User talk:Roland Sparkes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

History of Belmont, Sutton[edit]

January 2010[edit]

Over the last few days I have made changes to the History and Published Works sections of the Belmont, Sutton article on Wikipedia. More precisely, I have added new content, restructured sections and sub sections, made various refinements and improvements, and included references, footnotes and citation.

I have also added external weblinks for the the local residents association (BASCRA) and a map.

I have basically removed the history section that was present on this article as at summer 2009. It did not meet Wikipedia guidelines and requirements, particularly in regard to quoted sources and included references - they were none. I have replaced it with my work stated above, leaving the part I wrote in June 2009 about published histories--Roland Sparkes (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Early January 2010 - I contributed a major revamp to the article Belmont, Sutton --Roland Sparkes (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

June 2009[edit]

June 2009 - I made edits to correct inaccuracies in the pre-existing Wikipedia entry on the history of Belmont.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Belmont, Sutton worked, and it has been automatically reverted. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here. Thank you.
SoxBot III (talk | owner) 18:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


Warburg's Tincture and Dr Carl Warburg[edit]

Over the last few days I have created an article entry for Dr Carl Warburg (and Charles Warburg redirect) on Wikipedia and made refinements and improvements, and included references. --Roland Sparkes (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added many more references, made further improvements and edits, and added extra material, to these two articles - Warburg's Tincture and Dr Carl Warburg- in recent days.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made further improvements and edits to these two articles in past 24hrs--Roland Sparkes (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Carl Warburg[edit]

Your creation of an article on Carl Warburg has had inline references and appropriate categories added to it. In the future, please consider adding references to supporting sources in addition to your book, as it makes verification easier for other editors. You may find the material at Wikipedia:Advice for the cultural sector helpful in your continued contributions here. Thank you. --Oddharmonic (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I was in the process of adding references for this article and the associated one on Warburg's Tincture when you posted. All should be okay now. Thanks.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Downview and High Down Prisons[edit]

Can I confirm that HMP Downview and HMP High Down are NOT in Belmont, Sutton, they are situated on the outskirts of Banstead, Surrey. Although the The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust IS based in Belmont, and the prison's are located on a former site of the hospital, the site itself has always been in Surrey, NOT the London Borough of Sutton. I do appreciate though that the prison site is right on the border AND the post town for the prisons is Sutton, but this does not mean they actually are in Belmont (which would mean that they were 'London' prisons), they are in the the Reigate and Banstead district of Surrey. Please do not change the Belmont article, as it is misleading. Bleaney (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The prisons near Banstead Downs are on the former site of Banstead Asylum AKA Banstead Hospital. I have recently added a sub-section about this institution to the history section of the Belmont article. (Note: HMP Down View and HMP High Down are not located within either the villages Belmont or Banstead. They are just within the administrative county of Surrey, in the district of Banstead & Reigate; however, they are closer to village, bus terminus and railway station Belmont. Belmont is reputed to have taken its name from the farm which previously stood on the site of the prisons).--Roland Sparkes (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Which is what I have always said. Despite the fact the prisons may be nearer to the village of Belmont, they are (just) in the boundaries of Banstead. I appreciate that the site of the prisons is linked to Belmont's history, I just didnt like them being included in the 'Public Institutions' section of the Belmont article, as I felt this was misleading Bleaney (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest: article Roland Sparkes[edit]

Information.svg If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Roland Sparkes, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been reported for breaching WP:COI, please also read WP:AUTOBIO regarding editing for yourself. LibStar (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather harsh to report me. Sounds very serious. I only edited the article titled 'Roland Sparkes'. Wikipedia rules state that it is okay for me to "correct unambiguous errors of fact". I corrected the article for accuracy, such as my date of birth.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Just an FYI, sometimes conflicts of interest are noted not necessarily to censure a person, but just to let it be known. It doesn't necessarily mean you've done anything wrong. I'll say that the fact that you're open about who you are goes a long way to helping other people trust you, so I commend you for that. If you were editing the article about you on the sly, and got caught at it, it might be a different story. -- Atama 02:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
problem is Roland, you made the article look like a glowing testimonial to yourself then argued for retention of the article about yourself. Reporting is one way to discourage such behaviour. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My user page on Wikipedia[edit]

