User talk:Bfpage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User talk page template.PNG

The Signpost
24 June 2015
  1. Stay calm and maintain a professional demeanor. Be patient and remain courteous and civil.
  2. Avoid conflict, even when you know you are right. Give other editors the benefit of the doubt.
  3. Assume good faith toward your collaborating editors, if not their edits. Assuming good faith is not intended to be self-destructive, but to avoid conflict.
  4. Ignore attacks. Not easily done, but a real timesaver. Attacks and counter-attacks are hazardous to your mental health. The best and most frequently offered administrative advice is to move on, and, if absolutely necessary, return the next day.
  5. Don't take it personally. Editors make honest mistakes. Communicating our thoughts is not easily done on the Internet.
  6. Don't isolate your interpretation. There are many interpretations other than yours. What you read might NOT be what was meant.
  7. Don't think of editing as a competition. WE are cohorts, collaborating to improve our product.
  8. Don't edit when angry or upset. Stay off the article and talk page in question. Never let your anger or frustration be the deciding factor in your behavior.
  9. Don't forget the Human Dimension of Wikipedia editing. Keep things in perspective. There is a real, living and breathing, sensitive human on the other side of the discussion.


Hi, you recently added this sentence to hymenotomy: "Sexual intercourse remains possible a hymenotomy, labia minora reduction, surgical and radiological cancer treatments and chemotherapy of the vulvo-vaginal area." I have been trying to work out what it is intended to mean. I realize that you are currently blocked, but I assume you still have access to your talk page, so can you explain? I don't get the first part of the sentence at all, and I don't follow why "labia minora reduction" is even mentioned, or how it is related to cancer treatments. Paul B (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. The hymen, of course, is an anatomical structure. A hymenotomy is the surgical removal or all or part of the hymen. The hymen is very much involved in sexual intercourse and therefore surgery on the hymen for whatever reason impacts women who wish to continue sexual intercourse. Cancer treatment may be performed in, around or for the removal of those structures and can result in, of course, serious tissue damage to those structures. A hymenotomy is done for other reasons by gynecologists, but unfortunately I am unable at this time to include the content that explains other reasons for hymenotomies and the references for that information. If I recall, I tried to find the information on Wikipedia since it is easier to find a link to relevant information than it is to create content and references, but couldn't find it. Feel free to edit what I added, or even better, if you think it would be helpful I can post the proposed additional content and reference here on my talk page that could be inserted into the article to address the issues that you have brought up. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  12:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I am of course aware that the hymen is an "anatomical structure" and that "a hymenotomy is the surgical removal or all or part of the hymen". That does not help to explain the ungrammatical phrase "Sexual intercourse remains possible a hymenotomy". Did you intend to say that it remains possible after a hymenotomy? "Cancer treatment may be performed in, around or for the removal of those structures and can result in, of course, serious tissue damage to those structures". Again, I don't follow this. Are you saying that the hymen will / may be damaged if a woman has treatment for cervical or other forms of genital-area cancers? Or perhaps that a hymenotomy may be necessary to provide such treatment? I still don't know why there is a reference to "labia minora reduction". Paul B (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I unintentionally left out the word 'after'. I left it out and it should be inserted after "possible". I in no way mean to imply that you are not knowledgeable on the topic and if I gave you that impression, I apologize. If you would be so kind to correct the grammatical phrase for me, that should clarify the statement. If you wish to remove the phrase "labia minora reduction" (which may occur in cancer treatment) I don't have a problem with that. The whole point of the phrase is to provide information that this gynecological surgery does not mean that sexual intercourse is no longer an option, hopefully this is helpful content for those looking for information on this topic. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Your edit was perfect. Thank you for making that article even better.
  Bfpage |leave a message  21:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Block discussion[edit]

Kevin Gorman, it appears that there was quite a discussion on the ANI. Can we continue to discuss what is to happen next here?

My first and probably most important question is this: if I am blocked from participating in the ANI discussions which now both have been closed, in what venue am I supposed to 'admit' my wrongdoing? On my own talk page? Through email discussions with you? In an ARBCOM setting? Do I just make a random post on my own talk page hoping that it will be read? What exactly are my options?

Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

... During the whole last ANI discussion those involved were insulted and expressed their incredulity at my lack of response. How is someone who is blocked supposed to respond? How could I admit anything? It was impossible, don't administrators intuitively know that someone who is blocked cannot answer any concerns? It looks like you got your wish for a six month block, congratulations.

