Jump to content

User talk:Tom (LT)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding the content debate on Talk:Pathology

[edit]

Concerning the discussion on the talk page about how to divide the disparate fields of pathology, I think I see a way forward that will serve all the interests we are trying to balance, including the IP,whose perspective I otherwise find myopic. However, it would mean making alterations to an effort you seem to have spearheaded, so I wanted to run it by you first, see if I couldn't win you over to the practicality of it. As you could easily reckon from my comments on the RfC, there's really no doubt to my mind, in both terms of consistency with policy (Specifically encyclopedic tone, summary style and appropriate weight), that Pathology should summarize the full breadth of the science, not just the narrow interests of clinical laboratory practice. But I think I see a way to make the IP's focus work to the advantage of our articles. I believe many of the summary sections and links he removed should be reconstituted (as they represent meaningful and well-sourced content concerning fields and topics within the greater subject) into the article and that clinical practice should have a decent summary, given decent weight and priority early in that article, but that some of the discussion should be moved to Clinical pathology. Amongst the content I'd like to move to that article is the bulk of the information in "Training" session that you yourself merged from the preexistent Pathology as a medical specialty. I understand why you felt it was better at home in a contextual article than as an independent article, but I think the better home for it might be Clinical pathology; after all, the training detailed concerns mostly only those who are training to be medical laboratory clinicians, and does not concern those experts in many other medical, physiological, and other biological fields who do research in pathology. I think shifting the content in this way will reinforce the separate (it intertwined) nature of the articles and the fields they reflect and would appease those looking to have page strongly emphasizing clinical practice, while leaving the root namespace as the appropriate broad concept article policy and long-standing general consensus would have it be. What do you think? Snow (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have responded on the talk page. --LT910001 (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More merges

[edit]

Hi LT, thanks for your comments - I'm really glad you are liking the new page. I've been looking a bit more at Diaphragm and there are a lot of stub pages all associated which seem to me are merge candidates as per already tagged caval opening — -aortic hiatus; central tendon of diaphragm; crus of diaphragm; oesophageal hiatus; lateral arcuate ligament; lumbocostal triangle; medial arcuate ligament; median arcuate ligament; median arcuate ligament syndrome; sternocostal triangle. They are mostly mentioned already in Thoracic diaphragm and there's not a lot could be added to these stubs. So do you think these should all be tagged for merging or could they or some be just merged as being - (WP) …"so obviously necessary and appropriate that no one is expected to object".

Also - is the correct heading in pages - "In animals", "In other animals" or "Other animals". Its listed as Other animals on WP: MedMos but seems to vary on the pages. And yes I've been having some fun with these citations - I added a Bot and it seems to work some of the time but of course it could be me! Thanks Iztwoz (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We used to use "In other animals," but now we use "Other animals." Using "In animals" is something WP:MEDMOS does not support because humans are also animals. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Flyer22; Iztwoz, I try and propose mergers, as I have previously been scarred by merging what I thought were inconspicuous pages that, in fact, still had one or two users (usually the author) who strongly object. You can go to 'Preferences -> Gadgets' and enable Twinkle, which allow you to easily add merge tags to pages. --LT910001 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and pointers. It was good to see your latest GA accepted. Do you think its worth submitting Sebaceous glands for GA review - or ought it to be rated as B first (its C at the moment). Thanks Iztwoz (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, Iztwoz! I would love to get 20 accepted by the end of the year, but I'm also aware of the risk of burnout so I'm not taking it too quickly. Gee, I never really considered that article! But you are right, Sebaceous gland is almost quite complete... how nice! It lacks sources in sections, and lacks a history section, which could probably be quite short, but would be useful to include, eg who discovered it and who made the link to acne. This source ([1]) may be useful. Maybe a couple more edits and then consider GA in a week or two? I'd be happy if you took the lead on the GA nom. --LT910001 (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some advice please on merges: When I looked at the merge proposal a few days ago, for Sinus of Morgagni (pharynx), with Ventricle of the larynx, I was persuaded in my ignorance to go with an unsigned comment that these were two different structures, one referring to larynx and the other to pharynx. But - I've had another look and it seems to me that they are in fact referring to the same item (Ventricle of larynx). So now there's the 'closed to keep' template on the talk page (that's all I did re this merge - I didn't remove any tags, so its still on the list). What should I do to put this right please?
Also, there is another listed for Operculum (brain) and Parietal operculum - but there's no proposal on talk pages, and it looks like one just needs a redirect..? Many thanks Iztwoz (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping with the mergers, Iztwoz. I'd say to just revert your closure on the talk page and proceed with the merge. If you think those two are the same structure, then I guess you can be 'bold' and complete the merge, or if you are uncertain, you might consider posting on the talk pages and waiting 1+ weeks to see if there are any objections. It's really nice to have so many active users on the Anatomy project! --LT910001 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cervix and more

