User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 7

Thank you for your comments and suggestions on my edits of the Frutose page and your reformatting. I'm in awe at what you've done on Wikipedia! That was my first effort. I have indeed studied a lot about glycation and its effects in the body, and especially the roles of fructose and galactose in causing age related chronic diseases; which are far less known (and far more severe) than those of glucose. It appears that you might also have interest and knowledge in this area. I would like to have someone to "bounce" some ideas off. Would you be interested in corresponding directly? If you do want to, how can we exchange emails without letting the spambots get us?

Thanks again, Jwanderson.

I'm a little bit new to Wikipedia, so be friendly, please. I was wondering if I could ask a little question. When a user like Bhandarkar on Asthma is adding commercial links repeatedly to an article, is this likely being done manually or via some sort of bot and is it worth me trying to get him banned, me soldiering on removing the links or some other recourse I'm not familiar with? --Mike C 10:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the advice on my talk page. If you want me do any little tasks for you, just ask. --Mike C 22:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, JFW. Could you take a look at the various Pneumocystis carinii articles, please? In my opinion, the article should be moved to Pneumocystis jiroveci with a redirect from carinii. Also, at least one article describes it as fungus, formerly a protozoan. A separate article (PCP) described it as a protozoan (but I deleted that statement). Thanks. Axl 22:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome and for the kind invitation. I'd be more than honored to join the Clinical Medicine WikiProject. I'm still struggling with basic editing skills, but I'll be working on new articles, and on expanding existing stubs, as soon as I master it. --Iglesias 02:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done, voted keep as evidence of CheeseDreams' warmongering. JFW | T@lk 08:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

JFW: Matt, I only discovered today that you have done a tremendous amount of work on the ATC pages. My compliments. They are very useful in maintaining the drug boxes on pharmacological pages. Will you be performing frequent updates?

Hi, and thank's for the compliments, it was a fair bit of work. I don't have plans to do frequent updates. In general, my contributions have been and will be sporadic as school and work take priority, I've just come back today since the worst of my exams are overwith (pharmacology was the worst of it all, and that was yesterday). So now for the next few weeks I will be destressing and recharging for another semester, which might mean that I make some contributions, or not. I will share with you though, what my "vision" of the ATC pages could be (or rather what the could be used for). Most categories (e.g. C01DA Organic nitrates used as vasodilators in cardiac disease) could be encyclopedic articles on their own (and in fact wp might actually have an article on this subject). Such an article, when written, could take the corresponding ATC code page (by redirect) and the ATC subcategories (and supercategories) could be mentioned in a side box. So the ATC coding system instead of having pages of their own are meerly reflected in the structure of drug and drug category articles. This would be something similar (if I'm not mistaken) to how the animal and plant taxonomy pages work (e.g. Mammal). This would take a lot of work and knowledge, but would also present us with a nice longterm goal for the drugs project and a means of measuring our progress. This is my vision, though it will take a number of people to be committed to working on it and I don't know how much time I will be putting into it during the school year. Another project that I've started here is the list of drugs which I might put some effort into fixing links and so on because it's a nice mindless sort of editing that is a nice break from studying. Matt 14:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jfdwolff: Please see discussions taking place regarding the new {{Jew}} template that I have created helping to organize the "bloated" Jew article, at Template talk:Jew and at Talk:Jew#Changes to the Template/New articles. Thanks and Happy Chanuka! IZAK 06:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Very nice. A worthwile effort. JFW | T@lk 10:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Greetings! And thanks for your comments. But if you think I work for AstraZeneca, I am afraid you are wrong! So I have no dirt on Exanta, apart from what we all read in the press. Sorry.

I am wanting to build a reference resource for the pharmaceutical industry, linking companies to drugs, etc. It just so happens that the first company I picked was AZ, partly because I have been talking to them recently (alas, they decided not to buy my services--grrrr!).

I am not a chemist or a medic--my training is mathematics. My interest in pharma is making better decisions about products in development, and making better medical/clinical decisions at the sharp end of medical service delivery. GJeffery 19:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, i saw your note about avoiding news links and going for a research paper. It kind of had occured in my mind that they may not be the best source of medical information, but i have been using them because i assumed they are more available to lay men (Not specialist). Note, i am not inferring that i will continue the practice, but don't you think a damned down article from respectable news source like bbc may sometime be more preferable? Unsigned by User:Wk muriithi

Well, Wikipedia should do the "dumbing down" without relying on the BBC to do it for us. Journalism on medical topics is so unbelievably fraught with blatant inaccuracies (and plain nonsense) that I've developed the stance never to rely on newspaper or newswire reports for medical news.

My suggestion would be: post the news link on the talk page. One of the doctors should (hopefully) pick up on it, clarify the context, find the relevant medical literature, and insert the relevant material into the article body. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I got that. In fact, i was not consciously aware that we wikipedian, may be dumbing down the article.

Hey Jfdwolff!

I just wanted to thank you for helping me out so much in my various edits.. Hopefully I'll keep learning and soon you won't have to do so much clean up after me : ) Tarek 23:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, Tarek. All "newcomers" need some coaching initially. JFW | T@lk 08:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. I was getting there, really I was... :) I just was just sidetracked by the article on Joshua Falk which I have now reformatted as per your comment. I have also adopted the format: intro > biography > works > external links for all similair articles.

