User talk:Iztwoz

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

Contents

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Iztwoz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! E4024 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Iztwoz. You have new messages at Kinkreet's talk page.
Message added 23:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 23:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I know articles on Wikipedia do not belong to anyone, but I do have a personal attachment to the Progeroid syndrome article. So I want to personally thank you for taking your time out to copy-edit it and correct any mistakes I made. I want to let you know I appreciate it! Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 17:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Your post today[edit]

Hi Iztwoz!
Many thanks for your kind message and comment on my page.
Pleased to see how well you have settled in. Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 11:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For your tireless work with the Guild of Copyeditors, I award you this barnstar. Your selfless copyediting is an invaluable resource to the community. Neelix (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much[edit]

I appreciate your help on Lower limbs venous ultrasonography. Doc Elisa 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Your help is priceless and I have no words to say how much I'm grateful. Doc Elisa 21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hyper-debit is the situation were there is an augmentation of the debit in one vein. An exemple of hyper-debit is the presence of an arterio-venous fistula. Another example is in a situation of deep venous thrombosis: the superficial venous system is called to drain much more blood than usually - veins can be enlarged but valves can be intact. Eye image or eye sign is the same thing. We can use "eye sign" as it is on papers. Thank you again Doc Elisa 20:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Peer req: Sex + Water Pollution[edit]

Howdy! Found you listed as a potential volunteer for science / biology related topics - If you have a moment, I'd like to get some more eyes looking at the peer review of Sex effects of water pollution, it appears to be a bit quackery/bias-heavy, but I don't know if it qualifies for deletion outright because of that... Cheers, —Hobart (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Thanks for helping my students with their article Beautiful Store. They told me they are very grateful for your assistance! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Allow Me[edit]

Apologies if I caused any edit conflicts during your copy edit. I had forgotten about my outstanding request for the copy edit, since the article had already undergone the Good article nomination process. (I work on so many articles at once, I forgot!) I am so glad to have you working on the article, and I will wait until you have finished to see all of your edits and ask any questions I may have. I did remove "very" (which you added) from the lead, referring to the reception, and I also removed the comma before "Public Art Collection" since the source did not include the punctuation (and the lead became inconsistent with the infobox). Let me know your thoughts! Thanks for your contributions to the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If you'll let me know when you are finished, I will be sure to add the GOCE template to the article's talk page. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank you for working on the Allow Me article! Another Believer (Talk) 19:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hinduism[edit]

Thanks! I'd put in many references due to the continuous edit-wars at India-related articles. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lower limbs venous ultrasonography[edit]

The article Lower limbs venous ultrasonography you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Lower limbs venous ultrasonography for comments about the article. Well done! SpinningSpark 17:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Unipolar brush cell was accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Unipolar brush cell, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Asura[edit]

Hello Iztwoz, please join the discussion at Talk:Asura#Capitalization. Thank you, SchreiberBike talk 21:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls[edit]

Hi Iztwoz,

Thank you again for copyediting the Nefarious: Merchant of Souls article. I have submitted the article for a featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Iztwoz,
Thank you very much for contributing to the Nefarious: Merchant of Souls FAC. The article has been featured and I have nominated it to go up on the main page here.
Neelix (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Germinal stage[edit]

Hello Iztwoz,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Germinal stage for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Human embryogenesis.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Pahazzard (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please consider adding your valuable contributions to the articles: Human embryogenesis and Prenatal development Pahazzard (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing anatomy 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:

Sobo 1909 589.png
  • Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Anatomy 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 anatomy 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 anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article.
  • Lastly, why not try and strive to create a good article! Anatomical 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 Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages!--LT910001 (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Help required(Grammar department)[edit]

Could you help me out in these articles?