There are worse things than this block...
  • being called a liar
  • saying I demonstrate ugly behavior
  • being called: "one takes all the cake in the creepiness bakery"
  • Saying I practice manipulation
  • Saying I have a lack of honesty
  • Saying I have an unwillingness to admit to my behavior
  • Being accused that I plan to and deliberately stalk people (yes, it turned into the plural)
  • Saying that I don't like Flyer's feminism (thanks for that one, your comment was still taken as 'evidence')
  • That I think Flyer22 doesn't do a good job at maintaining content and references
  • That I have "this very ugly stalker-y streak, especially around gender parity"
  • Continually being referred to as male by the same folks who 'carefully' examined all the evidence (I guess everything except my gender, that is.)
  • Being compared to a previous woman stalker
  • The closing administrator holding out the 'olive branch' but not telling me how it is to be grasped


Jytdog I honestly think that there is a failure of acknowledgement here that conversation is a two way process with rights on both sides. There is an I think hopefully productive thread of good will on your TP to which I genuinely hope you will give careful consideration. I don't dispute that there is relevance in what you are saying but this is not a WP:Ignore all rules situation which might entitle you to act however you like. Everyone has rights. They cannot be ignored in fair societies. GregKaye 08:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Potentially related discussion[edit]

This is to give notification of a potentially relevant ANI discussion as related to the blocking activities of Kevin Gorman as linked here. GregKaye 08:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Greg, did you somehow miss the fact that I already said it was going to be a much shorter block/ i've been having some quite nice conversaions her. The answer might be she loves your posts this week. but I doubt that would it.Kevin Gorman (talk)`
Dear Greg Kaye,
That is quite moving that you would come to my defense like that. Could I ask you to put that ANI off for just a little while. I will email you information that will explain what good and fair things will undoubtedly come out of this block and keep you very much informed so that if another ANI becomes necessary, you will have all the documentation (diff histories and such) to make a better case. There are worse things than this block. One thing this block will do is create a sense of relief for those who have very strong opinions (and probably feelings) regarding the way I should be 'handled'. Also, I'm not quite sure about the policy on such things, but informing other editors like yourself for their input AND providing them with the information that they would need to make a good case in my defense will be easier if we just wait a few days. Best Regards,
Barbara Page
  • Just to be quite clear, I am not so much coming to your defence as I want to more specifically defend right to reply. You have twice had things written about you in ANI reports without being given a chance to respond either by presenting mitigating circumstances or by making apology. Both, IMO, should be possible. It is clear to all including you that you have done wrong but Wikipedia should not be treated, IMO, like the Cursed Earth and there may be little remit for Judge Dredd style actions especially in the context when someone has already rightly been, perhaps fairly, brought to the Grand Hall of Justice (with the recent issue being the editing of categories). GregKaye 13:52, 3 June 2015
  • On the other issue I also have a personal hatred of the use of e-mail in Wikipedia and even went as far as to propose at WP:PUMP that the facility be banned. The permission of allowing editors to communicate in secret in a context that otherwise prohibits canvass seems nuts to me and, if anything, its the private communications that would make me "paranoid". GregKaye 14:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Please do what needs to be done. I thought if you waited until I was un-blocked, I would be able to support you in this ANI or even turn it into an action at ARBCOM. If you decide to proceed, I would appreciate your cooperation in forwarding my comments into the discussion since I won't be able to participate. Unfortunately, it is going to be difficult if you hate email, because that is the only method I know of to send you my comments. I support your efforts. Let's make sure that it doesn't turn into a witch hunt, but I would like to highlight the incredibly uncivil remarks and the taunts (taunts-seeming to me only, I suppose) of not answering the questions of those who asked me direct questions when they knew I was blocked and couldn't answer. That is especially distressing, unnecessary and I am calling it cruel. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  16:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The thing that has truly astounded me is that in a context of encyclopedia that prides itself in relation to its presentation of an NPOV in relation to outsiders, we can utterly exclude a voice of one of our own. Some time ago I was involved in an AN/I case with a former very good friend on Wikipedia. The case was closed, arguably, early on request from a third editor and directly against the wishes of the two parties involved. We both, I believe, felt that this early closure was wrong despite both having had a chance to speak. I would understand that being denied the chance of responding to two consecutive incident reports might very well be devastating. I will e-mail you (as a first) if for no other purpose (and in the context of the unblock having been performed) than to let you unload should you want to but this is on the understanding that I would not be responsive to anything that you think should be acted upon. GregKaye 06:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Whatever gave you the idea that Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia that prides itself in relation to its presentation of an NPOV in relation to outsiders"? We do no such thing. We do indeed work hard to keep a neutral point of view, but "neutrality" does not mean giving equal time to all possible views. We report what reliable sources say, and we weigh how much we present of the views of "outsiders" based on that. We do not bend over backwards to report all views of all things, that's not what an encyclopedia is for. If our reportage is seriously different from that of, say, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, then there's something wrong with our coverage. We are a mainstream publications that runs behind the trends and not ahead of them. We don't have our own views, we only have the composite views of reliable sources. "Outsiders" should never get the idea that they'll get a more sympathetic hearing at Wikipedia, because he hear only what those reliable sources say. Any other interpretation of our philosophy is just plain wrong. BMK (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Any reader, any editor should be able to read the ANI board and then think, "Wow, look at the civil, courteous manner in which this community of editors works with each other. Look at that! They fairly allow the expression of those involved in a dispute the opportunity to present the other side of this issue...this is a project, this is an encyclopedia where I will be welcomed and be treated with respect." In my opinion, wow do I hope I am wrong on this, ANI has become a spectator sport for many editors. We don't need to allow a sympathetic hearing of anything-we need to be respectful. Allowing the input of someone accused of wrong behavior is the right thing to do-no one is asking for equal anything. We most certainly have our own point of views. Reliable sources related to ANI seems a little out of context in this particular discussion. I am probably not catching all the meaning of what you have written, BMK. Best Regards and welcome to my talk page,
  Bfpage |leave a message  18:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