Fintor   |   talk  |   11:47 UTC

Responding to your message:

Yup. If you think it's important to revert any of the categorisation there I won't be too hurt.  :-) ----- I mean, the categorisation was helpful to me and may be to others, but if it's really unhelpful from your point of view then revert away, I guess. My reasoning was that symptoms are indicators of some sort of illness and so it would be helpful for them to be in that category; And since the category "Illness" is itself a subcategory of "Medicine" it means symptom is still under that categorisation too. Doesn't matter tremendously to me though, so if you prefer to revert it, no probs.

--wayland 10:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I was just looking at the FAP article and saw that you had done the last edit of it. I was a bit suprised to see that it listed APC as having been mapped to chromosome 17 and says that the mutation in APC is recessive. AFAIK this is incorrect: the APC gene is located on the long arm of chromosome 5 and the mutation is dominant, so it does not require "two hits" as the article says. APC info If I am completely mistaken or not understanding the article, please do correct me, but I'm reasonably certain that I am correct about this, as I've seen a couple different sources saying the same things, and none that list it as a recessive mutation on chromosome 17. I just wanted to see if you had different information about this.

--Veritol 21:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Veritol, the gene is indeed on chromosome 5 and the mutation is dominant. However the article gives misleading information about the tumour formation. The gene is a tumour suppressor gene, in the sense that 'two hits' are required to cause cancer. The adenomatous polyps are inherently benign (by definition) but have the potential to become malignant. Axl 23:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did not make any changes to the genetics info. I just mentioned surveillance colonoscopy. JFW | T@lk 18:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're very quick in spotting that Asbestosis - Compensation and Liability Disputes is now up for deletion. Just some points: Anonymous editors cannot vote. Registering grants you this privilege. You don't need to reveal your real name, or even an email address. The page we're dealing with is about mesothelioma. Why are you making all this fuss about asbestosis when you're looking for mesothelioma sufferers? JFW | T@lk 23:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply. - Yes, I felt a request for deletion, rather than editing to assure a NPOV, rather harsh.

I honestly believe that few people entering Wikipedia to research the topic at an introductory level would initially think of such technical terms to use in a preliminary search. Surely the majority would start such a search via "asbestos" or "asbestosis". The Wikipedia should aim to make search terms the most intuitive possible.

The article on health issues associated with the effects of tobacco smoking is far more detailed !

PS - Why on earth would I be "looking for mesothelioma sufferers?"? !

To begin with the last one - Wikipedia is not for legal research. It is an encyclopedia. As an administrator I've dealt with a large share of attempts to commercialise medical conditions, and I felt (hopefully without justification) that your aim was to sell legal services to people with possible or certain asbestos exposure. If this is incorrect I apologise.

The tobacco smoking issue is obvious. Billions of people are being exposed to tobacco smoke. Far less have a history of asbestos exposure.

Encyclopedias do not have to represent all human knowledge. That would be an impossible (and unreadable) job. I think it is sufficient to mention that "as asbestosis is often related to past employment, many workers have sought compensation from their previous employers for neglecting to implement safety measures rapidly after the link between asbestos, asbestosis and mesothelioma became known". It may be useful to provide references for the original discovery of this link, and statistics on incidence and prevalence of asbestos-related diseases. Your work includes too much material that adds little to the encyclopedia-like content.

As for the example on the search terms, I used this to prove that Wikipedia is being used to "advertise" this research. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea why Anaerobic respiration gets vandalized. yet it is not troubling enough to validate a block of the page, I think. Well, lets keep on reverting. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:23, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jfdwolff, would you be willing to weigh in at Talk:Jewish_ethnocentrism#Duplicate_material? Jayjg 23:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although safek mamzer is always lekula, if there is no chashash at all that the baby is a result of the ones, then it is a mamzer. I will have the makor for you soon. Danny 01:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I enjoyed your article on shingles -- I had the disease as a kid (on the upper half of my face, no less) and dimly remembered its relationship to chicken pox but was ignorant of everything else connected to the disease. Your article is exceptionally well written and informative. -- — I. Neschek | talk 18:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I think much of the text found in the public domain cancer dictionary can be a good start for some articles. Although I can see that many of the links there are of dubious encyclopedic value, some things like stage IV adult non-Hodgkin's lymphoma should perhaps be removed from the list, or at least the link should be removed. I was a little unsure if it was actually a good idea to create some of the stubs I made, perhaps you can help find the important ones, many of the experimental drugs should probably not have their own article. Fuelbottle | Talk 15:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That article is a featured article but was previously listed as one with no references. An editor recently added links to two NIH sites re: H. pylori. Can you take a look at the article and the references and verfiy that the material in the article is as accurate as possible, agrees more or less with the references, and ideally see if you can add some additional references? Thank you - Taxman 23:33, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Kevin B. MacDonaldAndyL 14:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what she's up to. She claimed initially that she doesn't actually believe KBM's theories but now that she's actually making up her own arguments on his behalf I'm dubious. I suspect she may be one of his students and that she informed him of the article which led him to making his own intervention. Anyway, the KBM article needs to be watched because KBM himself has been editing it (as an anon IP but in one of his edits he's said "I am Kevin B. MacDonald") so I think he either doesn't know or hasn't been interested enough to actually register. AndyL 14:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the article, for a variety of reasons a large amount of material has been added by the subject (and some subtracted too). The subject would not discuss any changes, and nobody was eager to revert, so the changes built up. In an attempt to clear the subject-edits into a separate spot, I did my best to use the history to determine blocks that he had written and copied them down to a section of their own. They are admittedly torn from their context, and make little sense as they are. I suggest that we allow the subject to clear up his writings, and when he has done that he should stop making further edits to any part of the text. The only alternatives are to toss all his material away, which doesn't seem right either, or for someone else to fix it, which doesn't seem likely to happen. -Willmcw 06:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hi wolf,

this is just facts gathered from interviews on tv and internet. how else should you put it but year and club?

the current page is the right one for the moment.