  1. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences
  2. Kolkata Metro

Guru-45 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch!I'll fix what I can.Guru-45 (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Thanks for your recent edits to Anatomy articles, they're really helping to improve their overall quality and readability. Keep up the good work! LT910001 (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Cervix[edit]

Hi Iztwoz! I'm working on getting Cervix up to GA-status, but I'm having a bit of trouble and was wondering if a second pair of eyes could help. I've inherited the Function section and I'm not quite happy with how it looks, but I'm really not sure what to do with it. I was wondering, if you had time, whether you could cast your eyes over that section (and maybe the rest of the article if you had time) and give it a bit of a run-over? I more-or-less think that the formatting is quite strange, but am not sure where to go. I'd be very grateful, editing can get somewhat lonely sometimes! --LT910001 (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Digestive system (human)[edit]

Human gastrointestinal tract seems to cover that exact topic area, you know... Dolescum (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There are in the Digestion article's section on human digestion, though. Dolescum (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out, Dolescum. I've started a discussion on this at WP:ANATOMY, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#Organization_of_Gastrointestinal_tract_articles. I personally feel we need a Human digestive system and Gastrointestinal tract article, as we do have articles on other systems. One solution might be to move some of the content from Digestion to Digestive system. Anyhow, please feel free to discuss this at the link above - hopefully we can centralise the discussion about this there. --LT910001 (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

GA[edit]

Thanks for your many, many copyedits and alterations to Cervix. I have completed the history section, made some final changes, and nominated Cervix for GA. Wish us luck! --LT910001 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Anatomy quarterly newsletter[edit]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#2)

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

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

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

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

An editor might edit:

  • By importance. A user can use our assessment table to view articles by their importance and class. The vital articles project provides a list of designated 'Vital articles' for Wikipedia.
  • By popularity. One way to edit is to edit the most popular pages -- the majority of these need help, and editing is sure to bring benefit to many users.
  • By need. There is always cleanup that needs to be done, whether commenting on mergers, adding infoboxes or adding images. A cleanup list of all tagged articles is now available here: [1]
  • By interest. A series of inter-project categories has been developed to help facilitate inter-Wiki and inter-professional collaboration. These categories sort our articles into organs, system, gross anatomy, neuroanatomy, and several other categories. This should offer a buffet of articles for any interested editors! See here for more details.
  • By topic. Wikipedia's anatomical categories may provide impetus, as may editing a suite of related-articles, using a parent article such as ear for direction. A collection of series are slowly being rolled-out, including one for epithelia and for articles about the gastrointestinal wall, which also act as groups of topics. Templates, as documented on our main page, provide a similar categorisation.
  • By demand. Discussions relating to Anatomy are frequent occurrences on the talk pages for WPMED and WP:ANATOMY. Such topics almost always cry out for more editing.
  • By recent changes. One way to choose a destination for editing is to check the recent changes, revert vandalism, integrate/source edits, or generally collaborate in improving articles that are receiving contributions from other editors. This can be found in the here.
  • By chance. A user is always welcome to improve articles that they randomly 'bump into' by Wiki-surfing or by having bumped for other reasons into a particular article or topic that needs improvement

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

Mergers[edit]

Thanks a lot for helping with the mergers! I personally feel there are many benefits to mergers where consensus exists, so thanks for pushing some of these along, and doing it so thoroughly! When you're performing the merge on the page, remember to replace all the text on the merged page with the redirect and an {{R from merge}} tag (see WP:MERGE), that way we won't have future editors accidentally editing the merged pages. --LT910001 (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Iztwoz! Thank you for systematically working through the list of mergers. I reverted your merge of Nasopharynx. I try and work cooperatively with other editors, so if someone objects to a merge I will either leave it for consensus (there is no rush), or if that doesn't appear forthcoming after a few months, remove the merge tags with no consensus. Unfortunately, I don't think it's fair on the WP Community to go about performing mergers when, excluding the proposer, the commenters are split on the merge. At any rate, there is so much that needs doing that a merge not performed can be quickly forgotten, even if it is something I personally think would benefit the encyclopedia =P. I hope you are well, --LT910001 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Operculum[edit]