[edit]

Hi Lt - thanks for your thanks on cervix - I would have liked to 'touch base' with you on certain points but my b/b connection was so slow and erratic I could only put in an edit sporadically. I have a temp connection at the moment and all should be fixed next week. I had a look at Suspensory muscle - would any edits be welcome or would you rather go through it all with the reviewer?

Whilst I'm here - do you have any views on the number of additional images that are added - the anatomy articles seem particularly hit. The small article on cricoid cartilage has 25 additional images and I know I'm not alone in finding the numbers a bit misplaced. Would there be any way of asking for a consensus on a limit to the number shown, often there are differently sized duplicates added. It would be helpful if possible to just have an additional link to relevant files on Wikimedia. Iztwoz (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Iztwoz. I'll go through that one with the reviewer myself -- it was actually the first article I nominated and about 5 months have passed since the review has come up. Feel free to trawl the list of B or C-class articles or our popular pages list and pick one or two that you'd like to try for GA. Do you have access to any anatomical sources (like textbooks or journal articles)? If so, Thyroid and Pineal gland are on my radar. Otherwise, Spleen may need some attention.
I'm also pleased to inform you that we do have that link! It's {{Commons}} and we generally include that in the 'External links' area. If you don't feel that is sufficient, I have at times considered adding a link in the infoboxes themselves, but we would have to have a discussion on WP:ANATOMY first about that, to see what other editors think. 25 is quite excessive. I think it's hard to set a fixed number, as there will always be a grey area and I'm against any extra rules for editors, but if you see there are too many, please feel free to remove them. You can also add the {{Cleanup gallery}} tag. We had an editor who used to add a lot of dissection images of questionable value, you can search the WP:ANATOMY talk page (#4) logs for that user. Some examples were Median nerve and, I think Ulnar nerve, although the record was something like 40+. Feel free to remove any duplicates or anything you don't feel is relevant. Enjoy your weekend, --LT910001 (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top medical editors

[edit]
The Medicine Barnstar
You were one of the top 10 medical contributors to Wikipedia in 2013. Many thanks for all your hard work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I wasn't aware I'd made that many edits; Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 16 March

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspensory muscle of duodenum

[edit]

Hi LT910001, I've review this article and put the GA nom on hold while leaving some comments at Talk:Suspensory muscle of duodenum/GA1. As per your request for time on this due to the time the article spent in the queue, please don't feel time pressured on addressing this - Peripitus (Talk) 11:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Suspensory muscle of duodenum

[edit]

The article Suspensory muscle of duodenum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Suspensory muscle of duodenum for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peripitus -- Peripitus (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
I haven't been on for long to edit a lot of the Anatomy pages, but I award you this Barnstar; you deserve it. -Hamer(talk) 01:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hamerbro! Always nice to be appreciated =P. And don't forget all the other editors who are contributing, too! --LT910001 (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anatomy quarterly newsletter

[edit]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#2)

Previous -- Next
Released: First quarter, 2014
Updated cleanup listing and recent changes list in third quarter, 2014
Editor: LT910001

Hello WP:ANATOMY participant! This is the second quarterly update of goings-on in WP:ANATOMY, documenting the current state of WP:ANATOMY, current projects and items of interest, and any relevant news. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list

What's new
What's going on
How can I contribute?
  • Reword anatomical jargon: jargon is widespread and not helpful to lay readers.
  • Contribute on our talk page
  • Continue to add sources, content, and improve anatomical articles!
  • Replace images with better images from Wikipedia commons, or if there are too many images, remove some low-quality ones
Quarterly focus - Where to edit?
One of our two new featured images! (Also featured on the Signpost)

On any given week we have at least 4-10 editors making significant contributions to our articles, with probably more than double this making minor edits. As an editor, I am often wondering: with so many articles, where to start? There is so much to be done (as always, on Wikipedia!), and I aim here to provide a comprehensive list of venues within our project. If I've missed any, please let us know on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page.

