Talk goes here.
Hi there: there is nothinh wrong with those short stub articles , but why not write a full-length article on the Shoulder Joint?--Anthony.bradbury 21:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Because the shoulder joint is too complex for a single article. Please see the anatomy project. Mauvila 21:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.
I've noticed that you've been editing medicine related articles --from your contributions. We have a place where the medically minded people hang out: WikiProject "Clinical Medicine". You are invited to join or just browse the talk page, which is also known as the doctors' mess.
Thanks for all your work on the anatomy articles. --Arcadian 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's no problem for me. I have a gross anatomy test coming up on all the articles I am editing, so it really is a great review. Mauvila 00:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ampulla of Vater
Thank you for your clarification on the Biceps brachii page. I've been working to gather information and rewrite bits (which I have not yet added), but couldn't figure out how best to fix the confusing text about the triarticulation of the biceps. --EncycloPetey 01:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- No problem Mauvila 19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you were involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy, and I need some feedback! I had asked a question about the Tooth article because I do not know what would be the best way to deal with information on human vs animal teeth. Most of the information is about human teeth. So, should there be a separate "animal teeth" article that the section should show as the main article or should the majority of the content in the tooth article be moved to a "human tooth" (or would this be an exception to have plural: "human teeth") article? What are your thoughts on the matter? My initial instinct was to keep the article as is and make a new article about animal teeth for the section to refer to, but I did not know if most anatomy articles try to keep a certain format when addressing that issue. I have had one suggestion to move most of the information to a "human tooth" or "human teeth" article. I would appreciate any ideas. Thanks! - Dozenist talk 13:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have elaborated on your initial objections listed on talk:aquaretics and have cited sources describing what the term "aquaretic" really means as well as others which summarily reject the alternative remedies listed as aquaretics, by the technical definition (although one or two are actually diuretics.) Your comment would be greatly appreciated, as would your input on how to improve the (currently dismal, inaccurate, and unsourced) article. --Kajerm (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)