Thanks for that. I've read authors using "operculum" for the whole bit of cortex covering the insula, and "parietal operculum", "frontal operculum", etc. for the different bits, and I tried to retain it ... but it's clumsy expression, and I'm quite happy to leave it out. Thanks for all your efforts in anatomy here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Myotome (anatomy)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Myotome (anatomy) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This seems to be a dictionary definition only. Is there anything more to say about the subject? If not, it has no place in an encyclopedia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 23:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello PamD the page was made simply to disambiguate from myotome (embryology) it might be able to be redirected somewhere instead - I shall have a look. Iztwoz (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I see that another member of the Anatomy Wikiproject has merged the two topics. I'll leave it to you lot now - but please remember not to make page moves without following implications such as incoming links. PamD 07:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Myotome (disambiguation) links to two pages that redirect to the same page, Myotome. Unless these two pages are made different, the disambiguation page should be deleted. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject![edit]

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • 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 can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • 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 anatomical 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!
  • 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!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 12:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Etymology[edit]

Hi Iztwoz. this edit was contrary to policy. Wikipedia articles are about things, not generally about words. The proper subject of the Embolism article is embolisms themselves, not the word embolism. A properly written Wikipedia article does not begin with a lead sentence of the form "In x, y refers to...", but rather a sentence of the form "In x, a y is...". The etymology of the article title is not relevant to the topic of the article. In most cases, etymology should not be included at all. Where it is appropriate, it rarely belongs in the lead section, and never belongs in the lead sentence. The lead sentence of an article is crucial: it must clearly state and/or explain the topic of the article. Introducing irrelevant material like the etymology of the article title breaks up this crucial sentence and distracts from the information that is actually important.

This is a common mistake, because people are used to dictionaries, which put the etymology first, before the definition of the word. This style is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and is contrary to the policy.--Srleffler (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Srleffler Firstly I didn't write the article - I was just replacing something that you had removed. I agreed with your removal of the inclusion of the plural. However, I think you are mistaken in your interpretation of policy. WP is not a dictionary means that a page created needs to be more than just a definition which a lot of entries are. You tell me that the style is not appropriate for Wikipedia - then why is this same format been accepted for nine out of ten articles I've had a quick look at including featured articles - Hippocampus and Cerebellum see also, homeostasis, tetrapod, amphibian, cortex, cenozoic, thoracic diaphragm.............Iztwoz (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at the first row in the table at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Major differences. It is explicit about what is and is not the proper focus of a Wikipedia article. Further down in the policy there is a discussion on the form of the first sentence, regarding "refers to" vs. "is". As I mentioned, this is a common error. You can find many articles with this problem, waiting to be fixed.--Srleffler (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Srleffler Personally I appreciate the translation of the word where appropriate; it would seem from the number of entries that incorporate this including featured articles - that it is also appreciated by the majority. I would point you to WP:Basic copyediting - Etiquette section which suggests that if you want to dispute an edit you take it to the talk page for open discussion. As regards the change from refers to, to is, I agree totally, I never made anything of this. Thank you Iztwoz (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting[edit]

The Coal India and the Bombay Stock Exchange articles require extensive copy-editing,I feel. Guru-45 (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caenorhabditis elegans[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Caenorhabditis elegans you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Narayanese -- Narayanese (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caenorhabditis elegans[edit]

The article Caenorhabditis elegans you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Caenorhabditis elegans for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Narayanese -- Narayanese (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

BMJ[edit]

Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to BMJ's library: link to form. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Nikkimaria, Iztwoz (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
For your massive amount of high-quality work on anatomy articles! I don't even have time to keep up reading your content! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sebaceous gland[edit]