An editor might edit:

  • By importance. A user can use our assessment table to view articles by their importance and class. The vital articles project provides a list of designated 'Vital articles' for Wikipedia.
  • By popularity. One way to edit is to edit the most popular pages -- the majority of these need help, and editing is sure to bring benefit to many users.
  • By need. There is always cleanup that needs to be done, whether commenting on mergers, adding infoboxes or adding images. A cleanup list of all tagged articles is now available here: [2]
  • By interest. A series of inter-project categories has been developed to help facilitate inter-Wiki and inter-professional collaboration. These categories sort our articles into organs, system, gross anatomy, neuroanatomy, and several other categories. This should offer a buffet of articles for any interested editors! See here for more details.
  • By topic. Wikipedia's anatomical categories may provide impetus, as may editing a suite of related-articles, using a parent article such as ear for direction. A collection of series are slowly being rolled-out, including one for epithelia and for articles about the gastrointestinal wall, which also act as groups of topics. Templates, as documented on our main page, provide a similar categorisation.
  • By demand. Discussions relating to Anatomy are frequent occurrences on the talk pages for WPMED and WP:ANATOMY. Such topics almost always cry out for more editing.
  • By recent changes. One way to choose a destination for editing is to check the recent changes, revert vandalism, integrate/source edits, or generally collaborate in improving articles that are receiving contributions from other editors. This can be found in the here.
  • By chance. A user is always welcome to improve articles that they randomly 'bump into' by Wiki-surfing or by having bumped for other reasons into a particular article or topic that needs improvement

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Anatomy by User:Mdann52, using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

I am really enjoying your work on Project Anatomy. I'm pretty new to wikipedia and would love to email/phone chat with you about the project. I am an anatomy instructor on a major medical campus and would love to study the effectiveness of this project. So many of my anatomy students look at wikipedia for anatomical information and I want to meet them where they are and improve the quality of this resource.

Mikepascoe (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd be delighted to have a chat. You can contact me by email here (Special:EmailUser/LT910001), and I would be absolutely delighted if we could get some extra editing on the project. A list of editing venues can be found on the latest newsletter, here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Quarterly updates/2). In terms of shear numbers, the list of our most popular pages is here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Popular pages), and if there is some organised student editing, I'd ask that any assignments regarding the top 50 articles are made quite cautiously, as students are not always aware of Wikipedia's guidelines and tend to write quite technically. --LT910001 (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tom (LT). You have new messages at Elliotelliotf's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A kitten for you!

[edit]

Did you forget to finish List of anatomical landmarks?

Bearian (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That series is a little in flux as we uncover more related articles in our Anatomy mass, it may eventually be merged into an Anatomical landmark article. --LT910001 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of "HIV/AIDS in Malawi"

[edit]

Hi LT910001,

Thank you for your review of the article "HIV/AIDS in Malawi." I noticed that you had some concerns regarding close paraphrasing in the article. Any instances of close paraphrasing were entirely unintentional, and I am currently in the process of conducting a line-by-line review of the article to ensure that all content is phrased originally. This process should be complete within the next 24 hours. I appreciate your feedback!

Jak8 (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[edit]
The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
LT910001, I hereby award you The Premium Reviewer Barnstar for your thoughtful and thorough review of Robert White (Virginia physician) and Wirgman Building! Thank you for all your extraordinary efforts in maintaining Wikipedia's quality and standards! -- Caponer (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cervix

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cervix you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Physiology Wikiproject!

