User talk:Tom (LT)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 8

Thanks

Thanks, I needed that. Always nice to be reminded that I'm not disliked by everyone! :) As to me taking a short break that will be a bit difficult since I recently got a bad case of the flue and all. Anyhow, looking forward for you're review; it still surprises me that nobody has reviewed it yet (I thought it was one of those articles which would spark interest). Thanks and cheers, --TIAYN (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering to review

Thank you for volunteering to review Gerontological nursing. I am a new editor and appreciate any help and feedback. LynnMcCleary (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

ty!

Thanks for starting the GA review of Azathioprine :)--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The two pistoles

Thank you so much for the beautiful coin! Iztwoz (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Tom. First of all, thanks for leaving such excellent feedback on the Raven Tales article which I posted for peer review. I intend to address your feedback and further nominate the article once all issues have been address. Please find my more detailed reply to your review on the actual review discussion page. Also, I forgot to mention, but I was wondering if you could tell me.. you mentioned nominating the article for Good Article status or Featured List status. Is it necessary that an article only be one or the other or could I nominate for both? If one must be chosen, which route would you recommend?

Also, as I came to your userpage about to leave you this message I noticed a past event you wrote about dealing with some frustrations with Wikipedia.

I was curious if you had any further thoughts on that matter you've yet to share, if anything become of it, and what your current opinion is on the subject that motivated your detachment then? The reason I ask is because I've recently been dealing with similar issues which have pretty much motivated me from doing any further contributing to Wikipedia after I was unable to get any discussion about the issues, let alone any resolution, and the one person who attempted to back me up and debate the merits of the attacks against me, was in turn banned as well. Though the issue was quite some time ago I'm still very much bothered by not even so much the interaction I was directly involved with but more so the fact that the content which sparked the whole controversy remains, no one even remotely addressed my comments, and another user was banned simply for trying to debate the issues.

Just to give you an idea why I'm really curious.. I'm currently contemplating raising an issue as a topic for discussion amongst the Wikimedia boardmembers noticeboard related to these sort of issues you wrote about because all other attempts that I recently made relating to my own personal issues at the time were left ignored. I'm just waiting until I feel as though I can see a broader scope of the issues and more objectively and it has not taken much effort to find out how not alone I am in recognizing these issues. I could have accept and gotten over my own experience but the more I see these related opinions the more I'm starting to think this is an issue that will only continue to be ignored until someone throws it front and center where it can't be ignored. And I'm more than happy to be the idiot to do so. While I may have not been able to find a volunteer with enough motivation to do something I'm pretty sure the good people who find Wikipedia to be a good enough cause to be a donor to will likely care. David Condrey (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving page

Please help to move Small intestine (TCM) to Small intestine (Chinese medicine) so that it is consistent with other pages. Thanks.--水水 (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. 水水, I'd be very grateful if you could add a small section to Anatomy articles in the 'Society and culture' section regarding their importance in Chinese medicine. This is something important that should be noted in the articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Mesentery

Hi LT910001, I'm wondering what to do with your copy-edit request for the above article at the GOCE Requests page. As you say, it's full of medical jargon; most of us probably aren't medically trained and haven't a clue what a "fold of visceral peritoneum" or a "distal mesorectum" might be, and the article doesn't explain anything. Before I do anything, I'd like to ask whether you could reduce the amount of jargon in the article—at least in the lead section—to give our team a chance of doing a decent copy-edit of it. We can place the request on hold so it doesn't lose its place in the "queue" (which isn't a formal queue!) while you work on it, or you can do that; put "'''On hold''' while the article is developed" or similar next to the request. Thanks for your time. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Baffle gab1978, thanks for your reply. Are there any academically-inclined editors in GOCE that might want to take this up? I stumbled upon this article and I think it is the academic largesse and jargon that makes it hard to read, rather than specifically anatomical content. I'll make some preliminary edits if that would help. By the way thanks to you all at WP:GOCE, it's a very useful project. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks LT, those edits would be most appreciated. Your assessment above is correct; the problem I have with the article is that it's like opening a medical textbook and being expected to understand what all these things are. I've copy-edited a lot of articles on WP, many of which are oscure or specialist in one way or another (Primary stage of socialism for example), and I almost always get the c/e done because specialist terms are explained for non-experts. Do you think doing the suggested merge might help comprehension? Or would that make the problem worse (I haven't checked yet)? Thanks for the thanks as well; we do our best. to be useful. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, let's sort out what folks want the article to cover first I think......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks Casliber; it's much clearer now and I can proceed with the c/e. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