  • I originally blocked Bfpage for a variety of reasons; they spread across two ani threads and some other pages, and I don't think we need to rehash them here. I initially blocked for six months - which is admittedly a long time. I did this for a couple of reasons - some of it was pretty bad behavior, it had gone on for a long time, this would definitely fix, it would create greater incentive to change than 1-2 blocks would, and the block could be shorten or removed as soon as an agreement was reached. I had a long conversation with BF (and some brief conversations with others) and came up with a solution where I think the parties directly involved will all be happy, and all can continue to contribute productively hopefully without the significant tension that existed before the first ANI, and between the first and second ANI's. The initial set of sanctions will last for six months; if it looks they need to be extended at the end of six months, I'll go to a noticeboard for community approval. I know some aren't terribly happy with the fact that I handled the block like this, but I think it succeeded in cutting the knot, and in the end that is what is important here. I'm not going to disclose the contents of private emails, but they were sufficient to convince me that BFP legitimately wants to improve Wikipedia and legitimately wants to avoid drama as much as possible - and I'm not the easiest person in the world to convince. I believe that BFPage will follow the guidelines we're laying out - she provided probably more than half the ideas for them - and if she doesn't, then the situation can be dealt without another several thousand word ANI thread.
I'm unblocking BFPage as soon as I post this, and have a lot of respect for her. Within the next period of time, I'll have the sanctions formatted etc, up on one of BF's subpages, and provide links where relevant. Welcome back BF.Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The draft guidelines are here. A lot of the suggestions are BFP's, some are mine. Most of the harshest sounding restrictions were suggested by BfP after I offered to unblock her under far easier conditions - I think that says a lot about her. If BFP finds some of them too onerous in practice, I would be inclined to revise some of them as to be more lax. In the next 24 hours, anyone is welcome to provide feedback. I'm leaving the page unlocked so that people can any grammar mistakes I made. I would ask that people suggest changes here or on the talk of the sanctions page instead of the sanctions itself. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as guidelines go, I think that all that the essence of what needed to have been covered was covered in the summary of the 2 hour and 19 minute long Incident report that ended at 06:19, 8 March 2015. In reply also to another editor who had certainly made unneccessary and very pointed WP:CANVASS references to Flyer22, this simply said: "please stop making unnecessary references to Flyer22, either directly or through ..., hidden replies and followup barnstars. Any continuation of this behavior will be considered a breach of WP:HOUND." I do not see what has changed since this and I do not see how this had not been followed. What has been the point of all this? What?
I also think the a chance to develop reconciliation by a fair presentation of views of both sides has been lost here with Bfpage being denied the opportunity to reply to a second filed incident report. Everyone, Bfpage included, should have a right to reply.
Your, I think, harsh position was stated as: "I think Flyer is being way too nice in asking for an iban here. Last time this came up I made it crystal clear to Bfpage that if he continued, he wouldn't be able to edit Wikipedia. With the totality of BfPage's actions, the previous warning, and them continuing, I have blocked BFPage for 6 months." As far as I know you had not heard a word directly from Bfpage (while clearly not realising that "he" was a "she"). The "and them continuing" is utterly false. Bfpage edited some categories, some categories for goodness sake and your, I think, one sided view of things was taken even after another editor was quoted as saying "... If I took all the abuse and harassment that Flyer22 does, I'd probably have left a long time ago. ...". Another editor then jumped, I think on the would be undefended bandwagon (that was denied defence) to say, "Always civil in tone and often very kind but has this very ugly stalker-y streak, especially around gender parity and sexual topics which Flyer specializes in. She's also extended the barnstar-awarding behavior to "thanking" an editor with whom i have been in a content dispute, who has been really struggling with the reality of policies and guidelines here and who is now blocked for SOAPBOXING. As far as I can see she never acknowledged that she did anything wrong in the ANI that led to her warning nor after, and she promptly posted a request to unblock after Kevin blocked her. She's got to drop the vindictive behavior. It is not just bad for the target of the behavior but also for the editors she encourages to edit badly" As far as I have seen Bfpage has been notably more civil in tone than other editors involved (personal opinion). Secondly the commenting editor has been in content disputes to the extent of this and I have no idea how far such content disputes may extend. The "She's got to drop this vindictive behaviour" comment comes at a great stretch when no other diffs are presented. Despite my presentation of "pages most edited by xxx to date" as presented in collapsed boxes the polarised "gender parity and sexual topics which Flyer specializes in" is, I believe, an abuse of rhetoric in light of the clearly presented information that Bfpage has similar claim to having specialized in such topical areas.
Kevin, the result falls far short of the IBAN that you were previously so sure of and presents a range of prescriptions that even you seem unsure of. The previous summary politely yet firmly presented "please stop making unnecessary references to Flyer22, either directly or through ..., hidden replies and followup barnstars. Any continuation of this behavior will be considered a breach of WP:HOUND." We would have been better to have left things as that. As I see it, the only things that has been broken since 06:00 on 8 March is the chance of reconciliation between two editors and the opportunity for an editor to face her accusers. GregKaye 05:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Though I am not comfortable at this time to discuss the details I can sum up the majority of the conversation between myself administrator Keven Gorman by saying that I indeed adhered to his original instructions to 'stop' the behavior that I exhibited in making inappropriate posts via barnstars and comments. The second ANI only rehashed the unacceptable and inappropriate behavior that was dealt with in the first ANI. The second ANI was filed because I made some edits that were interpreted as 'harrassment' when in fact anyone can go to the Sexual intercourse article and see for themselves that the content I added was relevant and well-cited and not intended to 'incite' anything. Most of those edits to the Sexual intercourse article were the placement of wikilinks that were relevant to the content. Because I had adhered to administrator Kevin Gorman's instructions that were given to me to 'stop' in the first ANI, I did not have the knowledge or the means to determine that Sexual intercourse was heavily edited (undefined, btw) by the other editor since I deleted the list I was using to avoid editing in those articles. Another way of putting this is: to know what articles are heavily edited by another editor I would have to have continued to closely monitor their talk page and editing history which I decided might be interpreted as a form of stalking. I stopped doing that after the first ANI. Adding content, unfortunately, has been interpreted as harassment in the second ANI....a dangerous interpretation that could be widely applied. Editing is not harassment.
For those who are interested, the two editors involved, myself and the other have high edit counts. This greatly increases the potential of interaction between any editors especially if both of them remove vandalism and good faith edits in similar topic areas. I will soon be writing and drafting an ANI and a message to the developer of STiki, I think his name is Andrew West to let him know that the Editor interaction analyzer results in skewed results if it used to compare the editing overlap between two editors who have high edit counts and who have high edit counts using STIki. For example, just for the sake of a preliminary study, I compared the article overlap between the STIki editor who has made the highest number of STIki edits with the the editor who has the third highest number of STIki edits and found that the Editor interaction analyzer has them interacting on the same articles over 400 times...that's a lot, right? I don't use the tool very often so I really don't know a high number from a low number. Not only is there 400 articles that these two editors have both edited, I lost count of how many of these were articles topics related to sex and reproduction. Sex and reproduction topics are highly vandalized. Let's just say it was more than my overlaps (not excusing my behavior, only being critical of the tool) No one could ever accuse these two editors of 'following each other around' or 'harassment' because they edit the same articles, that would not be a correct interpretation. Therefore, the Editor interaction analyzer tool is useless when comparing the edits of editors: 1. have large edit counts and 2. use STIki. This was used against me in the second ANI (excluding me from providing this information) and should not be used against me to accuse me of harassment.
I will deal with any more questions related to this topic on the special user page that administrator Kevin Gorman has set up for this purpose: User talk:Bfpage/guidelines Uncivil comments will be removed. No profanity either....
  Bfpage |leave a message  13:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

