely dishonest to use their text verbatim without crediting them. I'm not sure how to proceed. Of course I would like to restore the WebMD reference if we are going to use their text. Alternatively, we could erase the text and start a new write up from scratch. What are you feelings?-Andrew c [talk] 14:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Journal access
[edit]Jfdwolff, I appreciate you taking the time to read this. I've been following the recent discussion over at Wikiproject Clinical medicine about what constitutes a reliable source with some interest. I agree that sources like WebMD and eMedTV are not ideal and suitable journal articles should be found to replace them. My question for you is this: how do you access all the relevant journal articles you find on a PubMed search? I feel like this is something I should already know, but I don't.
Things may be different in human medicine than veterinary medicine, but I can count on one hand the number of veterinary journals I can access for free online. Add that to the few review journals I get at home, and it does not always give me a lot of choices for references, especially on more obscure subjects. I end up relying a good deal on the Merck Veterinary Manual and conference proceedings (general review sessions, not original papers presented), which I can access free. Is there some way to read more than just the abstracts for the articles presented in PubMed? Without paying for it, of course. Or is it just that the sheer number of medical journals dedicated to human medicine puts the number of veterinary journals to shame, so you can just choose the ones you can access free? Thanks for your time. --Joelmills 01:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I try to read articles I cite in their entireity. If I cannot do this online (most publications are still not open-access) I read them at my place of work in our well-stocked library. On occasions, I need to cite articles without reviewing them; in that case, I make sure that other articles have cited these articles with regards to the fact referenced.
- My medical school had a brilliant system where users could log into a proxy server and access the university's online journal subscriptions from outside the university's WAN. If the Wikimedia Foundation had $$$bucks, it could set up such a system for its scientific contributors and make life much easier. I'll keep on dreaming for the moment. JFW | T@lk 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be sweet. Thanks again. --Joelmills 01:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Rheumatoid Arthritis
[edit]My intention all along has been to reach a compromise acceptable to both parties. I insist that the NPOV flag be up while the discussion is going on, because that is the explicit rule of Wikipedia. My idea is to create a new fork called Rheumatoid Arthritis and Antibiotics Controversy. Check out Lyme_disease and Lyme_disease_controversy for a fair way of solving this problem. I don't want to argue with Mr. Ruben. He is totally illogical. If you are a good doctor, you will help me.Superperro 02:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
MCOTM
[edit]Hello! So it'd be awesome if you could help me maintaining the Medicine Collaboration of the Month (it's month now) as I have too many projects here. The first thing we should do is to convert its name to Month as I've been used it as a collab of the month for some time now. If we could work on it together, it'd be a much better collab. What do you think? NCurse work 09:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Great! I'm going to have much more time from now, so please tell me your plan and I'll help you in any ways. NCurse work 13:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow
[edit]Damn you, JFW, you're good with the references. I was scanning PubMed, trying to gather a few good sources to cite vincristine's "Side effects" section, and you beat me to it. No wonder your referencing standards are so high :)Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, thank you. We should still mention some more general sources on the neurotoxic effects and why it would cause an electrolyte imbalance. I was rather pleased with that 1963 fulltext review that showed that Lilly was initially trying to turn vinca alkaloids into diabetes drugs! JFW | T@lk 00:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Omegaven and Short Bowel Syndrome
[edit]You're correct that much of this phenomenon has been parent-driven (with 50+ families through Children's Hospital Boston alone). Omegaven is reliably normalizing the liver function of these short gut kids (compared to the standard expectation of deteriorating liver function and 37-78% mortality rates).
The scientific article has not yet been published though, so I can see that I jumped the gun. I will plan to return to these pages once the article comes out.
I noticed that some of the longstanding external links were removed as part of this clean-up (e.g., the short gut wiki on the Short bowel syndrome page. Is that link truly a problem? Munakata 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 34 | 20 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 05:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Amobarbital Structure
[edit]The structure you have posted for Ambobarbital is incorrect and the CAS # for the "sodium salt" does not exist.