copy-edit

Thanks Casliber for the preliminary edits and Baffle gab1978 for the copy-edits. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Err, you might wanna hold off until we sort out the merge but whatever.............. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought I should wait, but I've now finished my preliminary c/e. Would you like me to put the c/e request on hold whilst you merge the articles? Actually, I'll declare the request done for now, but you can tell me on my talk page (don't use ping; I don't have it enabled so I won't see it) when the merge is complete and ready for a proper c/e, and I'll do it. Point me to this post too, since I'm likely to forget easily! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

New editor

As a fresh editor here, it took a while to find out how to reply back to you and I actually hope you would be able to see this after posting it. I appreciate your time in welcoming new editors and glad to have such a good company and support. I would definitely keep in mind to update or add missing information in wikianatomy. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elarabym (talk • contribs) 06:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Elarabym! Wikipedia is a complex but sometimes rewarding environment, I'd encourage you to start slowly (correct small mistakes, add sources) and then gradually find out what you're interested it. Please let me know if there's anything I can help you with. As a last note, normally when leaving a comment we add this --~~~~, which adds your name and a timestamp so other users can keep track of who's talking. If you have any questions about anatomy or want to collaborate to improve an anatomy article, drop a message at WT:ANATOMY. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Trigeminal nerve


Your GA nomination of Pudendal nerve

The article Pudendal nerve you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pudendal nerve 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 Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you from HoneyBadger4

I really appreciate you welcoming me to the wikipedia community. I will admit that I am fairly quick to make edits. It's mostly due to my limited free time. When you put 80+/week into medical school it doesn't leave much time for recreation. I'm also still learning the wikipedia etiquette and how to remain calm when other editors attack my character. Regardless, I will take your comments to heart and work diligently to encourage active communication on any future edits that I make. Thanks again for welcoming me and thanks for your time. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome HoneyBadger4, as you know there are a quite a lot of anatomical articles needing attention, however that number is small enough that by making a lot of small changes (adding sources, copyedits, adding a sentence here or there ...) you really will make a difference. I'm working on Anatomical terms of location at the moment and one goal I have, although I know other users rightly feel the corpus of articles needs improving in general, is getting some our most popular articles (WP:ANAT500) to good article status. I think the articles Thyroid and Breast are getting close. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for your warm welcome. Being new I'm having a little tough time adapting to Wikipedia's environment, but hope getting well-adapted to it soon. Your 'welcome' has been an encouragement for me, Thank you Krsna ss (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)!

Hi Krsna ss, you're welcome. Wikipedia is pretty tough to get started, and I recommend starting gradually -- adding sources here or there, performing a copyedit or two when you see it needed -- before you get started on meatier contributions. If you need any help please feel free to ask, and feel free to leave a message at the talk page of WikiProject Anatomy if you'd like to collaborate or want some second opinions from other Anatomy editors. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not just anatomy articles for you

Because I'm used to seeing you at anatomy articles only, when it comes to Wikipedia articles, I was surprised to see you at this film article minutes ago. Flyer22 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Heh, yes I do occasionally poke my head out the window to see what's going on! --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Working on Boarder Articles

Hey LT910001 I will spend some time merging/cleaning up the boarders articles that you mentioned in the open tasks page. I feel like that is a good place to start learning to edit and work with the....for lack of a better word "code" on Wikipedia.HoneyBadger4 (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good place to start, HoneyBadger4. As always let me know if you need any help. I agree "coding" on Wikipedia is quite difficult, do you use the visual editor (WP:VE)? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I had not heard of it but I will be checking it out now. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