From Kevin[edit]

Hi Bfpage, Kevin wanted me to let you know that his computer's been severely compromised and he can't safely access his account. He'll be back to discuss things with you as soon as he can return. If you need to talk to him, his email's under his sole control. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for relaying his message. I have a bit of understanding of his situation and if you know him personally, tell him everything is fine with what has been decided so far. He might laugh if you told him I added a few things to my guidelines/restrictions to better define what is okay and what is not okay.Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  20:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Bfpage. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools.
Message added 21:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reference errors on 8 June[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) 00:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory, unhelpful behavior[edit]

This [1] is in total conflict with this "I am a Good Faith Fanatic...Good faith requires us to try, to the best of our ability, to...not cause more conflict" (the previous is from your User Page). Do you have a plausible and believable explanation as to why you saw fit to stir the $#!% pot? As it is currently, that editor (whose talk page you posted on) and I are attempting to work together collegially and cooperatively. Your comments serve as nothing more than opening up a new can of worms. I can only imagine what your motivation is, but from what you wrote, I see nothing good or honorable coming from it. In other words, please stop with the covert attempt to undermine the good that is finally happening between he and I. Your involvement is neither helpful nor conducive to making things better between us. -- WV 19:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow! I thought I was encouraging the other editor to stick with it and work things out. You might be seeing worms where there aren't any. Perhaps you and I should agree to work collegially and cooperatively. Empathizing with the experience of another editor shouldn't be viewed as anything other than that.
Having said that, I deeply apologize for any and all the distress that I have caused you personally by my post to the other editor's talk page. Would you like me to return to the talk page of the editor with whom you are working with and apologize there also? In addition, perhaps we would do well to see how you and I can encourage each other in building the encyclopedia, after all: WP:HERE.
Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  19:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
What I'm seeing is what I already described above -- acting like it didn't happen and what's obvious isn't really there doesn't work with me. If you want to work cooperatively with me, you will cut the crap. I don't put up with BS and don't think well of anyone who tries to peddle it. Just so you know. -- WV 19:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Here's the deal-offending you is not good. It doesn't do me any good and it doesn't help you. It doesn't help the project. Keep up your best editing efforts and you will do well. You contacted me here on my talk page which you are welcome to do. I have nothing except these words on the screen to convey information to you. It isn't the right thing to do to attach 'motive' or 'speculation' on my writing. I am not pretending like 'it' didn't happen. I am sorry, honestly sorry, if I upset you. I was trying to encourage a discouraged editor-that's all, nothing more. I just finished reading your user page. At least for me, I am content with our dealings but wish the best for you. Still, the Best of Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  19:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi Bfpage,