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Name=amobarbital&Units=SI
Nist website gives the correct structure. Im new to editing wikipedia so sorry i cant change it nor do i have the program to draw out the structures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matulik (talk • contribs) 14:32, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
- I've redrawn the structure from the PubChem entry. With my present software I am unable to do SVG, but no doubt someone will sometime upload a vector version. JFW | T@lk 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for changing it, i appreciate it
Matulik 19:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- My pleasure. JFW | T@lk 19:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Question
[edit]Sorry to bother you, but I expect that you would know the answer ...
I gather that it's a no-no to link to myspace and you tube.
Can you point me at the explanation of why this is the case?
Many thanks, Pdfpdf 11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
(BTW: The Matt Bianco irrelevant comment add/delete tussle has rekindled, this time with User talk:212.22.3.8, and you've come up smelling of roses! (Conversely, I've been classified as a bully!) Cheers, Pdfpdf 11:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC) )
- I wouldn't say MySpace and YouTube are completely banned, but they are user-generated and score very low as sources. It's not authoritative for anything. The only exception would be the MySpace page of someone already known for other reasons, or YouTube content generated by such a person. I find it very hard demonstrating notability for internet phenomena; mention in the mainstream press is about the minimum crition I can think of.
- The relevant policy is WP:RS (and WP:V) and WP:CITE and WP:EL. JFW | T@lk 16:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ta. Pdfpdf 22:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 35 | 27 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
All done, Sir :) I can't believe it took me five days. Arf. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Beautiful, well done. Probably ready for WP:GA this way! JFW | T@lk 21:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Heh. You should probably let Espresso Addict (talk · contribs) and Shalom (talk · contribs) know; they were the main contributors. I only noticed the article at DYK and decided to have a look; none of the actual content was my doing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Diabetes page question
[edit]Hi, Jfdwolff.
I work for an Australian medical researcher, Len Harrison, whose research focus is the prevention and cure of type 1 diabetes. He'd like to add a couple of links to this page relating to the clinical trials we are working on at the Diabetes Research Centre in Melbourne, and would also like to add more information (properly referenced, of course) to your section on the prevention of type 1 diabetes. I notice you have protected the diabetes page, so that it can't be edited (? without approval? sorry, I'm a Wikipedia newbie!).
Any chance we could make these edits?
Thanks,
Catherine McLean 01:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that is not up to me. I have locked the page because it was getting a lot of vandalism. If you stay around for a few days and show you are a bona fide editor, you will be able to edit this page. It is only semi-protected, exactly to prevent vandalism of the drive-by shooting kind. You can also leave a comment on Talk:Diabetes mellitus and await response from other contributors as to the suitability of particular new content.
- That said, I wouldn't encourage "adding a couple of links". I would encourage genuine original content, with suitable academic references. When it comes to medical content, if those references cannot be found the content is generally original research. Ongoing trials, in particular, are rarely worth mentioning unless they are absolutely groundbreaking and likely to yield highly relevant outcomes with major public health implications.
- Why are you editing on Len Harrison's behalf, by the way? JFW | T@lk 06:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick response. As you see, I'm new here, and wasn't sure how semi-protection works. I'm editing for Prof. Harrison because I'm his secretary and he said 'hey, this page really needs more about T1D prevention, we should add a paragraph and some links to our trials!'. And you can be sure anything add will be most thoroughly referenced.