Hmmm. It would help if you wrote the biography in your own words. At the moment it looks a lot like it was copied from another webpage. JFW | T@lk 18:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to Obesity. Would you mind explaining something further? I just want to re-raise my doubts concerning the use of kg/m2 next to a BMI number. It seems to me that the calculation used to realise the BMI number involves specific units, but that the BMI itself is non-committal about which units were used in its production: the stone/squarefeet units are deliberately weighted, in such a way as to produce the same index number as the kg/m2 units would for a given body. Leaving out metric units which are alien to our cousins across the pond seems like good wiki practice. Further, it seems to me that such issues might be fruitfully explored in the BMI article, rather than the obesity article. User:Adhib

Body mass index states that the BMI is calculated by dividing weight by height in metric units, and that the imperial measures need to be corrected for it. Scientifically, the number still has dimensions. No dietician in the world actually writes kg/m² after each BMI reading, but I advocate the use of units on Wikipedia for completeness. JFW | T@lk 18:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jfdwolff, I appreciated your editing of the first additions I tried to post on the "colorectal cancer" page. I have a question to ask you: While filling the French "Cancer" page, I noticed an external link which looks rather innapropriate, because the website does not have requested features for a "neutral & informative" source:

• Médecine Nouvelle Germanique

- It deals with a "new german medicine", completely unknown (parallel). - It gives no clear data or information on cancer. - It reports the problems of the leader of "new german medicine" with justice (he seems to be in jails), and asks readers to lobby so that he is released...

As a Wiki newcommer, I am not sure I could remove the link. Would you please help me, or, better, remove the link if you agree with me. Sincerely, Denis Corpet Corpet 18:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

dear Jfdwolff, Many thanks for your advice. After a new inquiry on the strange external site, simultaneously sad and funny (because so far from science), and with our approval, I decided to remove the link to Medecine Nouvelle Germanique. It is only today I nticed you were the nice person who welcomed me on Wiki: when can you find time to sleep?? Thanks again for all the work you do on Wiki. I hope you have a happy Chritsmas and/or "Hannoukha" (sorry for the spelling :o) Denis Corpet 20:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear User:Jfdwolff, I've been trying to deal with this (as one of my random pages to work with) and then stumbled on your entry mentioning your medical expertise AND administrator status. Can you assist with Geniculate nucleus - it needs a medical doctor for the medial geniculate nucleus - or advise a forum in Wikipedia or elsewhere that can get this entry sorted out? With thanks in anticipation, Peter Ellis 01:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi! season's greetings! On your prompting I've asked Jacob jnr about the pic. He said ok! (as well as observing how cute he is!) I guess 4 must be close enough to the age of consent for such matters. ;-)

Thanks! Slrubenstein 21:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Wolff: Please see Lost Ten Tribes Talk:Lost Ten Tribes as to how this article should be presented. This is how I recently found it: [1]. I then edited it to this: [2]. Another user then changed it to this: [3]. Finally, I edited it to this: [4] which is where it essentially stands, awaiting more input. Your suggestions would help, the topic is important. Thank you. IZAK 07:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jfd: See the discussions taking place at Template talk:Jew#Simplifications?. Please provide your views. Thank you. IZAK 07:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When referencing "The International Fraternity of Phi Gamma Delta", Inc., then the Greek letters are indeed copyrighted. It is similar to how the letters of FIFA when referening that organization are protected, so are the letters of the fraternity. I know that in other countries, copyright laws aren't particularly abided by. Maybe in our country copyright laws are aren't given the gravity they are here. However, in America, it is a very serious issue. I don't mean to be disrespectful or threatening, but it is the honest truth. You have to abide by the laws of the land. Please, do not bring a lawsuit to this site. It is highly imperative that it continue running so that many future generations of wiki's can enjoy this fabulous creation. Thanks for your time, and have a great day!

Diddy

Your patronising tone strikes me as totally unnecessary. If you could provide actual references to back up your claim, it would be a lot easier to understand why you're responding the way you do.

I cannot understand why a set of letters can be copyrighted. Companies may claim image rights over particular typesettings or arrangements, but you cannot state that a particular set of Greek letters, even when referring to your organisation, is anyone's property. When your block expires (for vandalism) please give me some information. JFW | T@lk 20:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jfd: Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Lost Ten Tribes#Question about Jewishness of Lost Ten Tribes where a contributing editor asks in all seriousness: "...Is it NPOV and factually correct to state emphatically that the Kingdom of Israel was Jewish? The reason I ask is because if you follow Jewish religious texts (I have a number in my own library) and then compare them with secular non-religious academic texts (I have a number in my own library), then you end up with two different accounts...." Please let us have your input ASAP. Thanks. IZAK 07:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did explain why I removed that sentence, in Talk:Childbirth, where I am supposed. I am waiting for a response to remove it for good, because it deserves to be removed.

For your information, the stated reason was: There are just too many things wrong with that sentence. First of all it would deeply offend those who believe that "life begins at conception, man" and second of all, how is it relevant? It's a badly phrased semi-philosophical statement thrown in the middle of a technical article on a biological process. and I stand by it.

Thanks in advance.