How good is your Haitian? ht:Wikipedia is a desperately small community, and you would be such an asset there. Also, I didn't see your name at Wikipedia:Translators available. Can you translate to or from Haitian? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can try but I would need a good proof-reader and my language skills were obtained in northern Haiti and I've noticed the language is a little different than in Potoprens. I am very interested in translating important health-related articles. I am better translating English to kreyol mais pa byen. M'voudrais ede ou.
  Bfpage |leave a message  22:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC) (ou Madam Paj nan kreyol ayisien}

It looks like you've made an excellent start. We need to find you some partners to help revive the Haitian Wikipedia, or at least to check your typing or cheer you on. First, the bad news: w:ht:User:Masterches, who would have been fabulous, hasn’t edited for almost five years (and the main page pretty much hasn’t changed since then, either). His old website is gone, and I think we've lost Ches for good. w:ht:User:Teksmeksh is another former admin who is no longer active. w:ht:Wikipedya:Lis Wikipedyen pa nonm edisyon yo fè hasn’t been updated for two years, and it doesn’t look like there’s anyone active on it. The m:Small Wiki Monitoring Team occasionally checks in to delete vandalism and deal with spam, but I don’t believe that any of them speak Haitian. Here are a few options:

By the way, if you want a quick way to find out whether someone’s still active, then copy the last two lines out of m:User:WhatamIdoing/global.js into a page at Meta of the same name (except with your username), and you’ll get a very handy note about the date of their last edit (and a gender symbol, and whether the person is an admin or has other rights) at the top of every user page and user talk page on all the wikis. It makes finding active editors from among the names listed in Category:User ht faster.

(Also, this page and this one (and maybe a couple of others) cannot be placed on too many watchlists. Seriously.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


Well, JMyraYeung that sounds like a lot of fun. I will be sending you an email right away. I didn't think that there were any Wikipedians in Pittsburgh...
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
248 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Hormone imbalance (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
662 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Gynaecology (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
1,067 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Sex reassignment surgery (female-to-male) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
687 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Milk (film) (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Add sources
26 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Immature ovum (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
126 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Breast reduction (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
9 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Marymount College, Gold Coast (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
533 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Transcranial magnetic stimulation (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cleanup
396 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Head and neck cancer (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cleanup
381 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start ICD-9-CM Volume 3 (talk) 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
545 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Sexual dysfunction (talk) 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 2.0 Expand
41 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Sex cord–gonadal stromal tumour (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
37 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Jones & Bartlett Learning (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
21 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: C BioGaia (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
150 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
323 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Fibroadenoma (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
142 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: Start Premature ovarian failure (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
50 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Mammary gland development (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
47 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Breast-conserving surgery (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
125 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: Start High-intensity focused ultrasound (talk) 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
10 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
7 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Scrabble in Hong Kong (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
10 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Self-storage box (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Vajrai (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
218 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Coleus (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
39 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Driver Booster (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Prevotella bryantii (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
146 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Bacillus (shape) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
118 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: Start Meigs' syndrome (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
1,124 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Expelled from Paradise (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  Bfpage |leave a message  15:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Translation into Haitian Creole[edit]

Would be excellent to have you lead translation into Haitian. Have you seen the new translation tool here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement. I've already begun to translate some articles into kreyol ayisien (that is the real name of the language.) I will be concentrating on issues related to women's health and children's health. I have already 'signed' up at mediawiki where I had to take a test(!) to test my haitian skills and I am waiting to here back from them. Congratulations on your election. The haitian wikipedia doesn't have any administrators and I have already asked steward Mentifisto to arrange for me to be either an administrator there or either be able to block vandalism. I don't want to work on creating articles and then watch them get vandalized and become totally useless. I would be wasting my time in creating articles in kreyol if they could be blanked or destroyed. Here is my latest article on Vaginal discharge or Likid non vajen. Best Regards y Salitasyons zami'm,
MadamPaj ou   Bfpage |leave a message  21:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful. We have this list of 3/4 paragraph articles that we are working to get translated into other languages.
Co ordination is taking place here [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James. I've already got Abscess half translated. Here is what I've done so far.I saw that it was a priority for the ht:wikipedia. So pretty soon, we'll have it complete there. I'm enjoying improving my haitian skills and glad to find an outlet to use them.
  Bfpage |leave a message  15:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Have fixed a couple of refs and added an infobox. Let me know what you think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You gave it a final fix and it is finished. Looks good. Now there is only about 100 more to go...I'll get to them tomorrow. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  01:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)



For some reason your request for an account at translatewiki was rejected. This doesn't seem right and I'm sorry about this.

Can you please create an account there again - .