I've never done a GA review before. I tried to do the right thing, and get someone to help, but that isn't going as quickly as I had hoped. I am aware of the general criteria, and haven't formally applied those yet - I decided to review the prose and anything else that jumped out at me. I will address the other issues soon, but I wanted to get started. I want to check refs, and have a request in for JStor access, not sure how long that will take.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sebaceous gland[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sebaceous gland you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Sphilbrick -- Sphilbrick (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that you've begun addressing some of my observations and comments. Please be aware that this is my first GA review, so I am still learning how to do it. I know I need to go through the formal list, but wanted to do so after seeing how you responded to my initial comments. That went well, if the green checks are any indication.
I need to address two other meta-issues:
  1. I've applied for JStor access, but that process appears to be glacial. My plan was to look at each of the sources to confirm that they support the text. I can do some, but some are not available to me. I guess I can check with someone who has JStor access, but I assume you have access to all the articles. I'm not thinking I will identify some I would like to look at, and ask you or find someone with access.
  2. I requested a mentor ten days ago, and so far, crickets. I'd really like to have someone more experienced make sure I am doing this correctly. Asking the correct way failed, I'll try plan B, as soon as I figure out Plan B.
I have a vague recollection that the structure of Sebaceous gland was similar to another article, which is a GA. If you know which one, I could track down who did the GA review, and they may be willing to check my work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought this article which you included as reference was fascinating. There were some things in that source that I thought would be a good addition to the article. I am mentioning them here, rather than the GA review because I think they are nice to have as opposed to required for GA.
The notion that a sweat drop which falls off the body is a waste is something that makes sense when you read it, but had never occurred to me. The function of sebum in reducing the loss of sweat drops is quite interesting in general, and as an evolutionary factor. That sebum can simultaneously help when it is hot (keeping sweat drops form falling off) and cold (to repel rain) is also quite an accomplishment.
Again, feel free to add it if you choose, but do not feel that it is a requirement for GA.
I'm almost done the GA review. I'm asking one other experienced editor to take a look.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sebaceous gland[edit]

The article Sebaceous gland you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Sebaceous gland for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The instructions say a bot will come by to add the GA icon. I will probably check myself, but let me know if it doesn't show up soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting this to GA, Iztwoz, it was great to work with you on it! --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all your work on anatomy-related articles. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Not My Life[edit]

Hi Iztwoz,

Thank you again for your copyediting help and FAC comments in the past. I have nominated another article for featured status: Not My Life. It is about another human trafficking documentary film. If you have time to contribute to the discussion, any constructive comments would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iztwoz,
Thank you for your comments at the Not My Life FAC. Rhodes and I have had an extensive exchange there, and the article now appears to be to her satisfaction. Do you feel that there are any remaining issues that need addressing?
Neelix (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Doubloon.jpg The Golden Doubloon of Anatomy
You have been awarded the prestigious Golden Doubloon for your contributions to anatomy articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions!

For the large amount of work on many anatomy articles, I hereby present you with the golden doubloon of anatomy, an award bestowed on only a few! (so far 2, I think) --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Autonomic nervous system[edit]

Have a look... I think enough said... --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter[edit]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#3)

Previous -- Next
Released: 1 November, 2014
Editor: Tom (LT)

Hello WP:Anatomy participant! This is the third quarterly update, documenting what's going on in WikiProkect Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list

What's new
What's going on
  • We fly past 10,000 articles (now already up to 10,150). Why is this important? Articles under our scope are automatically included in popular pages, the cleanup list, and will be included as the recent changes list is updated.
  • A discussion about the formatting of infoboxes.
  • A lot of editing on the heart article -- can it make it to GA?
  • The medical newsletter, WP:PULSE finds its feet, and Anatomy and Physiology are featured as a subsection!
  • A new WP:WikiProject Animal anatomy (WP:ANAN) is created to focus on animal anatomy.
How can I contribute?
  • Welcome new editors! We have a constant stream of new editors who are often eager to work on certain articles.
  • We are always looking to collaborate! If you're looking for editors to collaborate with, let us know on our talk page!
  • Continue to add high-class reliable sources
  • Browse images on WikiCommons to improve the quality of images we use on many articles.
Quarterly focus - Anatomical terminology

Anatomical terminology is an essential component to all our articles. It is necessary to describe structures accurately and without ambiguity. It can also be extremely confusing and, let's face it, it's likely you too were confused too before you knew what was going on ("It's all Greek to me!" you may have said, fairly accurately).

In the opinion of this editor, it's very important that we try hard to describe anatomy in a way that is both technically accurate and accessible. The majority of our readers are lay readers and will not be fluent in terminology. Anatomy is a thoroughly interesting discipline, but it shouldn't be 'locked away' only to those who are fluent in the lingo – exploring anatomy should not be limited by education, technical-level English fluency, or unfamiliarity with its jargon. Anatomical terminology is one barrier to anatomical literacy.

Here are four ways that we can help improve the readability of our anatomical articles.

