Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WLU (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 14 January 2008 (→Dutch favour?: great, thanks!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• If you leave messages here, please expect a response from me over here.
• If I've left a message on your talkpage, and I'm slow to respond to a reply made there, please let me know.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,

Lupus

Hi, I'm barred from editing the lupus erythematosus page, someone just added a useless link to the EL section and I noticed there's a couple others that are iffy. Think it needs a little snippy-snip? WLU (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Whaddaya mean, you're "barred"? Which Arbcomm decision have I missed? I agree earlylupussymptoms is a very useless site (it just feeds the fears of hypochondriacs and is completely unreferenced). I have done the needful.JFW | T@lk 22:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow I missed this question. The Arbcom is related to my specific arb hearing which was mostly about a dispute between myself and another editor. It's since been resolved, but took place from Jan-Feb 2007. If you're interested, User talk:WLU/arbitration, but it's really quite irrelevant. Here is the short version, specifically mentioning Lupus. Too bad, because I did quite a bit of work on Lupus last year and it's frustrating not to be able to do vandalism reverts. Plus it's a pain in the ass 'cause I keep bothering others.

Also note this, I've warned the user this time but I still need someone else to revert for me. Finally, I've just edited Head injury and I don't know if I helped or not. The page appears somewhat confusing, possibly mixing head injuries with brain injuries. As usual, I'm out of my expertise. WLU (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mystar hasn't edited for a long time. You may want to file a motion to the ArbComm to the effect that these remedies be voided. I have again removed the deeply ghastly URL, and left a little annoyed lecture on the spammer's talkpage. You are free to read it for entertainment.

Wrt head injury, you need to injure the head to injure the brain... But seriously there are also brain damage and traumatic brain injury that deal with this. (It is actually possible to cause brain damage with poison, hypoxia etc so my opening salvo is not strictly true.) JFW | T@lk 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I kinda like the arbitration outcome for keeping me humble and as a reminder not to be a huge dick. Lemme know if you don't like being my go-to guy for Lupus reverts, I've others that I can exploit :) I did see your lecture, it left me feeling warm and squishy inside - actually fairly nice of you to include some suggestions, the use of italics was amusingly catty so don't feel that your efforts are unappreciated. Were I able, I would have jumped on the 'ban'-ed wagon (HA! That may require a very strong grasp of colloquial North American English, so if you don't get it, trust me it was HILARIOUS), another reason I avoid adminship. Power corrupts and I'm sure it would do so with me very quickly.

Sorry about dumping the head injury thing in your lap. I spent far too long last week editing the disease in ornamental fish page (which features this lovely image, though doubtless you've seen, possibly cleaned up, worse in med school you poor bastard) that I just didn't have the heart to tackle another long, complicated and ambiguous article I know almost nothing about. WLU (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind being approached for external link patrolling. Linkspam is one of my bugbears (see my editorial policies), but that earlylupussymptoms site really takes the cookie biscuit.

The head injury article needs looking at, together with all other related neurotrauma. There is a useful guideline document by NICE (UK medical standards body) that I might use to knock it into shape. There is an overlap with the other two artices I pointed at (brain damage and traumatic brain injury). JFW | T@lk 08:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

All I take away from this is "that I might use to knock it into shape." I've been relieved of my editing duties, huzzah! I look forward to your edits :) WLU (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia

Thanks for your comment on in the Medicine Wikiproject. Would you mind adding your input to the RfC on the Fibromyalgia discussion page? Djma12 02:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Al Gore

Was that a serious comment? --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment was serious, the phrasing was admittedly tongue-in-cheek. JFW | T@lk 13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not convinced it falls foul of WP:WIAFA 1e. Are you really going to fail it on that? I'm not sure we can predict immense flux in the nature of his article, any more than we can for any bio of a living person - and we promote hundreds of them each year. --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a comment, not an oppose. I need to have a slightly closer look at the article before I commit myself... JFW | T@lk 14:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! Not sure it's FA myself yet, just was surprised by your contribution. Hope you don't mind my subjecting you to a mild third degree! --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I'm not trying to be disruptive here. The simple point is that I noticed that, if you type "Jacob de Haan" in the search box, you are automatically taken to the page for Jacob Israel de Haan, with no indication that there is an entry for Jacob de Haan (composer). Although it is likely that most readers would want the article on the writer, some would indeed be searching for the composer, and would have had no idea how to find the relevant article. Your "not to be confused" note solves this; but I still don't understand why a disambig link is frowned on (and I have read the Manual of Style article). RolandR (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion; I have created the necessary disambig page. RolandR (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I also edit pages that are in need of better copy (I'm a book author) and I've added material and references where appropriate. I have noticed that Chabad added external links to almost every Jewish topic so I assumed that it was OK to add external links too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsabouttime (talk • contribs) 07:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving your comments on my talk page

Thank you for your comments. I edit content, add material and add references wherever I can. I will do my best to add the appropriate information within the article itself. I see that Chabad has added external links to almost every Jewish topic page and on many they have two, so I assumed it was OK to add external links too. I also leave relevant questions on discussion pages. (I'm resending this message because I forgot to sign the last one) Thanks again! --Itsabouttime (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Coeliac