- I'll take your comments re trials back to Len. Perhaps someone (myself?) could start a page on research into diabetes prevention and cure generally. We certainly get a lot of calls from people wanting to know if we have a cure yet, so I'd expect it to attract interest. - Catherine McLean 23:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Very kind of Dr Harrison to show an interest in Wikipedia. Prevention, of course, is not a cure. I can imagine there are published hypotheses about what causes type 1 diabetes (I can think of HLA, coxsackie virus B exposure with glutamate decarboxylase molecular mimicry, exposure to particular foods etc). Those hypotheses are certainly worth mentioning on diabetes mellitus type 1. As you can see, that article already has quite a long section on curing DM1. I'm happy to correspond with Dr Harrison myself if you think this clarifies matters. JFW | T@lk 00:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
CFS/Protected
[edit]I would say that consensus has now been reached. Thedreamdied 16:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hepatitis pages
[edit]My apologies to bolding the links, I had seen it done on some other pages and assumed it was okay. Having read the style manual now I appreciate why this isn't appropriate. I am still getting used to wikipedia, but in time our organisation anticipates contributing more to articles. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hepatitis Australia (talk • contribs) 00:36, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
- Responded on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 14:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Need Some Help
[edit]Would you consider having a look at the articles T. S. Wiley and Wiley Protocol? We have only one editor, and he has demonstrated considerable bias (as well as admitting it in a talk page). I've made some reasonable suggestions which he has ignored but I can't edit the pages directly as I am COI. Thanks. Neil Raden 21:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- The talkpage of the article looks very good. It seems WLU is mediating. Have you spoken to WLU? Also, Mr-Natural-Health has a new handle, John Gohde (talk · contribs), but he hasn't edited for years. JFW | T@lk 09:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm the editor with a considerable bias he is referring to. WLU 11:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I trust matters are in safe hands then. If Neil has any specific problems he is free to raise them with me here. I prefer to settle disputes when the lines are clearly drawn, and not when "he's POV and I'm COI" are the closest to what can be give nas a description of the disagreement. JFW | T@lk 13:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There are only 3 or 4 lines devoted to the description of the Wiley Protocol, and paragraphs to the controversy about it, though none of the controversy is about the protocol itself. There is a book written by Wiley that describes the protocol in detail (Sex, Lies and Menopause, 2003, HarperCollins) as well as Suzanne Somers' book Ageless. I am unable to convince WLU to examine these sources for a description. There are factual errors, such as that the protocol is customized for each patient, which is the exact opposite of the facts. I had to argue to get a piece of information in that came from Wiley's testimony before the US Senate, but the is free and unfetterred sourcing of data from a Wiley-hate-site. My suggestion is that we either some other editors who can do a decent job on T. S. Wiley and The Wiley Protocol, or delete them. Todah Rabah and Shana Tovah. Neil Raden 20:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note that I have repeatedly informed NRaden that he does not determine if the pages are deleted or not, and referred him to WP:AFD probably a good half-dozen times. It's possible that the changes I've made to the page are problematic, but it is not high on my priority list and I have not gotten around to checking if NRaden's comments are accurate. I have never seen evidence that NRaden gives policy anything more than a cursory read. It is one of the reasons our interactions are frustrating for both sides as we both edit from completely different viewpoints. I believe his experience and understanding of wikipedia and the community is somewhat biased because of the pages he has edited and his interactions with other editors that have resulted. WLU 22:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- WLU is a much more experienced editor than I am, that's why I find his behavior so bewildering. I cannot change the page. All I ask is that someone other than WLU fix some of these problems. It may not be a high priority for him, as he says, but if something is your life's work and someone has gotten it wrong in a forum as visible as Wikipedia, it is a very high priority. Dr, Wolff, if you can find the time, have a look at Wiley's testimony at http://aging.senate.gov/events/hr171tw.pdf Thanks. Neil Raden 23:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs)
Nraden, Shanah Tovah to you. What part of WLU's behaviour is so "bewildering"? Simply asking me to review a senate testimony is not sufficient. I think I stated quite clearly that for me to get involved I would need much more specific information as to which part of the present article you disagree with, and what you want it to sound like. JFW | T@lk 20:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- For starters, it simply fails to inform the reader about the subject, who would likely come away with the impression that it is some sort of BHRT and some people don't like it. It says nothing of the unique assumptions underlying the protocol and consequences of those assumptions. The Wiley Protocol (WP) has managed to standardize the product across compounding pharmacies, something unique in BHRT. The style in which the dosages are altered across a 28-day cycle, the fact that women begin to menstruate again, regardless of their age provided they have a uterus, the use of a lunar calendar for women who cannot menstruate - none of this is explained. The WP comes in packaging that is designed to enhance compliance and ease of use and minimize error, there is a packet insert, also unique in compounded products. We could include photos of some of these items as they are exhibits in the patent application. I've suggested that I write these edits, with annotations, and have another editor review them and make the changes. WLU has not invested any time in understanding this, as he stated above, and he has also stated that he finds the whole subject of BHRT to be nonsense, but his inactivity is equivalent to censorship since he is the only editor. Neil Raden 04:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs)
WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight
[edit]
NCurse work 15:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
misrepresentation Re: CFS
[edit]The "misrepreresentation" comment was not related to the "minor" edit. I accept that it was a mistake. The misrepresentation was regarding the changes you made to the paragraph about the death of Sophia Mirza. You removed the comment about the death being caused by the patient reducing her liquid intake because she believed she was allergic to water, and you added a new reference which didn't mention this important information. --Sciencewatcher 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like the story originally comes from Invest in ME, and the comments come directly from Sophia's mother (who submitted them to Invest in ME). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciencewatcher (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I never said she was allergic to water (which is, of course, impossible). I said that "she believed she was allergic to water", which is exactly how it is stated in the article. And she reduced her liquid intake because of her belief that she was allergic to water. I used exactly the same words in my edits as Sophia's mother uses in the original article, which is important in understanding the background of the dehydration. --Sciencewatcher 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Anti-topisomerase antibodies
[edit]Hi Jeff, thanks for the contributions to this very new page. You left "(copyedit for grammar and formatting, unbolding where necessary according to WP:MOS, note that level 1 headers are usually avoided)", I have a freind who does copy edits who has volunteered to correct the sp and grammer errors. The issue of level 1 headers, I agree with, they are kind of obnoxious, but I have found a bug in wikipedia, particularly if the last two major sections on a page, including "references" or "links", then the category box tends to float over/hides text. It typically happens on large pages, not sure why. Some of these floaters I have fixed by increasing the level, and I have no idea why it works sometimes and not other times.
Also the header you changed I am not sure if that is appropriate, but also the one I had placed I was going to change, to what, yet I don't know. (note improperly placed bolding :^) ) Phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdeitiker (talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't encountered that bug, but it's worth reporting on Bugzilla. I'm quite happy doing copyedits for you, just let me know when a page is ready for reviewing. JFW | T@lk 06:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- It happens on PCs with screen resolution at or below 800 x 600 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdeitiker (talk • contribs) 16:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have a page Anti-transglutaminase antibodies that I have been trying to get user friendly. I wish to have an antibody icon for the antibody pages instead of the png file. For autoantibodies a 'protein' box like template, with name of antibody, antrgen, autoimmue disease(s), other associated antibodies, etc. Pdeitiker 01:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not very good at templates. You may need to ask Arcadian (talk · contribs) JFW | T@lk 06:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
MfD
[edit]Hey JFW. You may want to have a look over here and add your opinion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit war: sophia mirza article
[edit]If you have time, can you have a look at the Sophia Mirza article? Guido keeps reverting my edits saying they are "wrong" and "false info", even though I have taken the info directly from the original source (an interview with Sophia's mother). The edit clarifies the death, and reverting it, as Guido is doing, results in a misrepresentation. I think this is what Guido wants, because my edit conflicts with his pet theory that CFS can directly cause death, so he is reverting my edits for spurious reasons. --Sciencewatcher 23:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Update: he has now started edit warring on the CFS article as well, giving the same spurious reasons. --Sciencewatcher 00:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine with me. As I said, it wasn't because of allergy, but because she believed it was an allergy. However I'll remove that part and simply state that she stopped drinking before her death. --Sciencewatcher 14:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.
Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.
In other news:
- Bupropion has been promoted to featured status on August 31, 2007.
- The Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.
- Garrondo is asking for individuals to help review Therapies for multiple sclerosis, as he is considering nominating this article for GA status.
- Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.
Dr. Cash 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
can you please explain why you consider what you deleted to be trivia?Leppi 12:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is a long list of examples bordering on trivia. Better than a list, we should have a source. JFW | T@lk 13:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
A-fib
[edit]Please see question on Talk:Atrial fibrillation: treatent section abouit alternative organization for treatment section.Badgettrg 14:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Maimonides Chairty Ladder
[edit]Can you please explain why you removed the reference to Maimonides philosophy on charity (the so-called "Charity Ladder"), including the 8 degrees of giving? If you would like a source, please undo your edit and request a citation. Mtaus 00:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for approaching me rather than simply undoing my edit. I hope my explanation will be satisfactory. I think there were several problems with your addition. My edit summary said: " this Maimonides synthesises from other sources - it is meaningless without a source too".