ANS

Yes...well.... have come across difficulties with these pages before. (Your recent edits have improved things). It seems that a consensus is needed as to the inclusion or not of the enteric nervous system, to make more sense. The lead includes it when it refers to three branches and the text itself just refers to two. The parasympathetic page makes a definite inclusion and the enteric page says now treated separately as a main division of the nervous system. It is probably worth checking out any recent references.- clearly its an important page (when clearer than mud!) - Cheers Iztwoz (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for the kind welcome, and for your appreciation of my crude efforts. Its as rare in life as it appears to be in my limited experience of Wikipedia to find pleasant and complimentary co-workers. I will consider your suggestions in due course regarding the wikiproject, and get back to you at a later date. In the meantime thank you for requesting my input into your proposed sidebar. I need to look further into the rules regarding sidebars as I have not edited them before. I try to err on the side of caution when making edits, in order to minimise any infractions I may unwittingly incur that may be reverted which would thus demonstrate a waste of time and effort on my part, however I still make mistakes. Regarding the sidebar, at first glance I'd say it needs more classical additions such as Aristotle, my namesake, and perhaps William Harvey. Thanks again for the welcome. Leonardo da VinciTalk 03:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, we are all trying our best here, and thanks for the advice. I don't know too much about the history of Anatomy, so I'm going to see what the infobox looks like when at proper size and then decide what to do with it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Cervix

Hey Tom, at some point I still think it'd be great to put this through FAC - mainly because it'll function like a detailed peer review (and hence function as a template for other anatomy articles) and then be eligible for mainpage viewing. I did finally track down some material on cervix in other mammals - only outstanding issues from the peer review were (1) an issue about which parts of cervix are drained by which lymphatics (I couldn't see the page in the source), (2) any material on society and culture, (3) formatting some refs and (4) double-checking images.

Hence when you have some time free, what say we make a final drive to finish it? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your offer to collaborate on Cervix, Casliber. Editing and discussions have not been pleasant there and I won't be collaborating, as I don't think either were conducted in atmosphere of mutual respect. That said, I'd be very happy to collaborate on improving a B-class article to FA with you in the future, just nominate an article and let me know. I've also dropped you an email. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Mergers Tibia

Hi Tom. I just wanted to let you know that I seen your reply in talk:tibia. It deserves a thoughtful answer; sadly I do not have the mental surplus to contribute to Wikipedia for the next couple of days... I will get back to you sometime in the weekend. Hopefully with something intelligent to say... but no promise there! Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Azathioprine/GA2

LT910001, the GA review you were conducting here seems to have gotten stalled. Can you please get it moving again? I'm not sure whether you're waiting on the nominator or the nominator is waiting on you (there were a couple of edits to the article made shortly after your initial post), but maybe a new post will clarify the current situation. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 15 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear reference bot, thank you for pointing this out. A more effective option would be primary prevention. Please direct your massive machine brain to devise a way humans can edit wikitext on low bandwidths. Yours truly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Navboxes

Hi Tom - thanks for comments and for the templates which are and will be very helpful. Just to say I've had a look at anatomy info box guidelines and have noted the use of two images - I've been using WP:MOS which advocates use of one image. These templates are very clear - thank you.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Template query

Hi Tom, have proposed merging visceral and parietal pleura (and then to pleural cavity) .... looking at thoracic cavity template -pulmonary ligament is included in pleurae but now redirects to root of lung. Was this a right move or should it instead go to pleural cavity? If OK there does p. ligament need to be removed from template? Thanks Iztwoz (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Medical advice

Template:Medical advice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Battery low

I have a battery low signal re our medic nav RfC issue. Mostly a non-WP energy loss, not from the topic itself. Could need some days to recharge. Will be back with five bars. :-) -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry DePiep, rest is always good! We'll continue the discussion when you feel ready --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Medicine navs

Hi, thank you for the great collaboration on Template_talk:Medicine_navs and Draft:Medicine_overview_of_systems. I've closed a few discussions on the talk page you were also involved in. I did that to clean up and work towards pushing the new templates live. I hope you agree there was consensus for that, if not, feel free to reopen any you want to further discuss. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks PizzaMan, good to work with you too, no objections from me. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Anatomy Wikiproject Goals