Start hand.svg Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline . If you believe that your userpage does not violate our guidelines, please leave a note here and we can discuss it. As an alternative, you may add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's userpage guidelines. Thank you. Your contributions section is fine, however your About Me & Published Works section may not conform as it includes substantial text which is unrelated to Wikipedia. Nominally, name, birthdate, and general interests are what a lot of editors have on their userpages. You can use this list to look at some of the best userpages here and that might help you decide what content is fit for your userpage. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 21:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have just made a major a comprehesive revision to my userpage. Perhaps you woudl lie to review it and say whether you feel it conforms to Wikipedia policy?--Roland Sparkes (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the sections you have labeled as cited to demonstrate credibility for my contributions on Wikipedia do not conform as they are works unrelated to your editing here on Wikipedia. I would also recommend not including your e-mail address so as to protect yourself from unwanted spam. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Query. Why do include on your user page a list of your favourite computer games? How is that allowed, when my list of academic interests and published works, which relate to my Wikipedia contributions, are, according to you, not allowed? I am confused.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, you got me there, so I'll compromise - I'll let it go and if others have issues with it, they can let you know. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I have looked again at the user page guidelines [1]. I do not feel that there is any part currently on my user page that is inappropriate or should be removed. The guidelines say: "Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project" and is "a way of helping other editors to understand those with whom they are working."; and "Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia", and "Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian". I feel that the brief sections I have included concerning my published work and my academic interests are entirely appropriate to be included, as they relate directly to the nature of my contributions, input and interests on Wikipedia. They inform other users 'where I am coming from', so to speak. Therefore, I do not intend to delete these sections. If you do not agree, please can you refer this to an Administrator or another Administrator for review and discussion. --Roland Sparkes (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I spoke up at the AfD in this matter, but I'll mention it here too. I think your user page is okay as it is. There are a lot of inappropriate uses of user pages, because often people use it as they would a MySpace page, or use it to try to advertise a product, or attack people, etc. But letting people know a little bit about who you are can help people relate to you on Wikipedia so it's allowed, and for a writer I think it should be especially allowed because honestly, we're all writers here in one form or another. Letting people know other things you've written is quite relevant. If it matters, I'm an administrator on this Wikipedia. -- Atama 02:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


Re: User:LibStar/ ME issues, January 2010[edit]

Response Roland, I am an experienced editor and have edited over 1000 articles so know vandalism. It is clear upon recent release of your book you have attempted to turn Belmont, Sutton into a glowing advertorial for your book as per WP:ARTSPAM. Regarding my edits, this response neatly summarises how I feel as well. You are not editing a locality article in standard format, suggest you check these good articles as examples. I would strongly suggest you cease trying to continually add your own work in and use reliable sources independent of you. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for you to promote your book. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I've started to edit the Belmont, Sutton article now because I now have the time having finished my book - and because there is a now a reference that can be used. The article is a genuine one. I consider the article as it currently stands as perfectly fair and unbiased. If you can find any good, reliable sources other than my own to use as references instead, then please add them. Otherwise, the references employing my book and articles are the best/only available. That's fundamentally why they've been used. Given that the sub section on local history for this article is very specific and limited matter subject, what does one expect to happen regarding Wikipedia contribution and the references that are likely to be used? I think we need some common sense. Also, you appear to be trolling my early contributions and harassing me.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
P.S. the two booklets on church histories (POV issue) do include factual inaccuracies. Fact.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
really? and adding glowing testimonials to your book in a Wikipedia locality article is really WP:ARTSPAM. use of your book as a reference is permitted provided it is not a promotion for your book. I am hardly trolling. I am interested in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia not as a vehicle for promoting newly released books. I would suggest you edit a wider variety of articles to get a feel of what locality articles should look like that. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
As you are so keen on integrity and sticking to Wikipedia guidelines, then I assume that you'll be removing any irrelevant personal data from your user page (e.g. your favourite video games)...?--Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC) - oh, sorry, that was another over officious Admin person.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
so that comment doesn't apply to me. anyway WP:USER is the only relevant guideline for user pages. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Jan 2010 Information.svg Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Belmont, Sutton. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I said to you.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
you are acting as if you own the article. see WP:OWN. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

editing hardly trolling. you simply revert my edits without an edit summary. suggest you add one of these templates Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance#Articles_undergoing_major_edits. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I suggest you cease being so overzealous in finding an opportunity in editing anything I do. 60 secs?!?!. (You know quite well I am working on those two new Warburg articles today and tonight)--Roland Sparkes (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
add an edit summary and I'll know what you're thinking. and add the maintenance templates. good luck. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What do do next[edit]

Hi Roland, I think that you've made a great start here on Wikipedia. You're quickly learning the style needed and policies applicable to writing articles. I can see you've had the usual discussions about COI, which are only to be expected when a writer edits on topics close to his heart. My advice is never to respond other than thoughtfully and with the utmost politeness, even when you feel you may be personally slighted. The overwhelming majority of editors here only to want to make this encyclopedia as good as they can, so always try to assume that each person who comments to you is aiming for that goal.