Since you wanted to take this public, we will have it you're way. Since you seem to feel from the height of your throne you still refuse to reinsert my input on celiac diet suggestions, why don't you take a gander to celiac.com (US) and look at what the USFDA has to say regarding malt. I don't know if you are a celiac yourself, your highness, but the rule of thumb is if there is a doubt, avoid it. For the second time, you threw some pantywaste onesided study no doubt paid by the bloody malt industry. My guess is you have Crohn's Disease and are self obsessed with your alleged importance when there is no ability for a face to face meeting. So, the bottom line is, that here in the States, maltodexterin is added to most rice products, and has the potential for adverse affects for the celiac patient. If you can't get that through you thin skull while your in your cave 24/7 sucking on d cell batteries, then shove it up your arse. Oh, by the way, based on the number of contributions that you have done here, what kind of life do you exactly have anyway? Not much by my guestimations, DB. I'm sure you'll throw a hissy fit over this one, ban my ass and all that good shit, but you know what, arseholes like you can have you're little playgrounds to you're selves, since you don't play nice anyways. Oh, by the way Wolff, from one Jew to another, I'd kick you ass for the good of Palestine just for general purposes. Shalom. Your pal in total disgust Ftmyersrick. PS. Don't bother writing back after you recover from your TIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftmyersrick (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a good old-fashioned troll. I'd better not feed you. JFW | T@lk 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Obesity

When making numerical claims (such as "Diet and exercise programs produce an average weight loss of approximately 8% of total body mass (excluding program drop-outs)") it is imperative that you provide reliable sources. Could you edit obesity to that effect? JFW | T@lk 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You've contacted the wrong person (I didn't put that claim in the article). It is imperative that you get your facts straight before you act on them.  :) Healthwise (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, since you moved the content around it seemed on the diff that you added this sentence. So it was already there. In any case, I have now tagged it with a {{fact}} tag so someone else can find a source for the numbers. Sorry to have bothered you. JFW | T@lk 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Where should I leave my reply to your comments?

Thank you for your prompt reply. If you leave a message on my talk page should I leave a message for you there? And if I do, how will you know that I left it there? Is there a way to alert you? And yes, you found my book, but that's the first edition. The current edition can be found here: It's About Time. Thank you again for all of your comments and I will do my best to become a valuable addition to the wikipedia team.--Itsabouttime (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Chronic pain

Hi! I am sorry, but I don't really know if I'm doing this right. I was the one who put in the "controversy" section in chronic pain. The things I discussed there are things that are often experienced by chronic pain sufferers (like my wife). if I need to phrase it differently (I gathered that its not neutral?) please let me know, but these experiences are not unusual nor rare. If you check the United Nations - International Narcotics Board (UN-INCB) website (which I remember citing), their special report on narcotics will mention most if not all of the controversies.

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.204.72 (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really wondering if it's me you need. I cannot remember removing a "controversy" section anywhere (especially chronic pain, which I don't think I've ever edited).

If you want me to comment on a particular section, please provide editing differentials showing the content you want me to look at. I tend to be negative about "controversy" sections, because it is possible to turn everything into a controversy, and conversely every "controversy" can be turned into a normal divergence of opinions. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Dutch favour?

Hi Wolff, I'm working on Orthomolecular psychiatry with User:TimVickers among others (Tim's new and is acting as a knowledgeable admin helping us sort out the page). A pubmed search turned up a couple dutch-specific papers (a curious set of them actually) and I was wondering if you could let me know if any would be useful for the OMP page?

• PMID 10876712
• PMID 10812450
• PMID 10812448
• PMID 10812446
• PMID 10707746

Just a quick scan, at this point I'm only interested in those related to mental conditions and orthomolecular medicine. It's a fairly large favour, so please feel free to say no. Apologies for not being able to give you more than the pubmed numbers, my internet connection is crapping out today. WLU (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, Cees Renckens. I think I was subscribed to the NtvG in 2000 and I vaguely recollect the immense controversy. I have not retained my copies, so little hope of me commenting on these articles unless someone can send me reprints.

To the best of my recollection, Renckens (ob/gyn and president of the Dutch Association Against Quackery VtdK) intended to expose a number of charities that were collecting under the "pretense" of being mainstream medical charities, but were very specifically sponsoring orthomolecular research. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... thanks for commenting. Given the lack of full text, I don't think it's justifiable to include it on the current version of the OMP page. Thanks! As always, I'm very appreciative of the time you take. Much obliged! WLU (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Email

Hi JDWolff, Do you have an email address that I can use to send you a private message? I have emailed you at (an address I found in an old Misplaced Pages discussion archive) but it seems to keep bouncing back... Many thanks, Danielle — Preceding unsigned comment added by DB90210 (talk • contribs)

Is it about something to do with Misplaced Pages? In that case I'd prefer to communicate here. If it is indeed private, you can use this link. JFW | T@lk 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)