Hi Tom, I've been reading the Goals section at the Anatomy project and it seems like we're counting all the articles and pages of the project for the third goal: getting half of the articles at start-class or above. I mean, of the more than 10,000 articles listed, about 5k are redirect pages and around 1k are other non-article pages, which cannot get rated as start-class. Shouldn't we count only the encyclopedic articles? We may be closer than we think :P .
Uh, and thanks for the invitation to the project, very kind of you ;) --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tilifa Ocaufa, it's great to have another interested editor onboard! The "all articles" does indeed refer to all articles, so other pages are redirected. The figure's rough (I just use about 4500 articles overall) because I can't be bothered to compute it every month. PS thanks for your edits around the place, I've been noticing and it's much appreciated by me and current & future readers =P--Tom (LT) (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

—Given that the remedy has just been enacted, I am providing this notice to everybody who has participated in the discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page for their information. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Merges

I understand the name Template:Lymphatic system anatomy will have the content. I suggest change texts to show this: with> into. -DePiep (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I wrote this there. btw, did you consider doing this without TfD? 1. Make the big one, 2. redirect the others, being non-controversial (and within the MED/ANAT projects)? Next time. To check for problems, one can start with redirecting one, + project announcement. -DePiep (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Three reasons why I did this for this particular set: 1) involves a few templates and am reticent to perform merge straight off the bat 2) can use Twinkle to automatically mark the templates 3) A central place for discussion including WP users, you + Pizzaman, and other users. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
All fine. -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hi Tom (LT). Just realized my edit summaries were kind of misleading. Sorry for that.. I'll try and be clearer in future. Thanks again for the welcome message. tH0r (talk contribs) 09:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

hi tom

not to long ago I commented on your "nav boxes", I was wondering if you might have some time to look at Dyslexia im GA nominating it, and due to your medical knowledge you seem to be the best person to take a look, I of course, would be in your debt. thank you either way--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoops sorry about not responding, Ozzie10aaaa. Thanks for your message, but I don't think I will have enough time to give your article the attention it deserves... I suggest post on WT:MED, usually there are several editors who will be willing. I'll have a look but I can't promise anything . --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:AWB

Welcome to AWB. — xaosflux Talk 22:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Vertebral column and spinal cord

To prevent possible loss of information I subst'ed the two existing instances on Human vertebral column and Cervical vertebrae. I'm no expert on the subject matter, so I'm leaving the links to process further as you can't find them through what links here anymore. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Martijn Hoekstra, I have changed your transclusions as it is strange to have them both grouped under 'vertebral column' rather than individually. I am proposing that the group template, not the individual templates be deleted. You don't appear to have deleted the template: Template:Vertebral column and spinal cord despite closing the discussion and stating that you will: [1] --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops, that's really stupid, I'll delete right away. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Long delay here, but thanks Martijn Hoekstra. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

TfD

Hi, Tom. I'm sorry that you took offense at my reminder to notify the template creators in your pending TfD merge proposals. My intent was not to give offense, but to get TfD nominators to comply with their obligation to notify template creators. We're all volunteers here, and as best I can tell from your edit history, you've been a good and active contributor of some experience. There have been problems over the last several years with TfD nominators not notifying template creators of pending TfD discussions. Apart from the unfairness of deleting another volunteer's work without telling them about it, I have also seen TfDs that have proposed deletions or merges turn on the input of a better informed editor who understands the purposes, uses, and history behind a particular template. Not always, but sometimes. I think you would agree that we all have the best interests of the project at heart, and that our XfD process should incorporate notice and basic fairness to achieve the best XfD outcomes. Given that we are a volunteer project, our XfD processes are largely dependent on the voluntary compliance of nominators with the instructions and guidelines. I hope that you will be a part of the solution to past problems, and continue to be a regular participant in future TfD discussions. Thanks for listening. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comment Dirtlawyer1. I know we are all here to improve the encyclopedia and should start by saying I recognise that includes you, too. I enjoy Wikipedia editing but have found one of its most frustrating aspects is that for every action there are always several other bystanding Wikipedians who will helpfully point out or criticise something, but almost never are there any that will fix said problem. I think WP:LIGHTBULB is a very important essay for us all to read... it is often just as much effort to fix a mistake and leave a comment to that regard as it is to point the finger and wait for a mistake to be fixed, and I honestly think if we could change this culture we'd decrease the 'fear factor' for editing and probably increase the amount and quality of edits. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. I was a bit surprised, as all I did was add a missing "the" to a page. :-) SeanAhern (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sorry for the delay. I want at least the first impression of WP to be positive :). Let me know if you have any questions, SeanAhern. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tom:

I am an anatomist new to editing Wikipedia and although I have read how to edit, I am totally confused by the project page. There are loads of abbreviations (GA, FB) that not are not defined. I have no idea what needs to be done relative to templates or even how to do this. How do I add myself as a participant? I can certainly just start editing anatomy pages but is that the best thing to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It's great to have an interested editor join us, Anatomyczar! There are so few editors which actually know anatomy the subject. Don't worry too much about the abbreviations, you'll pick those up (GA stands for "Good article" and means an article that's passed a peer review process here: WP:GA and FA means "Featured article" which means an article that's passed through an extensive and often grueling review process by several editors).
Do you have an area of interest anatomically, perhaps we can collaborate? CFCF and I at various points have worked on Cranial nerves and Heart and Stapes... we were able to locate the sketches when it was first named and include that in the article (!). As an anatomical professor (if I may be so bold) it would be great if you picked an area that is poorly understood by students and not well-covered on WP (I'd say that's about 5,000 of our 5,500 articles) rather than an article that is 60-70% OK but not perfect. There are so many anatomical articles that are 20-30% and need a lot of attention! And many articles are taken straight from Gray's 1918 edition, so they may need some updating!
The key thing to remember when editing is (1) everything should have a reliable source so that mistakes don't creep in over time, (2) please write in plain language as the majority of our readers do not understand anatomical terminology (WP:ANATSIMPLIFY is an essay I wrote about this.) We try and follow the same structure for all articles and that's at WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. I realise this is a lot to take in but it's really rewarding to know that your changes may be seen by upwards of hundreds of thousands of readers a year, and probably making a significant difference to students of anatomy. Feel free to contact me any time by leaving a message here or putting this into a talk page: {{u|LT910001}}. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Response

Tom:

I have taught anatomy a long time (36 years) so I am pretty versed in all regions. I actually have a book coming out in May on the cranial nerves. And I have indeed noticed that many of the articles are out of date or use sources that aren't all that appropriate. I would be more than happy to work with you on any topic. Otherwise I plan to just start on the articles listed on that page that lists articles in dire need of reworking. But I still need to get through some of the basics first. There are so many help pages! Anyway, thanks very much for your response. Anatomyczar (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Anatomyczar

Closed discussions

Go ahead and merge Template:Accessory organs of the eye with Template:Muscles of orbit and Template:Orbital bones. Just redirect everything to the main merged template when you are finished. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting me know Plastikspork. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Calling all WikiProject X members!

Hello fellow member! WikiProject X needs your help!

We studied the various needs that WikiProjects have, and have come up with some ideas for our first round of WikiProject tool development. These include:

  • An automatically updated WikiProject directory that surfaces WikiProject-related metrics and automatically generates a list of active participants and potential members;
  • A lightweight, optional alternative to WikiProject banners, featuring an option to quickly send a message to the named WikiProjects;
  • A tool that bootstraps WikiProjects; and
  • A worklist generation script for WikiProjects

We are now looking for volunteer coders to work on these projects. If you are interested in developing these tools, or if you would to volunteer for other tasks, check out our new volunteers portal. Thank you for your help!