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Physiology! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing physiology articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us see the project through.
  • Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in physiology related articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Lastly, why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! DiptanshuTalk 12:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inviting me, Diptanshu.D! It's very exciting to see the project getting up and running and I hope through it we can improve the quality of physiology articles on Wikipedia. I saw your move of the same template on WP:ANATOMY and have opened up a thread about it here (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors#Request_for_help_with_short.2Flong_dash) as my grammar is not very good. Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgement from Quietjohn

[edit]

Thanks for your greeting. I hope this is the proper way to respond. The muscle pages look like a challenge that need considerable thought. I intend to take you up on your offer but am currently deeply involved in the organization of a 3-day charity event which occurs in 1 week. It will take a while to get through that and its aftermath but just wanted to let you know I'm definitely interested.

Hope to have something more substantive to discuss in the near future. QuietJohn (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, there is no rush. Something quite exciting is that there is a new Wikiproject (a group of like-minded editors with a central place for discussion) focusing on physiology. It's just getting started here WP:Physiology. Let me know when you'll be editing and I'll try and help out. Cheers, LT910001 (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cervix

[edit]

The article Cervix you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Cervix for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I sign up in wiki anatomy project?

[edit]

I have replied on your talk page, Anindya07. --LT910001 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Leukoplakia

[edit]

Hey LT - I'm not sure what you're thoughts are on the leukoplakia GA. If Lesion decides to take an extended break from Wikipedia, I can pick-up and finish it off with you. Otherwise, we can kill the GAN? Let me know if you want the help. Best. Ian Furst (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian Furst, I'm really sorry to see Lesion go. I've put the article on hold, and if you're interested, I think the best way would be for you to do a run-down of the article, edit when you think necessary, then have a look at the comments on the review and mark them with {{done}}/{{not done}}. I'll have a look at the article when you're ready, or in a fortnight or-so. Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, except, I'm going to leave it for a week or so just in case Lesion has a change of heart. I'll ping when starting. Regards. Ian Furst (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LT - I haven't forgotten about this. It doesn't seem Lesion's coming back immediately and I still have concerns about the article. An old friend at UCSF (an oral pathologist) is now the editor for a major oral path book. I've emailed him to see if he'll help settle my worries. I'll keep you posted. Ian Furst (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian Furst. Lesion put a lot of work into the article and I'd like to see it ultimately promoted, but I am happy to wait a little longer. I have no problems if you or another editor take over the editing side of things. --LT910001 (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update, got a hold of the friend from UCSF and have a conference call set up for next week. I'll add either comments or changes depending on the outcome of the call. Ian Furst (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LT, I've got a bit of a problem. I've spoken with the friend from UCSF. This guy is a pillar of the oral path community, a full time pathologist, researcher and one of the authors/editors of a major textbook on the subject. This is what I've confirmed with my own research and discussions with him. Leukoplakia is a clinical description for a white patch. It's not a histopathologic diagnosis. ICD-10, says it's a diagnosis of exclusion but neither I, nor the person who reads oral path slides for a living has ever seen the diagnosis used. In other words, if you biopsy a white patch in the mouth there is always a histologic reason it's white (80% hyperkeratosis, 20% oral dysplasia). In some parts of Europe, leukoplakia is synonymous with oral dysplasia, which confuses the topic but not much. The article is currently a mix of leukoplakia as a clinical descriptor (e.g. the classification section, dysplasia (in causes) and a couple of other causes for it (see the table). What I think needs to happen is that the article is re-templated as a "sign or symptom" article (with a redirect from oral white patch) and a second article created on oral dysplasia. I don't mind doing the work on this, but given Lesions departure so quickly after my review I'm concerned about alienating people by making such a drastic change. Not sure if it would be worth while to involve James and/or Lane in the discussion? What are your thoughts on it? Ian Furst (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LT, overnight I've also received word back one of the people that is regarded as a leading expert in the field (leukoplakia/dysplasia) out of the UK. He's offered to help clean things up a bit, but won't be available until the week after next. Ian Furst (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. To be honest, I don't feel there is too much of a problem. If the section "diagnosis" were renamed, or this article had sections renamed according to WP:MEDMOS#Signs and symptoms, then the article only talks about causes of white lesions, and is careful always to maintain that this is not an end diagnosis. As you're going to make some major changes, I have marked the review as failed. I think it is better to compartmentalise the reviews rather than have one review cover two quite different variations. --LT910001 (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'm going to leave a note on the talk page of the article to see if any other editors are involved. Ian Furst (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kilgour–Matas report/GA1

[edit]