LeoDV 11:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article is about childbirth. You may insert the other POV in conception. Don't be "deeply offended" by something as trivial as that. I have rephrased the sentence (because it was POV). JFW | T@lk 20:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The usual censorship going on at Chabad Lubavitch. Jayjg | (Talk) 06:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stop putting external links everywhere. This is ground for banning from Wikipedia. You have done this twice now (21 Dec and 25 Dec). JFW | T@lk 20:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stop removing my links. They're relevant and on-target. What so-called rules do you think they're violating? It's grounds for getting banned as an over-stepping moderator. Unsigned by an anonymous linkdumper.

Hi Jfd: Inadverdantly I created carbon copies of one article Ancient Judaism (book) (see Category:Ancient Israel and Judah), when moving it from its original title of Ancient Judaism which is now a stub for a valid article by that name. Could you help me delete one of the Wikipedia copies of Ancient Judaism (book) as I don't want to merely list "for deletion" the article about Max Weber's book (i.e. Ancient Judaism (book)) which is also a valid article. Thanks for your help in advance. IZAK 04:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It appears that neither Irate nor Cookiecaper violated the 3 revert rule. They both reverted 3 times, but not more. They are both over on the mailing list complaining and unless there was some violation other than those associated with the clitoris article you probably should unblock them. Fred Bauder 02:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I saw that you edited the Martyn Bennett article. What does the change you made do? Thanks --Paraphelion 03:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have the same question about Victor A. McKusick. You actually changed the spelling of his last name to an incorrect form (Mackusick is not accurate). I'd like to understand what you were trying to... JFW | T@lk 19:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See my reply to AlistairMcMillan's question and my reply to Paraphelion's question. Bornintheguz 20:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I need you to translate this. Also, if you can incorporate some of the Dutch Djerba information into English, I would be very grateful. Thanks. Danny 20:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I've written extensively on the Deafness Talk page about categorizing, both before and since you changed the category. If you have comments we would like you to share them there, and also provide feedback on our present choose of Medicine as the category. I ask you not to change the category again until we've had a full discussion. The Deafness article is a clarification of a highly emotional and contentious issue. It seems to call for the view from the very philosophical basis of field of medicine, especially the view of disability, in this case, rather than from one of the branches of medicine. Since ENT Surgery does not address the diverse range of disabilities evoked in the discussion I'd prefer to get feedback from people on the choice of the category even if it requires a poll or other peer review or critique. I thank you for understanding the sensitivity of this issue. Ray Foster 21:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will respond on Talk:Deafness. JFW | T@lk 21:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know nothing about him except that his poem is used at the Homomonument. Presumably the people who designed the monument believe him to be gay. Adam 05:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, how come no-one has awarded you a barnstar yet? I have corrected this glaring oversight. Axl 11:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The structure of the carcinoma article at the moment is that of a rag-tag collection of facts without strong organisation, and without much of it being relevant to carcinoma. The section on staging and recognition, for example, belongs in Cancer, or possibly a reorganised article on the process of Neoplasia. The general principles of malignancy don't really change depending on the tissue; the main differences are the existence of the notion of CIS, and the definition of carcinoma as invasion through the basement membrane.

The 'by location' section is quite incorrect. those carcinomas are not classified by location; they are classified by cell type. just because a particular cell type only occurs in one location doesn't mean it's classified by location. Unsigned by Nqn.

I have responded on your talk page. JFW | T@lk 09:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, funny. I saw just a few minutes ago that you started the Wegener grano...(it's a difficult word for me)-page on the English version of wikipedia. I started the Dutch version just this week. (I am a Wegener patient myself) I also made the link on the English version to the Dutch version. The text there comes from the Wegener foundation (or actual Vasculair foundation) and is approved by the specialists in the Netherlands. I also made the ANCA-article. Feel free to use anything you want. Greetz from Den Helder, Holland. 213.84.100.109 21:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) (EdwinS in Holland)

Hartelijk dank! Ik denk dat ik het ANCA-artikel zal vertalen voor de Engelse Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 19:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's up for deletion. It's an article that claims that... well, take a look at Two Finger Test. The contributor asks "Are there any MD's here in Wikipedia?" Dpbsmith (talk) 02:19, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, what you saw was the result of various people trying to fix the article. I was hoping for your comments on the original text, which was as shown below. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Two Finger Test is a medical test that Medical Doctors perform to see if a girl or woman is still a Virgin. The Physician wears a rubber glove and inserts his fingers inside the female's vagina in question and if one finger is tight, then she is a Virgin and if two fingers can fit in easy, then she is not.

The test is used in courts to verify if a virgin or rape victim is telling the truth. It is the only way Doctors can tell.

Source of this was S. A. Suriano M.D. Surgeon

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

I'm a little bit new to Wikipedia, so be friendly, please. I was wondering if I could ask a little question. When a user like Bhandarkar on Asthma is adding commercial links repeatedly to an article, is this likely being done manually or via some sort of bot and is it worth me trying to get him banned, me soldiering on removing the links or some other recourse I'm not familiar with? --Mike C 10:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the advice on my talk page. If you want me do any little tasks for you, just ask. --Mike C 22:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, JFW. Could you take a look at the various Pneumocystis carinii articles, please? In my opinion, the article should be moved to Pneumocystis jiroveci with a redirect from carinii. Also, at least one article describes it as fungus, formerly a protozoan. A separate article (PCP) described it as a protozoan (but I deleted that statement). Thanks. Axl 22:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome and for the kind invitation. I'd be more than honored to join the Clinical Medicine WikiProject. I'm still struggling with basic editing skills, but I'll be working on new articles, and on expanding existing stubs, as soon as I master it. --Iglesias 02:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done, voted keep as evidence of CheeseDreams' warmongering. JFW | T@lk 08:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

JFW: Matt, I only discovered today that you have done a tremendous amount of work on the ATC pages. My compliments. They are very useful in maintaining the drug boxes on pharmacological pages. Will you be performing frequent updates?