- To elaborate: you seem to suggest that this is a highly novel idea. However, the Rambam arrives at this conclusion on the basis of several Tannaitic and Amoraitic sources (e.g. that a gift made in secret is a high standard of giving). You added it to a paragraph on philosophy, while this a halachic (legalistic) opinion. Finally, without a direct source to his writings this hangs in the air. If we do decide to include this, I can help find the source.
- The article needs a good section that enumerates Maimonides' legal opinions. He had various views that differ substantially from the other Rishonim (e.g. the minimum duration of kedei achilas p'ras, what constitutes a "complicated" knot for the purposes of Shabbat law, etc etc). There are certainly works that deal with this issue. To cite his views on charity without this content would indicate that he didn't innovate anything else. JFW | T@lk 11:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 36 | 3 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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. R Delivery Bot 03:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Adipose tissue
[edit]Since your removed, rather than corrected, Florentino floro's edit of 5 September to the article Adipose tissue, I would appreciate it if you would review my addition of the same basic information, in a, perhaps, more scientific style, footnoting to the published research rather than just to a Guardian news story. --Bejnar 18:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The references section needs to tidied up. Refs 4-6 should also be brought under the scope of cite.php references as per WP:FN. Otherwise I agree with your addition. JFW | T@lk 21:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there is currently a discussion about the notability of Rabbi Shraga Hager your insight on this would greatly be appreciated[1]. Have a beautiful day--יודל 13:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Scientifially proven/disproven or unknown
[edit]JFD - I do not understand your justification for removal as I have referenced the source I am using. Also I justify the insertion of the section on the discussion page. I believe that if you read the NICE document you will see the section is a fair synopsis and not my personnal opinions. In fact my opinion is that it is a viral disease, based on the fact that a antiviral worked on me for aprox. two months. It stopped all my symptoms. However according to the document viral disease has not been proven. Thank you for listening to my thoughts. have fun....sno Sno2 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have agreed to the deletion of this section based on wiki policy....see discussion page....thank you for your input and listening to my thoughts...have fun... Sno2 21:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will continue to monitor the CFS page. Let me know if you need a hand. When I've got some time I will carry on the cleanup job I began last week. JFW | T@lk 08:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ketoconazole
[edit]There is a lot of un-cited info on the Ketoconazole page that I've traced to your near original page three years ago. Could you take a look at the page again? Renduy 01:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- No idea, I didn't start the page. All I did was restructure it. 66.81.220.201 (talk · contribs) started it. With a bit of help from PubMed & Google you may get somewhere, but I will see what I can do. I also recommend http://www.doctorfungus.com - that site will definitely have the information you need. JFW | T@lk 08:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
CFS
[edit]I have to admit your comment of the 9th sept went right over my head! as you addressed it to me mind explaining? Jagra 02:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think my comment speaks for itself. You complain that "[...] peer reveiwed hypotheses published in reputed journals will always rank higher than antecdotal comment when it comes to applications for funding to validate it as 'evidence'."