I've had a go at the citing issues you raised. Is that OK? Is there anything more to be done? SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really OK with you withdrawing from the GAN if you don't feel comfortable listing it. I understand that, and I'm not asking you to list it. You can withdraw at any time. But would you just check over your citation queries. I looked at four of them, starting at the bottom and working my way up, and they were all fine. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cervix

[edit]

I am not qualified to do the article if it is ready. I know enough to identify a lot of things that were missing, but am not expert enough to determine if it is GA. However, now that you called this to my attention, I returned to the article to determine if you have described what happens with the cervix when one's "water breaks" and remain unable to figure out what happens. Please consider withdrawing the nomination or quickly adding this content. I am fairly certain that the cervix has something to do with the water breaking and feel this important explanation should be made.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. now that I have bounced around a bit, I see Rupture of membranes, which suggests maybe the cervix has nothing to do with water breaking.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TonyTheTiger, it is indeed. I completely omitted writing about cervical contraception which was quite a big oversight, and have corrected citations and made many other changes too, and thanks for pointing these out, the article is much better for it and it is a little relief to have someone provide such specific feedback (some on Placenta and Lymphatic system) would also be valued, I know they are substandard and plan to edit in the future. The waters breaking is indeed the rupture of the amniotic sac. I've added a little about the operculum being passed during or before the first stage of labour, I hope that clarifies things. --LT910001 (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfA comment edit

[edit]

I changed your text:

I would be uncomfortable with an admin-fighting vandalism that hasn't seen WP from the perspective of editors

to

I would be uncomfortable with a vandalism-fighting admin that hasn't seen WP from the perspective of editors

because it looked like a typo to me.

If that was incorrect of me, I apologize. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Thanks Jsharpminor, yes I'd also be particularly unhappy with an admin-fighting vandal being promoted! --LT910001 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrate with me!! I accidentally duplicated my post on your page, so I came back to delete it... that delete was edit # 5,000 for me!! Jsharpminor (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Tom (LT). You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 15:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eosophagus article

[edit]

I think that you nominated the article as a possible GA too soon before it was properly prepared. You should be aware of the weaknesses of the GA process where only one GA reviewer is able to pass an article to GA. Snowman (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter

[edit]

Hello! I drafted something at Wikipedia:The Revival. I need some support with some things. Please meet me on the talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put a link to that user relationship study at the end of the newsletter - spying on your wiki friends. Another new user recruitment experiment is described at meta:Research:Anonymous_editor_acquisition/Signup_CTA_experiment. Thanks! Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bluerasberry. I've made some changes on the newsletter and it's not perfect but I think we can certainly aim for a release this month or early next. We should move it to WP:MED namespace, set up the issue, mull for a while, and try and get it out soon. We can gather feedback and iterate for next month's edition. --LT910001 (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cervix

[edit]

The article Cervix you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cervix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 97198 -- 97198 (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Parathyroid gland

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Parathyroid gland you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good News!

[edit]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 7 was approved. I'm running the task today. Since were on the last day of the month, I'll set the next run for July 1st. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray!! Thanks. This bot, if expanded, has quite a bit of potential and I've noted that accordingly on WPMED :P. --LT910001 (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in Reviewing Plantar Fasciitis for GA?

[edit]

I see you've done a lot of GA reviews and having worked with you before I certainly believe you would do the article justice with a well-done review. Let me know if you have any interest (or if not, who you think might be). Thanks LT! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very happy to take up the review, TylerDurden8823. I will have a look today and start my review tomorrow. --LT910001 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks buddy, I appreciate it. If the article needs more work before it meets GA, just let me know and put it on hold. I'll make the changes in a timely manner. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LT, just checking in, how's the review going so far? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TylerDurden8823, hold your horses! I am only able to perform these more comprehensive edits on weekends, but I will get the review going during the week. --LT910001 (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry, I'm relaxed :) That's why I said I'm just checking in and not rushing you. I just wanted to ask how things are going. I know we allow for a week or so and that we're all busy in real life as well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Left you a reply on the GA review about the enthesopathy bit and the source. I couldn't find the exact words I thought I saw about the minimally invasive techniques so I reworded it to be more faithful to the cited Cutts article. As for the enthesopathy part, I left you an (admittedly long comment since it's mostly quotes from articles used on the PF page) discussing that it's an enthesopathy and also going into a bit of detail about a point you raised earlier about the terminology (the itis vs osis debate). Glad to see the article so close to achieving GA. I actually just did a new PubMed search and see a new review from the AAOS is out so I will soon incorporate that into the article as well. Perhaps it will help us beef up a few of the smaller sections or add a new dimension of detail. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Thanks

