User talk:Mikael Häggström

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


2007, 2008-2013, 2014-2016

Thank you[edit]

Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
Thank you for all the great work you are doing promoting Wikipedia and medicine. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I warmly appreciate your contributions as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts[edit]

MedicineBarnstar.png The Medicine Barnstar
Thanks for the great work that you are doing and would continue to do for medical content on Wikipedia as well as for all you have done for WikiJournal of Medicine. DiptanshuTalk 08:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Diptanshu, and likewise, I greatly appreciate your contributions! Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC) nominated at WP:RfD[edit]

Hi there -- I am writing to let you know that a redirect you created,, has been nominated for deletion. You can participate in the discussion at by clicking this link. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Credentials for peer reviewing an article on the hippocampus[edit]


WikiJournal of Medicine now has a submission, consisting of the Hippocampus article. If you're interested in peer reviewing it, I first want you to provide some credentials of your medical expertise, such as a link to a reliable webpage, or copies of certification documents. You may email it to, and I will then keep it confidential.

Best regards,

Mikael Haggstrom

I have sent it today.--Ashashyou (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Mikael Häggström. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holiday![edit]

Mikael Häggström, Happy Holiday/New Year!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


Are you a graphic artist or a physician? I LOVE your work. Do you take requests? I need some illustrations of obstetric fistulas. There are many types and I am working on articles for the different fistulas. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm delighted that you like my work, Barbara! However, I will not be able to make additional obstetric illustrations in any foreseeable future. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Mirror, mirror on the wall listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mirror, mirror on the wall. Since you had some involvement with the Mirror, mirror on the wall redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion in this case, but thanks for letting me know. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


I'm sorry but I want to make sure. What is the first step to do if I want to publish a focused review in Wikijournal of Medicine? If you can, please answear on my talk on polish Wikipedia website: (New section=Dodaj temat) Kubaj98 (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you've found interest in publishing in WikiJournal of Medicine! I made a reply there. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


Good morning I've just started to write an focused review for journal. But I'm doing it the very first time (excluding wikipedia articles) - can you please take a look at it (right now it's a beggining of the beggining's beggining, but I mean mainly style of this text - if it is suitable). Project is here:

Greeting Kubaj98 (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The format is all well. As long as it's in wiki code, it's easy to integrate into the journal, and then into other Wikimedia projects. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Peer review finished[edit]

Peer review finished at the discussion pages of the articles: The Hippocampus and Acute gastrointestinal bleeding from a chronic cause: a teaching case report. regards, --Ashashyou (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic, Ashashyou! These are lots of useful aspects for improving the articles. I will make sure the corresponding authors are notified about this. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Mikael Häggström - a first query re the latest review - just to check whether you are in agreement with all the proposals. They would make the page different from the usual style of Wikipedia entries in the use of Fig 1. Fig 2. etc. Rendering all the images as black and white would see the removal of those that rely on colour for their meaning. Haven't had much time yet to look at rest but shall do - first impression was a welcome enthusiasm! Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iztwoz. There are indeed many comments on the layout. I will check with the board which of them we will recommend, and I will get back to you afterwards. As for the coloring, the images should not be rendered black and white, but I think the point is that they should optimally be marked or properly described in the caption so their information is preserved even if you would print the article in black and white.
Also, the "The Wiki journal of Medicine need to state clearly the target readers of its article" seems to be a matter for the editorial board. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Another idea[edit]

Good morning I've decided to stop working on article about DA closure, I've changed subject and started writing about something different. May you take a look at it:

I would be thankful Greetings Kubaj98 (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kubaj98. The layout of the article is all right (but the last section header has a typo). Regarding the content, I don't directly see any review source, so any use of content for Wikipedia is currently very limited, yet I think a publication like this has a good chance in WikiJournal of Medicine in its own right. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast opinion, but can you explain me what is the difference (i mean that "in its own right"). Kubaj98 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Preferably, the articles published in WikiJournal of Medicine should contain useful information that can be used for other Wikimedia Projects, mainly Wikipedia. "In its own right", I mean that the article may not have that property, but is still a notable work. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Extra embryos listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Extra embryos. Since you had some involvement with the Extra embryos redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I made a comment there, thanks. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Important viruses listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Important viruses. Since you had some involvement with the Important viruses redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no particicular opinion in this case. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hippocampus article[edit]

Good job, the article provides an added value to scientific literature. It is fit for publishing. I have added few comments on the update. They are suggestions for further improvements that should not interfere with publishing the article. Good luck.--Ashashyou (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ashashyou! I've notified the author about the suggestions. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)