Cheers, Harej (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

replacing references

If one source can replace a number of other references, why not use just one especially when it is a much more recent reference. And when the cited references are old and not good. I agree about the page numbers. I will add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 10:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

citations

Tom: Yes I know I am referencing my book. But this happens to they be the most through and most recent book available on the CNs. And I am giving a lot of it away in this article. And I would very much disagree with you that the references I am removing are well regarded references for the cranial nerves. In general they are not. They are older general anatomy references and in at least one specific case, The Board Review Series, this is a review book, not an anatomy reference book. A dental anatomy book should not be used for general information about the cranial nerves. Where there is a reference besides my book that is good, I leave it, but the others just shouldn't be there. And I will add more good references as I go.

I am correcting information in the page that is simply not correct. For example. there was a statement that all cranial nerve have nuclei. Not true - the optic nerve doesn't.

I am really trying to make this page more accurate, more concise and more informative. I have taught cranial nerve anatomy for 34 years. I have authored many articles and book on them (I wrote the terminal nerve article). I edit an Anatomy journal. I am not trying to pull rank here but I do believe I am doing good here.Joel Anatomyczar (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Joel. I think that you are trying to do go here and do assume good faith on your part. For better or worse Wikipedia means you have to recognise your own fallibility -- a single user rarely holds all the answers and being a subject expert doesn't always make you the best communicator to lay readers, most of whom don't have the background that college students do. I think it is worth flagging what I did on your talk page early on as it is difficult to tell what type of character is on the other end, but it seems like you are trying to do good. For recognising fallibility on my part, that includes recognising the perspective of new users like yourself :P. Respectfully, --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Templates

Hi Tom, not sure if you are still reorganizing all these templates, but I have integrated Template:Acquired tooth disease and Template:Developmental tooth disease into Template:Oral pathology. I have a long term goal to make one overall template including all oral and maxillofacial pathology articles, and another for all symptoms in the same region (currently we lack).

This leaves these 2 (very in need of work) templates a bit redundant. Do you think I should replace all instances of these 2 with the parent Oral Patholgy template? Or possible even they should be nominated for deletion>? Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, what a template! Let me rummage around a bit and get back to you. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, here we go. I'd suggest merging them and proposing a merge first (it may be defeated but at least that will safe trouble secondary to someone reverting...). Do you have twinkle enabled? (one of the gadgets) Click 'TfD' (templates for discussion) and there'll be a merge tag somewhere in there. If you are going to propose this merge I'd suggest using something like Template:Navbox with collapsible groups (the groups can all be expanded) so that you can organise the box first... at the moment it's very large and hard to read at the moment but I'm sure that it's just in a developmental stage. Did you see my other comments at WP:DENTISTRY? I left 4-5 templates there that could do with some oversight from a knowledgable user :P. Anyhow I hope that you're well, Matthew Ferguson 57! --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Collapsed sections might be the way forward. What do you think of changing the categorization to a surgical sieve format instead of by site involved?
Yes a few symptoms still mixed in. I will be removing them to Template symptoms and signs involving head and neck. As for the others, unfortunately no plans to tackle them any time soon. Oral pathology is my only real focus now. Dentistry articles in general, and their organization, are too depressingly poor to work on... Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think by structure is probably the best for navigation, unless the scope of the template is smaller. Good hunting! --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

appreciation

Tom: Sorry I missed it. Still lots to do. Thanks. Anatomyczar (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Development of CNs

Tom, I appreciate your comments. I removed it b/c I incorporated what was relevant to the CNs in the Function section. I thought you had agreed that this section was very confusing. The functional components of the nerves (e.g., GVE, SVE etc) really require some knowledge of neuroanatomy to understand. They are not discussed in my entire book on the CNs. If you really think they need to be there, then I can try to redo it but I do think I covered the essential information in the Function section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.222.237 (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

More Development

Tom:

I read over the Development section again and it is simply loaded with errors. Further, terms are used that the normal reader would have no idea what they mean. Function in the sense used here is not the sense as most people would assume. How would a normal person know the difference between somatic and visceral? What is a branchial arch? I submit that this section as currently written does not contribute to a better understanding of the CNs and would discourage readers from reading further. If you really want it, then I suggest it be moved to the end of the page. And again, look at the Function section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes Anatomyczar, I suppose you're right, now that I read over it carefully. In fact it doesn't really contain much useful information about 'development' per se at all, but we do need a section on development :/ (and variation, which is not often mentioned in our articles). I'm reticent to remove it completely although that may be mainly because I've been on the wiki too long, but wouldn't object if you went ahead and did it. If you are correct that it is historical in nature, we could summarise the columns briefly as a subsection in the 'history' section, although we'd need some strong sources as undoubtedly there will be future users who are completely confident that such information is vital. What would be your thoughts on a move to the history section? --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Your development idea