Sorry about the hassle. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have an account there. I just don't have 'permissions' to post messages or to engage with any pages much less translate. I have provided twenty examples of translating content that they gave me. I also left a message and a link to an article that I created on the ht:wikipedia. I'm guessing that my 'application' got lost or they haven't gotten to it yet. I've been working on the article Abscess and have it half completed. It is on WP:MRD's list of priority articles to translate. So all this administrative 'stuff' isn't stopping me from translating health articles into kreyol, I'm just not 'connected' with the people yet. I think I was rejected because at the time I applied to translatewiki I had no translation samples for them to look at. Perhaps they are looking for someone to proofread my translations. Thanks for helping me on this. I looked all over the ht:wikipedia and there is no mechanism to apply for administratorshipe or perhaps they call it sysop. I am waiting on Mentifisto, a steward to make it happen.
  Bfpage |leave a message  14:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
It was rejected wrongly, but now you have to create it again at
Can you please do it? I'm very sorry about the inconvenience. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your great work on Wikipedia!!!! I hope we have 5,000,000 articels soon!! Daniel-Brown (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Women's health-related journals[edit]

No, I'm afraid I don't have access to these journals, however I sometimes find that taking the title of a particular paper and copying it into Google leads to a free pdf version (e.g. Li Yang, Li; Jacobsen, Kathryn H. (2008) A systematic review of the association between breastfeeding and breast cancer.) --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That is great information. If you see any journal articles that may be of interest and that have content that can be inserted into articles having to do with women's health, please let me know. I appreciate you answering me so quickly. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  16:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Women's health ratings[edit]

Hi Bfpage, I was wondering how the women's health pages were being rated. FGM is mid importance, though 130 million women live with it, and that's only in the most concentrated 29 countries. Also, breastfeeding is mid importance, but mastectomy is top. Do you mind if I change some of these, or is there a system I'm not aware of? (I've never been sure how these things are judged.) Sarah (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to 'reassess' those articles with a high importance. I agree with you and also believe that breastfeeding should be top importance. All of the articles dealing with the breast will probably have a higher importance to the Women's health project than other projects. There is no system that I can think of. Just use your own judgement. I have found that medicine articles have a lower importance attached to articles that are of interest to Women's health. It is not surprising when the articles are assessed related to their importance to women's health. I'm glad you have taken an interest in the project and want to help with the assessments. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  00:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Bf, I'll make a start. If you see me tag or assess anything you disagree with, feel free to revert. Sarah (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Neat article on Empathy in chickens![edit]

Thanks to your "advertisement" on your User page, I checked out your Empathy in chickens page. I have 3 laying hens in the back yard, and am nearly done with a degree in psychology, so it was quite relevant to me!

Although mine are completely unrelated, if you care to check out any of the articles I've created, see my user page — Preceding undated comment added 14:41, June 2015 (UTC)

                                         June/20/2015......... TIME....9:02 am

Hello. have not read this article all the way. I am listening to some very nice music, i do not know the bands name. Either way i know my local test have been difficult to pass as far as " driving".. Either way, i wanted to make contact with the local residenets as all residents the same. Wishing everybody a beautiful and pleasant day.dont forget to smile.. and stay positive.

hoping you can help with my situation[edit]

Hi, I appear to have hooked a carp, a large one from canada. The fight is over two paragraphs I recently added to the article Institutional racism, the Canada section. Someone whom had not previously edited it got caught on my hook and immediately swallowed the pole, but spit up drek in its place. I felt I was holding with the topic but discovered this carp has an agenda. She has begun an edit war and its over my 3k in a wideranging 120k article. She keeps putting in her pov about the residential schools when I used the schools to illustrate the churchs influence and the govts role in instutionalization of the racist practices for over 100 years. She whitewashed the paragraphs that were copied from another article. How do I proceed? I kept and corrected her replacement but she refuses to let it go. Could you look at the talk and help me address her demands I fix it on her schedule? Thanks Robco311 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to my talk page. I took a quick look at the edits and will take the time to take a longer, closer look at some of the issues. Until I come up with something specific to suggest, don't hesitate to read and re-read Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I have to do it all the time. I will also do another re-read to orient myself to editing according to these guidelines. If something was copied from another source then that is a different problem altogether. I'll be getting back to you. Keep up the good work-in case you haven't noticed sometimes new editors seem to be bullied and I'll bet this isn't the first time and it won't be the last. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  22:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking into the dispute that you are having with this other editor (and maybe another). Before I make any comments on the content that you are adding, I need to tell you, friend to friend, that it will be your 'behavior' that will get you in 'trouble'. Listen, I was blocked for my behavior recently and I didn't even use the same words as you have been using. You are not going to get any support for your edits and content because others will be so distracted by your characterization of the other editor that no one will care how wrong or how right you are! I don't want you to get blocked or banned. I do want to see your edits remain in the article because you bring a great POV to the table. Let me make a couple of suggestions, look into my history of being blocked-it was a few weeks ago. You will see that another editor had problems with my behavior-it didn't matter how great my edits were, it was the other editor's perception of my behavior and the perception of administrator that got me blocked. It lasted for a couple of days, but it was very discouraging. You don't have to take my advice on anything, but it will help with this conflict if: you apologize for making accusations about the motivation and character of the other editor. It will help if you agree to find better references and I can help with that. You are doing such a great job as a newer editor I don't want to see this conflict get in the way of you doing what you do best-adding great content. Be nice to NeilN, he will block you. Email me if tou want.The very best of regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  01:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC) aka Barbara Page