  1. Substitute. Use words readers are familiar with -- there is no need to use anatomical terminology unless necessary!
    Innervated by
    The nerve that supplies X is...
  2. Explain. When using terminology, remember readers will likely not understand what you mean, so consider adding an explanation and providing context. Use wikilinks for terms that a reader may not know.
    "The triceps extends the arm" may not be readily understood. A small addition may help the reader:
    "The triceps extends the arm, straightening it". Consider:
  3. Separate. Do not use long, complicated sentences. Don't write discursive, long comparisons unless needed. Start with simple information first, then get progressively more complex. Separate information by paragraph and subsection. Bite-sized information is much more easier to digest for readers who don't have a solid anatomical foundation
  4. Eliminate. Not all information is necessary on every article. Hatnotes are a simple and effective way to direct readers to another article. Don't provide long lists of synonyms of names for structures that an article isn't about. If a sentence has been paraphrased to the hilt, consider that several editors are indicating it may need to be simplified.
    "The other branches of the trigeminal nerve are the opthalmic nerve (nervus opthalmicus) and mandibular nerve (nervus mandibularis)"
    "The other branches of the trigeminal nerve are the opthalmic nerve and mandibular nerve" is much more easily digestible

This essay is provided in full on WP:ANATSIMPLIFY.

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

Template box[edit]

Hello Iztwoz, I hope that you're well. Thanks for running over Bone, it's always nice to have someone to collaborate with. I created this template so that on a few articles, the 'bone' navboxes can be easily managed. You may find it useful (for perusing purposes as well). I've also made a proposal on WT:ANAT about getting rid of the 'GA' numbers which I find distracting and unhelpful. The template box ({{Human bones}}) contains, I think, our human bone templates and is useful as a single box for comparative and standardisation purposes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Refs[edit]

For major topics we just use secondary sources. This [3] is a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cerebellum[edit]

I have nominated Cerebellum for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 December[edit]

Lionel de Jersey Harvard[edit]

Thanks for your help! EEng (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

An edit on adrenal incidentalomas[edit]

Hey Iztwoz, let me start by saying that I really appreciate all the edits you make in anatomy articles, they contribute a lot to their quality. I noticed though that in the article Adrenal gland#Adrenal tumors you added the statement that adrenal incidentalomas are asymptomatic, and I wanted to discuss that fact if you don't mind. By your edit summary I guess you added the word to make the previous article consistent with Incidentaloma, which states that they are in fact asymptomatic. I feel that they aren't, and the article contradicts itself in the following sections (i.e. Incidentaloma#Lumbosacral spine). To be more precise, there is a reference in the source I added to the section at Adrenal gland that says that some adrenal incidentalomas are indeed associated with a number of symptoms. If you want to read the article I leave you a link, it's free for anyone to read: Approach to the Patient with an Adrenal Incidentaloma. Have a look if you want and tell me what you think. Look especially at the sections Hypercortisolism and Pheocromocytoma in Diagnostic strategies. Maybe we can add to the text that most are asymptomatic, but a number of them are associated with symptoms. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answering so quickly ;). I didn't really know if you wanted me to write in your talk page or mine, is it ok if I reply to you here? My take on incidentalomas is that they may cause symptoms that aren't the main reason for the complementary imaging and they are related to the symptoms after they are found. The patient may not have symptoms that lead the clinician to a direct suspicion of an adrenal mass (i.e. obesity is quite nonspecific, but it's present in some incidentally found adenomas causing subclinical Cushing's) and may consult for symptoms not related to those caused by the adrenal mass at all. Either way, the literature varies widely in definition and since most of them are nonfunctioning I'm ok with leaving the text as now, but I felt that this is something worth of discussion. Have a nice day ;) --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Embolism[edit]

Hi, re: intro to Embolism, i agree "object" isn't right, but the way it is now ("blood clot, fat globule or gas bubble") suggests an exclusive list of causes. Other things (broken parts of catheters, implanted objects, bone, etc, as well as iatrogenic embolism material) can embolize, too. We should suggest that clots, fat and gas are just examples. Cheers, BakerStMD T|C 20:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I am astounded at the amount of content that you have created in/for Wikipedia...you are the type of editor/writer that I want to be.   Bfpage |leave a message  21:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Celebrate[edit]

