User talk:Tom (LT)

A kitten for you!

Did you forget to finish List of anatomical landmarks?

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

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)

A kitten for you!

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)

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)

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.

Review of "HIV/AIDS in Malawi"

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)

• Great, thanks Jak8. I am happy to wait, and look forward to reading the article as written by Wikipedians. Kindly, --LT910001 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Leukoplakia

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you!

		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)

WikiProject Physiology

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,

Acknowledgement from Quietjohn

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)

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)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Physiology Wikiproject!

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! Diptanshu^Talk 12:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

Your GA nomination of Cervix

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)

Your GA nomination of Cervix

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)

How do I sign up in wiki anatomy project?

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

Talk:Kilgour–Matas report/GA1

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)

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)

Cervix

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)

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)

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)

RfA comment 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)

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)

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)

Talkback

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.

—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Interested in Reviewing Plantar Fasciitis for GA?

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)

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)

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)

Hey LT, just checking in, how's the review going so far? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Eosophagus article

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)

Newsletter

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)

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)

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)

Your GA nomination of Cervix

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)

Your GA nomination of Parathyroid gland

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)

Good News!

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)

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)

GA Review Thanks

		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)

aorta

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)