Thanks, if you still have time after all this, I have a new article that could use a patrol.... Lacey Schwartz completes my rachael dolezal entry.... Robco311 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, the advice is good, I actually moved on to the Australia section and the feedback from the Australian editors has been quite positive. The Canada section that got removed was 2 paragraphs and so moved the other editor to start an edit war is a gerfibble (aka kerfluffle) compared to the 10x larger australian section. The australian editor fixed the structure, added the link to a far greater wiki on Australian racism and has said he'd try to cull the entry so as to pinpoint the major flaws. Thats a barnstar deserving editor. I added a sentence to the false canada entry and ref/cited it, she removed it calling one a bad reference and the other point a blog post. Can't refute when the blind can see, the same wiki she called a bad ref proved her wrong and the blog post was a report commissioned by the T/R commission of canada. That all said, thanks for the encouragement, I am trying to keep within the parameters of the wiki style while not falling on my sword for © transgressions. Much of what I'm writing is already covered elsewhere so thats the bug in the soup.... Robco311 (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You are one smart cookie! You are 'getting it' and finding out that wikipedia is not just about creating content and references; it is also political. Once you find out that someone is an administrator, seriously BACK off. Some of them block and ban people on a whim. I don't think you are following the actions of administrators yet, but wow, some are quite enamored with their blocking power and lord it over other editors. I have been threatened multiple times. Each time I called their bluff until finally it really did happen. I think that is why no one is applying for the position of 'administrator' because they don't like the way that title/privilege is often misused. Learn from my mistakes, play nice with everyone. Do lots of thanking. Award barnstars and make sincere encouraging comments on the talk page of other editors. Your content creation is amazing. Use that template that I put on the talk page and you will find more sources than you know what to do with. Be quick to apologize, even you are right and the other editor is wrong. Nothing, absolutely nothing gets deleted from wikipedia. Every sneeze you make, any name you call someone, can and will be used against you. I miraculously was able to make a page I created disappear once and no one, no administrator, was able to bring it back. That was the first and last time I have ever heard of that happening. If someone doesn't like you for any reason, they will go back years into your editing history to prove that your behavior is 'unacceptable' and get you banned. Make sure that this is the last time that you call someone names, question their motives, accuse them of not having a NPOV because if you have an interaction with another editor like the one you had with two editors already (remember, one was an administrator who I stay far away from) they will say that your behavior is a pattern and that you are bringing disruption that inhibits editing and building of the encyclopedia. Your friend,
  Bfpage |leave a message  16:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Few comments[edit]

This [4] is just a protocal not a published systematic review. Thus it is not that good of a source.

This book [5] is a patient book and not of very good quality. Best to stick with medical textbooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand why you added details about prostate cancer to the article on vaginitis? [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for evaluating these references for me. Not to whine about it or anything, but shall I flag the hundreds of other substandard references that I find while reading med articles? Is there such a tag? I do know how to make such a tag if you would like. You may be holding me to a higher standard than you do other editors who add references that do not meet the reliable med source guidelines, which is frankly, quite flattering! As for the first reference, is it ok to reword the content to identify the content as a suggested protocol or recommendation-the content is quite interesting and may of value to readers. And isn't the second reference considered a tertiary source written by a physician who cites his sources? About the content added to vaginitis... One main cause of vaginitis is the protozoan Trichomatis vaginalis. My impression is that vaginitis is almost always synonymous Trichomatis vaginalis. This microbe is the one that is being associated with prostate cancer. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  11:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I frequently go around and replace substandard references with better ones. Yes more people doing this would be useful. Vaginitis is usually cause by candida and BV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


Doc James, about my recent edit to this article and your reversion-The source I added says: "A common cause of vaginitis in women, T. vaginalis can also infect men, where it may cause asymptomatic urethritis and prostatitis. In particular, its frequent asymptomatic presentation may make it possible to persist untreated and ascend to the prostate, where it can establish foci of chronic inflammation that may eventually lead to prostate cancer"

I paraphrased this quote from the paper to:" T. vaginalis infection in males has been found to cause asymptomatic urethritis and prostatitis. Because it is unsymptomatic it is possible to remain untreated. It is then able to spread to the prostate, where it creates chronic inflammation that may eventually lead to prostate cancer." Your edit summary is: "read paper and corrected conclusions". I made no conclusions, the authors did. I would like to revert the reversion you made. Best regards and with all respect,