Clownscloudsblahblah Yoor Know Phool
Have a humorous day filled with lots of PHUN on this April Fools Day 2015. Any annoyance is purely coincidental.   Bfpage |leave a message  09:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Mind Meld[edit]

Hi Iztwoz,

I have submitted another article for featured article status, and, because I have greatly appreciated your reviews in my past FACs, I thought that I might request your thoughts at this one as well. The article is called Mind Meld and, despite being about another documentary film, is a bit more light-hearted than the previous ones. If you have time, any comments you would be willing to provide at the FAC would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Iztwoz,
Thank you very much for the support, encouragement, and copy editing! Might you be willing to perform a source review for this FAC as well?
Neelix (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review of Heart[edit]

Hi Iztwoz, I saw you editing Heart just now, and wanted to mention that a peer review has been requested for it here. I thought you might want to participate in that. Cheers, BakerStMD 15:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Copy edit peer review[edit]

Good morning, I just had my first go at copy editing an article and I would appreciate a peer review to make sure I am on the right lines. The article I worked on is: K. Alison Clarke-Stewart, a child psychologist and I notice you do life sciences so thought this might be in your ballpark.

There is one sentence in the article that I suspect could be improved but I don't know what it is supposed to be saying, so I have left it for the moment. It currently reads: ``Her initial academic appointment as assistant professor was in the department of Education and Committee on Human Development, and the College at the University of Chicago in 1974."

Many thanks for your kind attention. Cottonshirtτ 08:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Nephron[edit]

Not sure what happened at Nephron - seems we had an edit conflict, which resulted in me reverting you, which was not what I intended - sorry if it was my mistake - Arjayay (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

JC's Girls[edit]

Hi Iztwoz,

Thank you again for reviewing my past FACs. I have another one up now for the JC's Girls article. Might you be willing to participate in the discussion?

Neelix (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter #4[edit]

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter #4

Previous
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.

Templates

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.

Wikidata

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)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fran Giampietro[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Fran Giampietro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, unable to determine notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WWGB (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Fran Giampietro) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Fran Giampietro, Iztwoz!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please expand this stub with more sources!

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

minimally invasive procedure[edit]

I went with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles for the "minimally invasive" part of the article...how should the "non-invasive" procedures be presented in your opinion? thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Barnstar of Life.png The Medicine Barnstar
Iztwoz, for your ongoing effort and knowledge on Minimally invasive procedure. thank you Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sisters at Heart[edit]

Hi Iztwoz,

Might you be willing to review another article I have up for featured status? It's called "Sisters at Heart". Any comments you would be willing to provide in the discussion would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your change on Hyaluronan[edit]

The name "hyaluronan" is more appropriate than "hyaluronic acid". Hyaluronic acid was an older name (by Meyer and Palmer in 1934). The name was changed to "Hyaluronan" in 1986, based on the fact that the polysaccharide is synthesized by mammalian cells and certain species of microbes as a "salt", not a "acid". The name "Hyaluronan" has been used much more than "Hyaluronic acid" in the field since. Reference: John H. Brekke, Gregory E. Rutkowski. Kipling Thacker. Chapter 19 Hyaluronan. In: An Introduction to Biomaterials, Second Edition (Editor: Jeffrey O. Hollinger) 2011. Best. --Leeearnest2012 (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Leeearnest2012 have replied on talk page. thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Human lung changes[edit]

I deleted your edits on Human lung because they implied a cause and effect relationship between the position of the liver and the size of the right lung. If you have a peer reviewed reference suggesting the relationship as causal, please reintroduce the statement, but as far as I know this is not the case. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Canals of Hering[edit]

Your recent edit to primary biliary cirrhosis sent me to references to find out exactly where these are. The current WP entry on canals of Hering describes them as between the bile canaliculi and inter-lobular ducts. This ref [4] (already cited there) seems more intra- rather than inter-lobular. Do you think an edit is needed to the canals entry? We should revise the inter-hepatic (lobular) part in the PBC entry. Jrfw51 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jrfw51 - sorry that was my mistake - have put it right. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Image typo[edit]

Hi,

You pinged me over on my talk page on commons about an image, but I wasn't able to locate the one you were referring to. Could you point to it again please? P.S. I answer faster when pinged on Wikipedia.