[edit]
The Reviewer Barnstar
For your excellent example of collaboration and superb editing skills, I believe you deserve this barnstar. All the best, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

aorta

[edit]

Hey there!

Mind taking a look at User:Tomato_33/aorta? It's my draft for the aorta article. :) Tomato 33 (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society/Neuroscience Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society, June 2014

[edit]

Ping! Saturday morning, UK time. Please communicate via the event talk page - let us know when you are active etc, and add any work done to that section. Note the new list of RS journal articles that will be released to be freely available online from 6-8 June. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014

[edit]

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.[reply]

Portraiture...

[edit]

Thanks for your note.. so glad you like the article. - PKM (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portraiture...

[edit]

Thanks for your note.. so glad you like the article. - PKM (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors

[edit]

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the offer. I have existing access, so I won't be applying. --LT910001 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star of Life

[edit]
I hearby award LT910001 this Star of Life for work on medical and anatomical articles. Good work! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Casliber, your commendation is greatly appreciated! --LT910001 (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Parathyroid gland

[edit]

The article Parathyroid gland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Parathyroid gland for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Esophagus

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Esophagus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

prevention better than cure

[edit]

Hello. Given the well-known pitfalls of forum communication, I feel I should just clarify that there is no irony intended here. Best wishes, 86.128.169.211 (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Esophagus

[edit]

The article Esophagus you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Esophagus for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

for all the good work you've done here. You've made a significant positive difference. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the positive efforts you have made and regret that you are not being appreciated. Over the last 10 years I have seen many good people leave. The encyclopedia cannot afford such losses. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My support too. (An unfortunate example of a Wikipedia process at its most problematic, imo.) 86.128.169.211 (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Medicine Barnstar
For your significant work improving Wikipedia's anatomy content. Hoping that these accolades will change your mind :-) Wikipedia only succeeds because of people like you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really sad to have just read your farewell. Many thanks for your positive input and general encouragement. (Not to mention all the work!) I do hope that you will give me the opportunity, soon, to say "Welcome back". Iztwoz (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

[edit]
...an olive branch...
Yeah, reading back on it all...my posts do look less sanguine and more patronising. Sorry if I came over like that. Would like to see you back. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cervix

[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy cleanup listing

[edit]

The cleanup listing is available here. There are a couple of templates that can be used to add the listing to a page documented here. Direct links are fine too. Sorry for the delay. I just took over the bot operation. --Bamyers99 (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Parathyroid gland

[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Translation Newsletter

[edit]


Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 1, June/July 2014
by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery


This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.

note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

IEG grant
CFCF - "IEG beneficiary" and editor of this newsletter.

I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.

Wikimania 2014

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.

Integration progress

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.

  • Swedish
    Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that.
    Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
  • Dutch
    Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
  • Polish
    Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article.
    (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
  • Arabic
    The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.
Integration guides

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [5]

News in short

To come
  • Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
  • Proofreading drives

Further reading



Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse
If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


WikiProject Physiology

[edit]

How's it going? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the attention! Sorry, my internet is limited and I am quite busy, but I will definitely implement what you posted at the village pump; Cheers,

{{subst:ANI-notice}}

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Merging

[edit]

I came across the article Anterior spinal artery syndrome which you had merged from Anterior cord syndrome. What you had done was good. I would strongly insist that after such acts of merging please put a note {{merged from|X|date=Y}} on the relevant talk page so that the link to the history of the source page remains. In this way the attribution can be made to the contributors of the source page which no longer exists separately. DiptanshuTalk 13:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


RFAR

[edit]

Remove me from the request immediately. I have not been involved at all (at least not to the extent of everyone else you listed) in the ongoing drama of Eric Corbett's use of the word "cunt" and the aftermath of every editor who wants him blocked or wants anyone else blocked in the future for similar uses of any similarly demeaning curses.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider ...

