User talk:CharlusIngus

Welcome

Hello CharlusIngus and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. Try to be civil by following simple guidelines and signing your talk comments with ~~~~ but never forget that one of our central tenets is to ignore all rules.

If you want to learn more, Wikipedia:Tutorial is the place to go, but eventually the following links might also come in handy:
Help
FAQ
Glossary
Manual of Style

Float around until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. Additionally, the Community Portal offers a more structured way to become acquainted with the many great committees and groups that focus on specific tasks. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Wikipedia:Translation into English as well as the cleanup, welcoming, and counter-vandalism committees. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy. If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 07:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Glee Club article

You have certainly added a great many words to the article - but the preponderance of minutae and information that would not be of interest to the reader (or to anyone, save a current member or nostalgic alumnus) detracts more than it adds. -- SaxTeacher (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peroneal artery vs. fibular artery?

You have a ref for '...reflect more current naming conventions'? I worked with several vascular surgeons-- they call the vessel 'peroneal.' I'm don't have my anatomy texts (Netter, Rohen & Yokochi) handy... but I believe they call it 'peroneal'.

Peroneal artery is more commonly used according to PubMed:

PubMed search for peroneal artery - 679 hits vs
PubMed search for fibular artery - 302 hits.

If one encloses the terms it quotes-- it is:

PubMed search for "peroneal artery" --208 hits vs.
PubMed search for "fibular artery" --17 hits.

With Google one also gets more hits:

peroneal artery -- 26000 hits
fibular artery -- 1320 hits

According to WP:Naming the name should be "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize..." and "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." What was your justification for renaming the article? Nephron T|C 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to CLINMED et al.

I've noticed that you've been editing medicine related articles -- from your contributions. We have a place where the medically minded people hang out: WikiProject "Clinical Medicine". You are invited to join or just browse the talk page, which is also known as the doctors' mess.

If your interests are in nephrology, GI, radiology or pre-clinical medicine-- there are projects specifically for those things.

If you're looking for info on how to do references see WP:CLINMED/Writing_medical_articles. I look forward to more of your edits. Nephron T|C 02:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streptococcus agalactiae merge?

I noticed you recently posted a proposed merge with Group B Streptococcus. The Talk:Streptococcus agalactiae page has a relatively lengthly series of comments suggesting that a merge is probably not useful. Is there something new that led you to suggest a merge? Thanks much. -- MarcoTolo 06:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Group B Strep Merger: response

MarcoTolo I appreciate all you have done in microbiology articles. I have studied from them a great deal. I disagree with your position that the articles should not be merged though. The arguments against merger are, in my judgment, without merit and moreover the text of the Group B strep article is lifted wholesale from the CDC website. Group B streptococcus should redirect to the Strep Agalactiae article which can be brought up to snuff better without the distraction of having a second article about the same thing.CharlusIngus 07:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I'm certainly not trying to talk you out of your opinion, just making sure you were aware of the discussion history. Your argument is a compelling one, though I tend to like the organism-specific and clinical-disease-specific separation as a rule (the recently re-divided poliovirus / poliomyelitis situation comes to mind). In any case, thanks for your clear and cogent response to my question. -- MarcoTolo 00:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I actually agree that the disease or pathogenesis should be separated from the organism itself. I just don't believe there should be two articles for different synonymous names of the organism. I believe that a pathogenesis article has already been begun? Thanks for the heads up CharlusIngus 20:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paraclete

I stand corrected. Sorry. Andycjp (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello CharlusIngus! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Red Top Young - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Yale Symphony Orchestra

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Yale Symphony Orchestra requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. TM 18:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Boathouse&Dock.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]