Best, -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Slowness to respond[edit]

Sorry, things have been happening quite quickly in my country so I haven't been very responsive over the last day or two. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant[edit]

Hi Iztwoz,

I don't know how busy you are these days, but if you have time to review an article I currently have up for featured status, I would be grateful for any comments you might provide at the FAC. The article is called Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant.

Neelix (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

hi[edit]

would you mind looking at the symptoms section of lupus nephritis? (ive been editing all day)thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

[5]thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

endoscopy[edit]

I saw you reverted my explanatory edit to the endoscopy page. The page has issues that cause it to be confusing. I put some discussion on the talk page. Since you've shown some interest in the integrity of the article perhaps we could discuss what the article should be in the talk page. Kd4ttc (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fran Giampietro[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Fran Giampietro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

source is a WP mirror

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Supratrochlear vein[edit]

Why did you revert the edit ? Luckydhaliwal (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Iztwoz. You have new messages at Luckydhaliwal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, re grey matter. The new headings and coherence among them is a good improvement: Thank you! However most of my edits to the grey matter page involve incorrect referencing, double referencing, broken sentences, and causal language not warranted by the data. I removed the "thinking about" sentence: I believe that was intended to refer to a paper which asked people to imagine being poor and showed this reduced their working memory, but without a citation, who knows. It is now deleted. If there's something substantive, let's chat on its talk page? best Tim bates (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Golden Galen barnstar[edit]

Bronze prize medal awarded by the Pharmaceutical Society, Lo Wellcome L0059076.jpg The Golden Galen barnstar
You have been awarded the prestigious Golden Galen award for your contributions to anatomy articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions!

Thanks for your many, many contributions to anatomy articles this year! Our suite of anatomy articles has definitely improved over the last 1-2 years. What are your thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


Your change to Stomites[edit]

Hi Iztwoz,

I am not sure why you reverted to the previous version of Somites; in particular, I am concerned about the previous version stating that skin is derived from somites. While this is technically correct, it is important to note that, because somites are composed of mesoderm, dermis, rather than skin (which implies an inclusion of epidermis) results from their development. This is not my area of expertise, so if I am wrong, please help me to understand why. Here is my source and reason for wanting to edit the somite page: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10085/


Thank you for your response. While the source I referred to stated that "Somites give rise to the cells that form the vertebrae and ribs, the dermis of the dorsal skin, the skeletal muscles of the back, and the skeletal muscles of the body wall and limbs" in the first paragraph, it is later stated (under the heading 'Specification and commitment of somitic cell types > Differentiation within the somite that "Somites form (1) the cartilage of the vertebrae and ribs, (2) the muscles of the rib cage, limbs, and back, and (3) the dermis of the dorsal skin. "

Spiral organ?[edit]

Usage disagrees with your assertion.] Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted you at Eustacian tube, too, without checking usage, because there was a recent RM discussion on the talk page in which that proposal failed. What is TA? Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for answering at my talk page. We can keep it there. Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you (and me)![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg For a short coffee break with a wiki-colleague whilst editing Heart. Thanks for your help on Lung and your many mergers which I've just noticed :). How's it going? Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hepatitis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Self-limiting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciation[edit]

I very much appreciate all your work on the article Vulva. Your touch is precise, concise and well-reasoned. I will need to revert your removal of the anus as part of the vulva, though. In my three MEDRS sources, the anus is included as part of the vulva, though not a genital structure. The term 'genital structure' is not used in any of the sources that I've found. There are other tissues that are not necessarily 'genital' structures in the vulvar region (muscles, lymphatics, etc.). The Very Best of Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
Your work to provide references is an example to all other medical editors. I admire your work.   Bfpage |leave a message  02:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vulva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scar tissue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

this edit is one that had content and a reference to support the content. The content you inserted has no reference and appears to be at worst, an opinion, and at best simply not referenced. Can you clarify? Since the reference I used is from 2011, it is seems improbable that the term could be out of use in the span of five years. The Very Best of Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bfpage - it seems to be another case, similar to using a minority view. The entry for Urogenital diaphragm is very clear that it is no longer valid even though it says it is still used by some etc - (there are still dinosaurs at large).