- My reaction was that this is a fact of life, and we should not bend the rules of Wikipedia to give more prominence to theories that you or me think deserve more attention in the literature. In the fullness of time, such hypotheses may be proven right. But it is not our job to rectify this. JFW | T@lk 08:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you misinterpret me, It was not a complaint, I too think that is how it should be. I was responding to the proponent who said "a patients hypothesis is as valid as an experts until one or the other is proven by experiments." this is not a fact of life, nor should it be !Jagra 10:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- If that is your view, then we are in agreement and I have indeed misinterpreted you. Not only is a patient's hypothesis less valid, it is also original research unless expressly formulated in a reliable source. In the context of CFS, I would not want to include a hypothesis unless it has been the subject of a well-powered randomised controlled trial with clear and meaningful endpoints. JFW | T@lk 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not want to get into an arguement but you might want to consider this. From the wiki dictionary. (sciences) A tentative conjecture explaining an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further observation, investigation, and/or experimentation. (general) An assumption taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation. Neither it, nor the hypothesis page says that it must be from an expert, nor that it requires verification before it is a valid hypothesis....thank you for listening to my thoughts.....sno Sno2 16:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have listened to your thoughts. A hypothesis is WP:NOR unless formulated elsewhere. Distilling a hypothesis from a body of work without that body of work stating that hypothesis expressly is also WP:NOR. The problem is not with the hypothesis; the problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore can only collate what has been said/studied elsewhere. Have you read the policy? JFW | T@lk 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Have read the WP:NOR, appear to have missed the fact that unless something is labeled in the document as theory/hypothesis it cannot be called that...do I have this correct...??...I was wondering why everyone was referring me to the wp:nor..I can see now why people were saying I was reading into it..thank you....have fun....sno Sno2 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think that is a very safe approximation of the policy's spirit. Good on you for reading that; let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Your input at the CFS article is valued. JFW | T@lk 19:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much again....at the moment am not sure will ever post anything more...<VBG>...however will be watching and am sure will have something to say...have fun....sno Sno2 20:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm sure you've got something to say. I presume VBG was "very big grin" and not "vertical banded gastroplasty" or "Vorarlberg"[2] JFW | T@lk 21:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
<lol> - laughing out loud.......sno Sno2 00:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Your definition of an external hypothesis needing to have been the subject of a well-powered randomised controlled trial with clear and meaningful endpoints sounds more like a trial to me not an hypothesis, but I get the point.Jagra 10:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, I meant that a hypothesis alone is not enough for inclusion in the CFS article. There should at least be some experimental work supporting a hypothesis before I would include it. Hypotheses are not lacking in CFS. It is the testing of these hypotheses that will allow the scientific process to elucidate its etiology. JFW | T@lk 12:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have added a reply in the CFS NICE Guidelines section which turned into a general comment on the page, I just wanted to flag it up for you here. --86.153.45.249 23:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC) RichasAA
- I'm not involved in the discussion. I think the whole exchange is a massive waste of time. Nobody is interested in consensus. The page is still an awful mess, with poorly formatted references and enormous amounts of cruft (e.g. references to research that is unrelated to CFS unless your adhere to one particular esoteric theory).
- I've worked some material related to the NICE guideline into the article, but there's much more to be done. JFW | T@lk 09:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Therapies for multiple sclerosis good article candidate
[edit]I have nominated the article as a good article candidate; and I belive that with some work it could even become a FA. Nobody is revising it probably becouse of its specificity. I have seen all your edits in clinical medicine and that you have recently edited multiple sclerosis. Maybe you could revise it or give me some hints on it. Thank you in advance. Please answer me in my talk page. --Garrondo 15:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 37 | 10 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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. R Delivery Bot 20:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Prone/susceptible
[edit]Hi Jfdwolff, thanks for your comments on my edit.
Generally 'prone' is implicated when the subject is the cause of the action, for instance, 'He was prone to violence'. 'Susceptible' is implicated when the subject is the passive recipient of an action, especially diseases, for example, 'People with AIDS are susceptible to infections'. Generally, I have been changing sentences describing organisms as prone to diseases, which is the wrong choice of words.
Compare 'prone to attack' and 'susceptible to attack' - these mean two completely different things.
I hope that answers your question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam27 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Point taken. I'll try to stick to "susceptible", which sounds more encyclopedic as well. JFW | T@lk 20:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject External links
[edit]Hey, Jfdwolff! I'm Arknascar44, and I was wondering if you're still interested in helping out over at WP:WPEL. I've done some work on the project page and created a couple subpages and some templates, and am really interested in reviving it! Cheers, Arky ¡Hablar! 17:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm quite busy at the moment. What are your exact plans, apart from the enforcement of Wikipedia policies? JFW | T@lk 20:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, having articles conform to WP:EL involves many factors and can take a good deal of time and effort. So, yes, enforcing Wikipedia's external links guidelines is the project's only task. However, this could mean anything from removing spam to shortening external links lists that are too long or irrelevant, or to placing external links in an article's main text between <ref></ref> tags. Hope this helps to explain a bit, Arky ¡Hablar! 02:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will continue to clean up external links sections in medical articles, but I won't be committing myself to WPEL for reasons of time constraints. But thanks for involving me. JFW | T@lk 09:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome!