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There were two refs

The second ref is a primary source. The first ref does state "chronic inflammation that may eventually lead to prostate cancer". This is a tricky word as "may" means nothing in medicine as it often just as equality means "may not" This is than follow with "Although the evidence is currently insufficient to draw conclusions, available data are suggestive and claim for further investigations." which is the key point. The relationship between T. vaginalis and prostate CA is not supported by the current evidence but there is enough theoretical concern to deserve further research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get it. Whenever I see the word 'may' I should use that handy phrase that you wrote above. (I'll put it in my 'toolbox' to use in the future.) I don't understand the use of primary sources because I see them all the time in other med articles. I understand that they aren't the best sources, but what if they are the only source for information? Are med editors supposed to replace primary sources when they see them with review article sources? I got jumped all over when I suggested that the sources in a med featured article - ketogenic diet, were outdated. I mean, people said some pretty unkind things to me over that. I didn't even mention the fact that the sources were primary sources. Are the rules different for me OR is it somewhat impossible to ask all the other med content creators and editors to go replace all the primary sources in the 33,000 med articles with better sources? OR are you just trying to raise the bar for editors like me, who enjoy creating articles because it is easier to only rely on review articles as sources when creating content? My number one rule, for me anyway, is to never insert ANY content unless it is sourced. I see from the edits of other editors that this is not true for them, they 'tweak', copyedit, write essay-like content without sources. Do they get corrected or reverted? I certainly don't see that when I review changes on the med page-changes feed. I also don't see a lot of new articles being written. Best regards and respectfully,

  Bfpage |leave a message  16:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE copy-edit request declined[edit]

Hi Bfpage, just a note to tell you I've declined your copy-edit request at the Guild of Copy Editors Request page because you were seeking technical help rather than a copy-edit; also please note that we don't normally accept requests to copy-edit articles that are actively being developed, such as those in the Draft workspace or those in sandboxes. Another editor has suggested some more appropriate venues here; I'm sorry we couldn't help you, but good luck with the article and happy editing. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter #4[edit]

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter #4

Released: 1 July, 2015
Editor: Tom (LT)

Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is the fourth update, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. We've had a quiet time over the last half-year or so, so I've slowed down the release of this newsletter and will probably release the next one around the end of the year. If you'd like to provide some feedback, 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
The vermiform appendix, seen in the bottom left and the cause of much anguish when inflammed, stirs up an interesting discussion.
  • Should Vermiform appendix be retitled to its more common name (Appendix)? The discussion continues!
  • A large number of "back end" changes are made, and integration with Wikidata continues -- see the focus for more.
  • Our set of cranial nerve-related articles receive a review by a subject expert
How can I contribute?
Our articles on the 13 12 cranial nerves receive a review from a subject expert
Issue focus - technical changes

This issue was originally going to focus on how far we've come as a project. However, that encouraging news can wait until next issue, as there are simply too many changes going on at the "back end" of our project not to write about. What do I mean by "back end"? I mean changes that are not necessarily visible to readers, but may have a significant impact on the way we edit or on future edits.


A number of visible changes have been made to our templates. Firstly, the way our templates have been linked together has changed. Previously, this was a small bar with single-letter links. This has been replaced by a light-coloured box contained within all our templates with fully-worded links, which provides links to relevant anatomy and medical templates. This should make life a lot easier, particularly for students and other readers who are struggling with the vastness of anatomical systems and their related diseases and treatments.

As part of this, almost all our templates have been reviewed and cleaned up. The previously confusing colour scheme has been removed and colour standardised. The titles have been simplified. References to "identifiers" in the titles of navigation boxes (such as Gray's Anatomy and Terminologia Anatomica numbers) have been removed. Where possible, the wiki-code of templates has been updated to give a cleaner, more standardised, format that is hopefully more friendly to new editors. The cleanup continues , please feel free to contribute or propose templates which need attention.

Anatomy infobox

Most of our articles have an infobox. Previously, there were 11 separate infoboxes for different fields, such as muscles, nerves and embryology. These have been united so that at the "back end", every template will take formatting directly from the main anatomy infobox -- however at the "front end", there is little difference for readers. This will make future changes much easier -- including adding new fields, formatting, and reordering the contents. Several changes have already been made: infoboxes now link to a relevant anatomical terminology article; contents are now divided into 'Identifiers' and 'Details' headings, making it easier to grasp content for new readers; and new fields have been added, including Greek and UBERON, with several more under discussion.

External links

An editor has reviewed all our template-based external links. These are the links that often fill the "External links" category, and sometimes used as citations. At least thirty different links sets, with the number of links stretching into the thousands, have been fixed, and if not functioning, deleted. A number of non-functioning dead links (with no archived websites available), and one or two others, have been deleted. This helps keep our 'external links' section relevant and functioning for those readers who want extra information about articles.


Perhaps our most important change has been integration with Wikidata. This is because of both its current uses and potential future uses. Wikidata is a service related to Wikipedia focusing on storing information. Data relating to a Wikipedia item (such as a muscle or bone, or even a template) can have related "structured" infomation stored systematically alongside it. For example, a muscle can have information about its embryological origin, nerve supply, and the relevant sections of Terminologica Anatomica (TA) stored alongside it. Much information that was stored within articles on infoboxes is now stored on Wikidata, including the TA, TH, and TE fields. An immediate benefit is that Wikipedias in every language will (as they update their own infoboxes, be able to automatically include this information. New data can be entered in a much easier format, and data can be batch entered by bots making future updates much easier Future uses include data visualisation. I personally am looking forward to the day when a reader can view a wikidata-based "tree", clicking mesoderm and seeing all of the derived structures, then selecting the intermediate mesoderm, then Pronephric duct, mesonephric duct and vas deferens. The possibilities of using Wikidata for data visualisation are really quite encouraging!

Our next issue will focus on how far WikiProject Anatomy has come in the past 2 years.

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)