Hi, and thank's for the compliments, it was a fair bit of work. I don't have plans to do frequent updates. In general, my contributions have been and will be sporadic as school and work take priority, I've just come back today since the worst of my exams are overwith (pharmacology was the worst of it all, and that was yesterday). So now for the next few weeks I will be destressing and recharging for another semester, which might mean that I make some contributions, or not. I will share with you though, what my "vision" of the ATC pages could be (or rather what the could be used for). Most categories (e.g. C01DA Organic nitrates used as vasodilators in cardiac disease) could be encyclopedic articles on their own (and in fact wp might actually have an article on this subject). Such an article, when written, could take the corresponding ATC code page (by redirect) and the ATC subcategories (and supercategories) could be mentioned in a side box. So the ATC coding system instead of having pages of their own are meerly reflected in the structure of drug and drug category articles. This would be something similar (if I'm not mistaken) to how the animal and plant taxonomy pages work (e.g. Mammal). This would take a lot of work and knowledge, but would also present us with a nice longterm goal for the drugs project and a means of measuring our progress. This is my vision, though it will take a number of people to be committed to working on it and I don't know how much time I will be putting into it during the school year. Another project that I've started here is the list of drugs which I might put some effort into fixing links and so on because it's a nice mindless sort of editing that is a nice break from studying. Matt 14:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jfdwolff: Please see discussions taking place regarding the new {{Jew}} template that I have created helping to organize the "bloated" Jew article, at Template talk:Jew and at Talk:Jew#Changes to the Template/New articles. Thanks and Happy Chanuka! IZAK 06:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Very nice. A worthwile effort. JFW | T@lk 10:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Greetings! And thanks for your comments. But if you think I work for AstraZeneca, I am afraid you are wrong! So I have no dirt on Exanta, apart from what we all read in the press. Sorry.

I am wanting to build a reference resource for the pharmaceutical industry, linking companies to drugs, etc. It just so happens that the first company I picked was AZ, partly because I have been talking to them recently (alas, they decided not to buy my services--grrrr!).

I am not a chemist or a medic--my training is mathematics. My interest in pharma is making better decisions about products in development, and making better medical/clinical decisions at the sharp end of medical service delivery. GJeffery 19:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, i saw your note about avoiding news links and going for a research paper. It kind of had occured in my mind that they may not be the best source of medical information, but i have been using them because i assumed they are more available to lay men (Not specialist). Note, i am not inferring that i will continue the practice, but don't you think a damned down article from respectable news source like bbc may sometime be more preferable? Unsigned by User:Wk muriithi

Well, Wikipedia should do the "dumbing down" without relying on the BBC to do it for us. Journalism on medical topics is so unbelievably fraught with blatant inaccuracies (and plain nonsense) that I've developed the stance never to rely on newspaper or newswire reports for medical news.

My suggestion would be: post the news link on the talk page. One of the doctors should (hopefully) pick up on it, clarify the context, find the relevant medical literature, and insert the relevant material into the article body. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I got that. In fact, i was not consciously aware that we wikipedian, may be dumbing down the article.

Hey Jfdwolff!

I just wanted to thank you for helping me out so much in my various edits.. Hopefully I'll keep learning and soon you won't have to do so much clean up after me : ) Tarek 23:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, Tarek. All "newcomers" need some coaching initially. JFW | T@lk 08:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. I was getting there, really I was... :) I just was just sidetracked by the article on Joshua Falk which I have now reformatted as per your comment. I have also adopted the format: intro > biography > works > external links for all similair articles.

Fintor   |   talk  |   11:47 UTC

Responding to your message:

Yup. If you think it's important to revert any of the categorisation there I won't be too hurt.  :-) ----- I mean, the categorisation was helpful to me and may be to others, but if it's really unhelpful from your point of view then revert away, I guess. My reasoning was that symptoms are indicators of some sort of illness and so it would be helpful for them to be in that category; And since the category "Illness" is itself a subcategory of "Medicine" it means symptom is still under that categorisation too. Doesn't matter tremendously to me though, so if you prefer to revert it, no probs.

--wayland 10:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I was just looking at the FAP article and saw that you had done the last edit of it. I was a bit suprised to see that it listed APC as having been mapped to chromosome 17 and says that the mutation in APC is recessive. AFAIK this is incorrect: the APC gene is located on the long arm of chromosome 5 and the mutation is dominant, so it does not require "two hits" as the article says. APC info If I am completely mistaken or not understanding the article, please do correct me, but I'm reasonably certain that I am correct about this, as I've seen a couple different sources saying the same things, and none that list it as a recessive mutation on chromosome 17. I just wanted to see if you had different information about this.

--Veritol 21:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Veritol, the gene is indeed on chromosome 5 and the mutation is dominant. However the article gives misleading information about the tumour formation. The gene is a tumour suppressor gene, in the sense that 'two hits' are required to cause cancer. The adenomatous polyps are inherently benign (by definition) but have the potential to become malignant. Axl 23:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did not make any changes to the genetics info. I just mentioned surveillance colonoscopy. JFW | T@lk 18:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're very quick in spotting that Asbestosis - Compensation and Liability Disputes is now up for deletion. Just some points: Anonymous editors cannot vote. Registering grants you this privilege. You don't need to reveal your real name, or even an email address. The page we're dealing with is about mesothelioma. Why are you making all this fuss about asbestosis when you're looking for mesothelioma sufferers? JFW | T@lk 23:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply. - Yes, I felt a request for deletion, rather than editing to assure a NPOV, rather harsh.