The articles you've created or worked to expand are in good shape – not perfect, but there's no deadline – so I'm going to take them off my watchlist. Carry on working to get them as good as you can, and look for those with similar interests to collaborate with. There's a great deal of satisfaction in working with a regular collaborator and you'll find that it makes the articles much better. Have you looked at joining a WikiProject? There are historical and geographical ones, for example there's a geographical index for projects about England at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Geographical/Europe#England.

The other thing I'd suggest is to find as many other articles as you can that may interest you and edit them. Wikipedia really needs good writers and you already know how to find sources and turn them into content. If you ever need any help, guidance or assistance, please drop me a line on my talk page. I'll always do my best to help. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made improvements lately to both my Warburg related articles. --Roland Sparkes (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
please do not call them "my articles", as per WP:OWN nobody owns articles in Wikipedia. I suggest you try editing a wider range of topics. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I was using 'my' in a colloquial sense, especially as I have done all the subject content on these articles to date. I am well aware I dont't 'own' the article - as I have stated very clearly in the discussion pages of both Warburg related articles.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
well given that you really have only edited 4 articles to any real extent, some might disagree. you should avoid using that term "my article" at all in any discussion. LibStar (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
sigh--Roland Sparkes (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Roland, I have to agree with some of the other complaints that you should avoid, or at least take great care in referencing your own works in Wikipedia articles. On the other hand, I don't think it's right that you're being jumped on here, a reminder not to reference articles as "yours" is fine but I think you've made it clear that you don't claim to "own" them. And there isn't a problem with editing only 4 articles to any "real extent"; I've only made "substantial" edits to a handful of articles myself in my time on the project (more than 3 years now). Everyone has their particular areas of interest. Just remember to take care with your own work in Wikipedia article space and you should be fine. -- Atama 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Atama, I think Roland would become a better editor if he edited a wider range of topics to familiarise himself with layout requirements. There is nothing wrong editing topics of interest, just that there are expected formats. large chunks of quotations and so on are not encouraged. LibStar (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I have since attended to the "large chunks of quotations" issue...??--Roland Sparkes (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
still exists at Warburg's Tincture. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
only three quotation boxes though now, and only one is really a quotation (maclean); the other two are an advert (which would otherwise exists as an image file) and a list of ingredient, which isn't a quote.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

footnotes and references[edit]

are soley to list sources citated in article. creating a new section of references to repeat some footnotes is totally unnecessary. we never have both a footnotes and references list in the same article. items not appearing in citations can be listed as further reading. I strongly strongly suggest you start editing a wider range of articles to familiarise yourself with expected formats and layouts. your field of editing is very narrow leading to articles not conforming to WP layout. I'm not the only person to say this to you, so please make an effort to start looking at other articles. thanks. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The article on Charles Darwin, for examples, has section on Citations, Notes and References, I believe. That has featured article status. --Roland Sparkes (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Spacemen 3[edit]

Certainly. What sources do you plan to use? I believe there's at least one book biography about the band. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, just letting you know I haven't forgotten about this. I've been busy the last few months, but I should have some time to help you out on the article soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Project to encourage cooperation between The National Archives and Wikipedia[edit]

Hi! As someone who's spent some time at Your Archives, I thought you might be interested - if you haven't seen it already - in a recently started GLAM project to encourage cooperation between The National Archives and Wikipedia. Ideas & participation welcome! Dsp13 (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest[edit]

Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

ssriram_mt (talk) & AshLin (talk) (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per request on Wikipedia:Bot requests. The Helpful Bot 01:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)[edit]

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 19:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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) 03:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

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)

Medical Translation Newsletter[edit]


Medical translation.svg

Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Stetho book.jpg

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

sign up for monthly delivery


Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg
TWB.svg

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 [4]

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. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)