[edit]

Please consider removing the wikibreak template on your user page. I'm acting as a clerk for Arbcom, double-checking to make sure that all notifications went out OK (looks good, BTW) but it was disconcerting to see the file identified as on a Wikibreak.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, Sphilbrick. I've changed the template to say that I'll be participating in ArbCom but not my regular editing. Is that OK? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request

[edit]

Hi Tom, please ensure that you reply and make comments to other editors on in your own section. Threaded discussion isn't permitted on most arbitration pages. Also regarding parties to a case request once the filing party has filed the case request the clerks generally won't interfere with them unless the committee asks us to, so you'll need to ask the committee (in your respective statements) to decide whether Ryulong should remain as a party or not. For clarity this message is with arb clerk hat on. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request declined

[edit]

An arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators views on hearing this matter, found here, may be useful. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Return

[edit]

I am ready to return to the community, which I will do after a Wikibreak. Thank you to all the users that expressed their support, it made all the difference. I am sorry for breaking the trust of these users and the community by leaving so abruptly. At the time I left, I was feeling powerless, that my efforts and person were not respected, and alienated. I felt like there was nothing I could do and that the conflict was quickly escalating to multiple venues and involving multiple users and could quickly deteriorate into an overall judgement on me as an editor. I must also admit this is the first real “conflict” that I’ve gotten into online, and I am more familiar with those in real-life, which in my opinion are somewhat more predictable, manageable, and containable.

I still feel strongly about WP, particularly about improving the medical and anatomy WikiProjects, to simply resign. I think that WP’s environment can be made more welcoming and inviting and I hope to initiate and participate in conversations about this, particularly on WikiProject Medicine.

I’ve also considered some of the personal causes that led up to this conflict. I will add some details to my user page and change my signature so that editors can feel they are working with a person. I will be more “thick-skinned”. I will be more open in my editing so that other users are aware of my activities and editing style, and so I do not feel that I am editing alone in the wilderness. I will be more assertive in asking for help. I have also had the chance to read some of WP’s policies and guidelines in more depth, so that I more understand what options I have should a situation arise in the future.

Again, I am very grateful to the users who expressed their support and confidence in me, and apologise again for leaving so abruptly. If I want things to change for the better I need to be part of the change. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back. And I don't think you need to apologize for anything in this case. I've been meaning to re-email you, and will get around to that eventually. Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful having you back :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great to have you back! --WS (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, Tom! Iztwoz (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have you back my friend. You are definitely not alone in your editing endeavors and aspirations. I hope you're refreshed after your break because there's much to do so roll up your sleeves! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Pudendal nerve

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pudendal nerve you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Translation Newsletter Aug./Sept. 2014

[edit]

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 2, Aug./Sept. 2014
by CFCF

sign up for monthly delivery

Feature – Ebola articles

[edit]
Electron micrograph of an Ebola virus virion

During August we have translated Disease and it is now live in more than 60 different languages! To help us focus on African languages Rubric has donated a large number of articles in languages we haven't previously reached–so a shout out them, and Ian Henderson from Rubric who's joined us here at Wikipedia. We're very happy for our continued collaboration with both Rubric and Translators without Borders!

Just some of our over 60 translations:
New roles and guides!

At Wikimania there were so many enthusiastic people jumping at the chance to help out the Medical Translation Project, but unfortunately not all of them knew how to get started. That is why we've been spending considerable time writing and improving guides! They are finally live, and you can find them at our home-page!

New sign up page!

We're proud to announce a new sign up page at WP:MTSIGNUP! The old page was getting cluttered and didn't allow you to speficy a role. The new page should be easier to sign up to, and easier to navigate so that we can reach you when you're needed!

Style guides for translations

Translations are of both full articles and shorter articles continues. The process where short articles are chosen for translation hasn't been fully transparent. In the coming months we hope to have a first guide, so that anyone who writes medical or health articles knows how to get their articles to a standard where they can be translated! That's why we're currently working on medical good lede criteria! The idea is to have a similar peer review process to good article nominations, but only for ledes.

Some more stats
Further reading


-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tom_(LT)/Archive_3&oldid=1259712324"