I honestly believe that few people entering Wikipedia to research the topic at an introductory level would initially think of such technical terms to use in a preliminary search. Surely the majority would start such a search via "asbestos" or "asbestosis". The Wikipedia should aim to make search terms the most intuitive possible.

The article on health issues associated with the effects of tobacco smoking is far more detailed !

PS - Why on earth would I be "looking for mesothelioma sufferers?"? !

To begin with the last one - Wikipedia is not for legal research. It is an encyclopedia. As an administrator I've dealt with a large share of attempts to commercialise medical conditions, and I felt (hopefully without justification) that your aim was to sell legal services to people with possible or certain asbestos exposure. If this is incorrect I apologise.

The tobacco smoking issue is obvious. Billions of people are being exposed to tobacco smoke. Far less have a history of asbestos exposure.

Encyclopedias do not have to represent all human knowledge. That would be an impossible (and unreadable) job. I think it is sufficient to mention that "as asbestosis is often related to past employment, many workers have sought compensation from their previous employers for neglecting to implement safety measures rapidly after the link between asbestos, asbestosis and mesothelioma became known". It may be useful to provide references for the original discovery of this link, and statistics on incidence and prevalence of asbestos-related diseases. Your work includes too much material that adds little to the encyclopedia-like content.

As for the example on the search terms, I used this to prove that Wikipedia is being used to "advertise" this research. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea why Anaerobic respiration gets vandalized. yet it is not troubling enough to validate a block of the page, I think. Well, lets keep on reverting. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:23, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jfdwolff, would you be willing to weigh in at Talk:Jewish_ethnocentrism#Duplicate_material? Jayjg 23:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although safek mamzer is always lekula, if there is no chashash at all that the baby is a result of the ones, then it is a mamzer. I will have the makor for you soon. Danny 01:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I enjoyed your article on shingles -- I had the disease as a kid (on the upper half of my face, no less) and dimly remembered its relationship to chicken pox but was ignorant of everything else connected to the disease. Your article is exceptionally well written and informative. -- — I. Neschek | talk 18:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I think much of the text found in the public domain cancer dictionary can be a good start for some articles. Although I can see that many of the links there are of dubious encyclopedic value, some things like stage IV adult non-Hodgkin's lymphoma should perhaps be removed from the list, or at least the link should be removed. I was a little unsure if it was actually a good idea to create some of the stubs I made, perhaps you can help find the important ones, many of the experimental drugs should probably not have their own article. Fuelbottle | Talk 15:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That article is a featured article but was previously listed as one with no references. An editor recently added links to two NIH sites re: H. pylori. Can you take a look at the article and the references and verfiy that the material in the article is as accurate as possible, agrees more or less with the references, and ideally see if you can add some additional references? Thank you - Taxman 23:33, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Kevin B. MacDonaldAndyL 14:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what she's up to. She claimed initially that she doesn't actually believe KBM's theories but now that she's actually making up her own arguments on his behalf I'm dubious. I suspect she may be one of his students and that she informed him of the article which led him to making his own intervention. Anyway, the KBM article needs to be watched because KBM himself has been editing it (as an anon IP but in one of his edits he's said "I am Kevin B. MacDonald") so I think he either doesn't know or hasn't been interested enough to actually register. AndyL 14:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the article, for a variety of reasons a large amount of material has been added by the subject (and some subtracted too). The subject would not discuss any changes, and nobody was eager to revert, so the changes built up. In an attempt to clear the subject-edits into a separate spot, I did my best to use the history to determine blocks that he had written and copied them down to a section of their own. They are admittedly torn from their context, and make little sense as they are. I suggest that we allow the subject to clear up his writings, and when he has done that he should stop making further edits to any part of the text. The only alternatives are to toss all his material away, which doesn't seem right either, or for someone else to fix it, which doesn't seem likely to happen. -Willmcw 06:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hi wolf,

this is just facts gathered from interviews on tv and internet. how else should you put it but year and club?

the current page is the right one for the moment.

Hmmm. It would help if you wrote the biography in your own words. At the moment it looks a lot like it was copied from another webpage. JFW | T@lk 18:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to Obesity. Would you mind explaining something further? I just want to re-raise my doubts concerning the use of kg/m2 next to a BMI number. It seems to me that the calculation used to realise the BMI number involves specific units, but that the BMI itself is non-committal about which units were used in its production: the stone/squarefeet units are deliberately weighted, in such a way as to produce the same index number as the kg/m2 units would for a given body. Leaving out metric units which are alien to our cousins across the pond seems like good wiki practice. Further, it seems to me that such issues might be fruitfully explored in the BMI article, rather than the obesity article. User:Adhib

Body mass index states that the BMI is calculated by dividing weight by height in metric units, and that the imperial measures need to be corrected for it. Scientifically, the number still has dimensions. No dietician in the world actually writes kg/m² after each BMI reading, but I advocate the use of units on Wikipedia for completeness. JFW | T@lk 18:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jfdwolff, I appreciated your editing of the first additions I tried to post on the "colorectal cancer" page. I have a question to ask you: While filling the French "Cancer" page, I noticed an external link which looks rather innapropriate, because the website does not have requested features for a "neutral & informative" source:

• Médecine Nouvelle Germanique

- It deals with a "new german medicine", completely unknown (parallel). - It gives no clear data or information on cancer. - It reports the problems of the leader of "new german medicine" with justice (he seems to be in jails), and asks readers to lobby so that he is released...