[edit]I've been beating around wikipedia for some time now, but am just starting to feel brave enough to begin posting. Thanks for your encouragement, and as soon as I'm done studying for my anatomy exam, I have some questions. Thanks again, (Ibrmrn 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC))
Simon Wessely
[edit]I just wondered why you reverted the entries on Simon Wessely, I have a friend who knows Simon quite well and has interviewed him about the Proctor case. I also have a friend who knows Mrs. Proctor!!! I have changed the reference to one of the many published sources on this dreadful incident in Wessely's career. I also know a good deal about the subject as I have also written a book on it which is to be published later this year (waiting for corrected proof from proofreader prior to publication). So for you to simply revert these things is just plain silly. If you are an "admirer of Wessely" perhaps you would also do the scientific thing and have a thumb through the work of my friend Byron Hyde MD "The clinical and scientific basis of myalgic encephalomyelitis". Best wishes- Simon Simon 15:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)alpinist
- See the talkpage for my rationale. If you want this content to stand, please adhere closely to WP:BLP, WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, as well as citation policies WP:CITE and WP:RS. I am simply disgusted by the way large hordes of online folk think they can undermine a serious and honest scientist who has spent his career addressing some of the most difficult questions in modern medicine. The bizarre "shoot the messenger" attitude poisons scientific debate, and I will continue to press for a neutral article. JFW | T@lk 16:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wondered if you have actually been party to discussions of this with Wessely? or Barbara Proctor. Yes Wessely is charming but I would question "honest" on the grounds of his use along with Carson, Sharpe and Stone of the term "functional" in it's Gall and Spurheim sense ie neurosis and as a way of hoodwinking patients into accepting a diagnosis of hysteria. I have written about this extensively and am more than happy to send you the draft document priot to publication if you are interested. I'll stick with Byron Hyde et al personally, much more the scientist and much more honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpinist (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, sorry. I'm in no way connected to Wessely (or Barbara Proctor for that matter). I can therefore not comment on his charisma, but judge him by his work. I have no idea who Carson, Sharpe, Stone, Gall and Spurheim are; perhaps you could enlighten me. "Functional" is a common medical term; we know much about "functional" bowel disorders, which are very likely to have a neurogastroenterological cause. I think you misunderstand the premise that "functional" does not rule out an organic cause.
- I have responded to your editing behaviour on Talk:Simon Wessely, and you may have noticed my caution with regards to civility on your personal talkpage. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
External Link on Gematria Page
[edit]I responded to your question... please let me know if you still think the link should not be added, or if maybe you can help me describe it better. Thank you. Omnivibe 14:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've responded there. With regards to the Rabbi Trugman page, could you also read WP:NC (it should be renamed) and also try to add an explanation why he would be notable (WP:N). JFW | T@lk 23:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Atrial fibrillation
[edit]Hi. Wanted to know if you received my email with a copy of my AF presentation. If not, just send me a message at ksheka at gmail dot com. Unfortunately I don't have time to work on it right now. Next week will certainly look better, time wise. Ksheka 16:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to drop me questions if there is anything unclear on my slides or anything else dealing with the topic. Ksheka 01:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 38 | 17 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 03:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!
- Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.
- Muscle relaxant has been selected as the new Collaboration of the week until October 2, 2007! This article is currently rated as a "stub", so it's got quite a bit of work cut out for collaborators! Admittedly, featured status could be a long way off,... but still attainable! At the least, maybe we could at least get it up to meeting the Good article criteria? Please stop by the article and help improve it.
- Resveratrol, having recently achieved GA status on August 16, 2007, is now making a run for featured status. This is quite a fascinating compound. If you can, please stop by its discussion page and leave comments in support of it.
- Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template {{talkheader}} may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.
- There was an interesting article on ZDNet last week about Hewlett Packard licensing its patented microneedle technology used in common inkjet printers to be used in transdermal patches to deliver a time-controlled release of drugs to patients. This information could be added to articles such as route of administration or drug delivery.
You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.