medilexicon.com states the following: ....an obsolete concept of a trilaminar, triangular sheet of muscle and fascia spanning the ischiopubic rami; composed of the sphincter urethrae and the deep transverse perineal muscles (which were said to be flat muscles forming a continuous sheet), plus the perineal membrane below and a superior fascia of the diaphragm above. Evidence of the latter is lacking. The muscle-containing space between the fascial structures was formerly referred to as the deep perineal space. The terms urogenital diaphragm and deep perineal space are not recognized by Terminologia Anatomica due to more accurate understanding of the morphology, especially of the sphincter urethrae.

The freedictionary states: urogenital diaphragm a traditional but no longer valid concept that superior and inferior layers enclose the sphincter urethrae and deep transverse perineal muscles and together form a musculomembranous sheet that extends between the ischiopubic rami. and [[6]] clearly uses triangle. --Iztwoz (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tongue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foramen cecum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Esophagus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Limb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Craniosynostosis into Skull. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dervish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Issues in Cerebellum article[edit]

Hi,
I'm editor-in-chief of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, and we're about to consider a snapshot of the Cerebellum article for publication in this journal: Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Cerebellum. This would make it easier for external sources to use and cite this work, and after we've advanced the journal these publications will be searchable in PubMed as well. As you have been one of the most active contributors to this article, we would like to include you in the "author" list, but we want these to be the authors' real names. If you approve, you may edit that article to change your username to your real name, or include it in a reply to me. Otherwise, you will be attributed by a link to the history page of the Wikipedia article. Also, the work has undergone peer review, and I'd appreciate if you could have a look into the peer review comments, and help amending the mentioned issues before publication in the journal: /Cerebellum#Peer review. You may also check at its history to see what corrections have already been made by other authors.
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Great work on the article! The only issue left I find from the peer review is to add some references to the last paragraph in the introduction. After that, I think it's ready for publication. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The article is now published. Thank you for your help! Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Survival of motor neuron protein[edit]

Hi,

You keep moving Survival of motor neuron to various names. It would be kind if you at last notified on the Talk page of your intention. Your move to Survival motor neuron was actually fine with me – the name is also used in the literature - but "survival of motor neuron protein" is plainly wrong as article title. We don't add classes to the article title. We have article "SMN1" and not "SMN1 gene"; etc. Will you mind if I revert to "survival motor neuron"? Thanks. — kashmiri TALK 22:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Why this revert [7]? Does not really matter as User:Pandeysandeep work is copied and pasted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doc James this was completely unintentional - I don't know what happens - sometimes a box flashes up asking if I want to revert or cancel and I click cancel and the revert goes ahead - it's happened before. What can I say? --Iztwoz (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
No worries :-) I imagined it was something like that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Tongue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Copula and Median sulcus
Systemic lupus erythematosus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to PAR1

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
You do excellent work. Many thanks for all you do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Moves and merges[edit]

Hi. Today you made some moves of anatomy articles from XXX articulation to XXX joint and I know you do a lot of mergers as well. When you do could you please change the WP:AN banner at the affected talk-pages as well (so that are articles still are rated by class and importance and so our redirects are still classified as such)? I think, I have made all the changes needed today, but if you would change the banners in the future I would be grateful. I can recommend the rater gadget it is fast and easy to use and does save a lot of time. Have a nice day. -JakobSteenberg (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Microorganism[edit]

You deleted the word "most" from the sentence about protozoa whilst editing Microorganism. Most was included there to recognise that some protozoa such as Stentor are readily visible to the unaided eye and might be considered by some to be macroscopic organisms. I am interested in your reasoning for removing the word "most". Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   14:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi.I am not a regular editor.I was reading the article "astra' and found many factual inaccuracies,particularly the one where it says sudarshan chakra can be stopped by lord shiva.I tried to edit it,but some editor is reverting it,and i found in history that other editors have found this inaccurate too.I have found supporting links in google books,but don't know how to substantiate it.can you please look into it? 117.201.99.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ileocolic lymph nodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)