As a Wiki newcommer, I am not sure I could remove the link. Would you please help me, or, better, remove the link if you agree with me. Sincerely, Denis Corpet Corpet 18:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

dear Jfdwolff, Many thanks for your advice. After a new inquiry on the strange external site, simultaneously sad and funny (because so far from science), and with our approval, I decided to remove the link to Medecine Nouvelle Germanique. It is only today I nticed you were the nice person who welcomed me on Wiki: when can you find time to sleep?? Thanks again for all the work you do on Wiki. I hope you have a happy Chritsmas and/or "Hannoukha" (sorry for the spelling :o) Denis Corpet 20:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear User:Jfdwolff, I've been trying to deal with this (as one of my random pages to work with) and then stumbled on your entry mentioning your medical expertise AND administrator status. Can you assist with Geniculate nucleus - it needs a medical doctor for the medial geniculate nucleus - or advise a forum in Wikipedia or elsewhere that can get this entry sorted out? With thanks in anticipation, Peter Ellis 01:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi! season's greetings! On your prompting I've asked Jacob jnr about the pic. He said ok! (as well as observing how cute he is!) I guess 4 must be close enough to the age of consent for such matters. ;-)

Thanks! Slrubenstein 21:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Wolff: Please see Lost Ten Tribes Talk:Lost Ten Tribes as to how this article should be presented. This is how I recently found it: [5]. I then edited it to this: [6]. Another user then changed it to this: [7]. Finally, I edited it to this: [8] which is where it essentially stands, awaiting more input. Your suggestions would help, the topic is important. Thank you. IZAK 07:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jfd: See the discussions taking place at Template talk:Jew#Simplifications?. Please provide your views. Thank you. IZAK 07:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When referencing "The International Fraternity of Phi Gamma Delta", Inc., then the Greek letters are indeed copyrighted. It is similar to how the letters of FIFA when referening that organization are protected, so are the letters of the fraternity. I know that in other countries, copyright laws aren't particularly abided by. Maybe in our country copyright laws are aren't given the gravity they are here. However, in America, it is a very serious issue. I don't mean to be disrespectful or threatening, but it is the honest truth. You have to abide by the laws of the land. Please, do not bring a lawsuit to this site. It is highly imperative that it continue running so that many future generations of wiki's can enjoy this fabulous creation. Thanks for your time, and have a great day!

Diddy

Your patronising tone strikes me as totally unnecessary. If you could provide actual references to back up your claim, it would be a lot easier to understand why you're responding the way you do.

I cannot understand why a set of letters can be copyrighted. Companies may claim image rights over particular typesettings or arrangements, but you cannot state that a particular set of Greek letters, even when referring to your organisation, is anyone's property. When your block expires (for vandalism) please give me some information. JFW | T@lk 20:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jfd: Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Lost Ten Tribes#Question about Jewishness of Lost Ten Tribes where a contributing editor asks in all seriousness: "...Is it NPOV and factually correct to state emphatically that the Kingdom of Israel was Jewish? The reason I ask is because if you follow Jewish religious texts (I have a number in my own library) and then compare them with secular non-religious academic texts (I have a number in my own library), then you end up with two different accounts...." Please let us have your input ASAP. Thanks. IZAK 07:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did explain why I removed that sentence, in Talk:Childbirth, where I am supposed. I am waiting for a response to remove it for good, because it deserves to be removed.

For your information, the stated reason was: There are just too many things wrong with that sentence. First of all it would deeply offend those who believe that "life begins at conception, man" and second of all, how is it relevant? It's a badly phrased semi-philosophical statement thrown in the middle of a technical article on a biological process. and I stand by it.

Thanks in advance.

LeoDV 11:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article is about childbirth. You may insert the other POV in conception. Don't be "deeply offended" by something as trivial as that. I have rephrased the sentence (because it was POV). JFW | T@lk 20:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The usual censorship going on at Chabad Lubavitch. Jayjg | (Talk) 06:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stop putting external links everywhere. This is ground for banning from Wikipedia. You have done this twice now (21 Dec and 25 Dec). JFW | T@lk 20:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stop removing my links. They're relevant and on-target. What so-called rules do you think they're violating? It's grounds for getting banned as an over-stepping moderator. Unsigned by an anonymous linkdumper.

Hi Jfd: Inadverdantly I created carbon copies of one article Ancient Judaism (book) (see Category:Ancient Israel and Judah), when moving it from its original title of Ancient Judaism which is now a stub for a valid article by that name. Could you help me delete one of the Wikipedia copies of Ancient Judaism (book) as I don't want to merely list "for deletion" the article about Max Weber's book (i.e. Ancient Judaism (book)) which is also a valid article. Thanks for your help in advance. IZAK 04:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It appears that neither Irate nor Cookiecaper violated the 3 revert rule. They both reverted 3 times, but not more. They are both over on the mailing list complaining and unless there was some violation other than those associated with the clitoris article you probably should unblock them. Fred Bauder 02:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I saw that you edited the Martyn Bennett article. What does the change you made do? Thanks --Paraphelion 03:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have the same question about Victor A. McKusick. You actually changed the spelling of his last name to an incorrect form (Mackusick is not accurate). I'd like to understand what you were trying to... JFW | T@lk 19:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See my reply to AlistairMcMillan's question and my reply to Paraphelion's question. Bornintheguz 20:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I need you to translate this. Also, if you can incorporate some of the Dutch Djerba information into English, I would be very grateful. Thanks. Danny 20:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I've written extensively on the Deafness Talk page about categorizing, both before and since you changed the category. If you have comments we would like you to share them there, and also provide feedback on our present choose of Medicine as the category. I ask you not to change the category again until we've had a full discussion. The Deafness article is a clarification of a highly emotional and contentious issue. It seems to call for the view from the very philosophical basis of field of medicine, especially the view of disability, in this case, rather than from one of the branches of medicine. Since ENT Surgery does not address the diverse range of disabilities evoked in the discussion I'd prefer to get feedback from people on the choice of the category even if it requires a poll or other peer review or critique. I thank you for understanding the sensitivity of this issue. Ray Foster 21:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will respond on Talk:Deafness. JFW | T@lk 21:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know nothing about him except that his poem is used at the Homomonument. Presumably the people who designed the monument believe him to be gay. Adam 05:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, how come no-one has awarded you a barnstar yet? I have corrected this glaring oversight. Axl 11:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The structure of the carcinoma article at the moment is that of a rag-tag collection of facts without strong organisation, and without much of it being relevant to carcinoma. The section on staging and recognition, for example, belongs in Cancer, or possibly a reorganised article on the process of Neoplasia. The general principles of malignancy don't really change depending on the tissue; the main differences are the existence of the notion of CIS, and the definition of carcinoma as invasion through the basement membrane.

The 'by location' section is quite incorrect. those carcinomas are not classified by location; they are classified by cell type. just because a particular cell type only occurs in one location doesn't mean it's classified by location. Unsigned by Nqn.

I have responded on your talk page. JFW | T@lk 09:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, funny. I saw just a few minutes ago that you started the Wegener grano...(it's a difficult word for me)-page on the English version of wikipedia. I started the Dutch version just this week. (I am a Wegener patient myself) I also made the link on the English version to the Dutch version. The text there comes from the Wegener foundation (or actual Vasculair foundation) and is approved by the specialists in the Netherlands. I also made the ANCA-article. Feel free to use anything you want. Greetz from Den Helder, Holland. 213.84.100.109 21:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) (EdwinS in Holland)

Hartelijk dank! Ik denk dat ik het ANCA-artikel zal vertalen voor de Engelse Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 19:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's up for deletion. It's an article that claims that... well, take a look at Two Finger Test. The contributor asks "Are there any MD's here in Wikipedia?" Dpbsmith (talk) 02:19, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, what you saw was the result of various people trying to fix the article. I was hoping for your comments on the original text, which was as shown below. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Two Finger Test is a medical test that Medical Doctors perform to see if a girl or woman is still a Virgin. The Physician wears a rubber glove and inserts his fingers inside the female's vagina in question and if one finger is tight, then she is a Virgin and if two fingers can fit in easy, then she is not.

The test is used in courts to verify if a virgin or rape victim is telling the truth. It is the only way Doctors can tell.

Source of this was S. A. Suriano M.D. Surgeon

I would greatly appreciate your view on the present dispute invoving the Hearing Impairment article. I've prepared a discussion on the Hearing Impairment Talk Page and I belive we would greatly benefit from your insight and comments. Thank you in advance. Ray Foster 11:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, JFW. I see that you have added hypocortisolism to the list of causes of high volume hyponatremia. I have looked in the Oxford Textbook and Harrison's Principles, as well as Medline and the internet, but I can't find any reference to hypocortisolism (as distinct from Addison's). I realise that in some cases of secondary hypoadrenalism, the aldosterone level may be relatively preserved, while only the cortisol level falls. Is this what you mean? Does this really cause high volume? I would really appreciate a reference. Thanks. Axl 18:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, not sure if You wach my talk, so You can find my reply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dz0#re:_Happiness thanks for interest :)

Ah een andere internationale Nederlander! Bedankt voor je compliment. Voel je trouwens welkom om ook eens op nl: langs te komen. We naderen de 50.000 artikelen deze maand! Waerth 10:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jammer ....... we nodigen normaal gesproken niemand uit avn buiten "nl wikipedia" bij conflicten. Maar ik wil je wel van harte uitnodigen bij deze om die artikelen eens grondig te bekijken. De gebruiker die het meeste doet op nl aan medische artikelen is "Evanherk" zelf een huisarts en heeft geloof ik ook in de UK gewoond. En voor de artikelen mbt Joodse zaken voornamelijk "GidonB" die in de VS woont. Waerth 11:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What do you think JFW? I've made a few changes myself, over on the "compensation" page Asbestosis_-_Compensation_and_Liability_Disputes, paraphrasing some quotes, removing some of the more emotional language and including text and references on predatory "runaway litigation" aspects. Should the NPOV and CLEANUP be maintained, or is it ready to have these tags removed? Thanks for any suggestions. Wikityke 14:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excellent "cleanup" by "EdPoor", don't you think? JFW? Wikityke 01:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you think that the Torah im Derech Eretz article should also become the Neo Orthodoxy article - i.e redirect pages, bold wording in the heading etc..? If so, I think I should flesh out the Neo Orthodoxy bit, just slightly.

Fintor | talk | January 26 12:36 UTC

Hi. You may enjoy contributing to a new project on Wikibooks--Emergenecy Medicine here. Danny 11:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nothing can be deleted at Wikipedia except by an administrator. I have not deleted your message, it just no longer displays. The category in question was already deleted by time I read your message, so I so no need for me to do anything, or even respond. I agree the category entries needed modification, but since the category no longer exists, the argument is moot. See Wikipedia entry: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" (that was a joke). I have since created a new category more rigorous in scope entitled: Ailments of unknown etiology. I have also limited the entries.

See your talk. JFW | T@lk 09:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)