Thanks for thinking about what I wrote. There might be a place for a rewritten development section at the end, but I need to see what is now written on the Brainstem page. Let me work on editing the other sections so that the entire page reads well, and is consistent. Then I can embellish with Development and Figures. Really, to understand the Development issue, a figure is essential. And I keep staring at the Extracranial course figures that are there - just not sure what to do with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not to worry. If we are going to have a section about embryological development, we normally put that in the anatomy / structure section (WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy), however if we're just going to talk about the columns then we can put that into either the general 'history' section or something like a 'historical concepts' section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

edit box

Tom:

I didn't know that. I will use the box. Thanks and thanks for the support. Wikipedia anatomy will be my retirement project. I am trying to recruit other anatomists. I have an editorial about Wikipedia and Anatomy that will be published in Clinical Anatomy. If you send me an email address I will email you a pdf version. Anatomyczar (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter

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 query

Hi Tom, wondered what was happening on the Ventricular system template - i added fourth ventricle recently as its absence is marked; it had been agreed to merge fourth ventricle with the ventricular system template but this has not happened. Is it waiting to be merged or been forgotten? Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoops. I had it in my mind that it was already merged, but it obviously hasn't. It's now  Done. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

return

Sorry for the delay to your posts. I have had other projects to work on but now will return to the cranial nerve entries in Wiki. I already see that there is some minor editing to do at and I agree with you about brain and brain stem. Joel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.164.210.185 (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Cardiac output

Many thanks. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

AWB (course 1)

  • LT910001 still on my list. To update WP:ANATOMY RC lists, step 1 (All is shoretcut, ask if unclear).

I propose you:

  1. open page WP:AWB
  2. Download the current version
  3. install it
  4. open it (=start it)

OK?

You do not need an AWB permission, because we'll do ReadOnly for those lists. (Every editor can do so).
(However, you might ask for editing permission at WP:AWB. Nice, but irrelevant here)
  • Next week's tutorial: "After you've started AWB, how to make a "list of category pages"
-DePiep (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks, I've compiled the list. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, next week there is (course 2), of:
Select cats incl subcats (recursive);

Filter them to remove say sandboxes, make them all SUBJECT (=not TALK), then save that list in a good format.

(Then turn it intoAll Talk if yo want,save in a diff name).

Then in the RC page, add them both. -DePiep (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Already done. I've removed user pages, and put botrh all relevant talk pages and the articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Medial plantar nerve

Sorry for the late reply, but really thanks for appreciating it, wasn't trying to show off.... was just trying to enhance the matter/topic as I'am writing an assignment on it so thought if any of my classmates are doing the same then they don't had to suffer much as I did. Hope you'll understand :)

Thanks for your edits, Goljanoid! There's an active community of anatomy editors and a very active community of medical editors. Please contact me if you need help, and feel free to add things to articles as you see they need them. When writing on a talk page you can add these ~~~~ to add a "signature". --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

good and featured articles

Tom:

I greatly appreciate your comments. So how does one request for an article to become a "good" or featured" article?

I understand about adding chapters to the book references. For my book, however , it really isn't necessary b/c each chapter is on the cranial nerve associated with its number. In other words, the olfactory nerve chapter is chapter 1. So for any statement about a particular cranial nerve, the reader could easily find the pertinent chapter.

I think like most of the editors, my work on wikipedia is erratic, depending on what else I have to do.

Thanks. Anatomyczar (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Anatomyczar. I would be grateful if you could include the chapter references nonetheless, as future editors (Say, in 5+ years) likely won't know this. This is especially important if we want to get up these articles to the "good" or "featured" status. It is an arbitrary milestone, but it is nice to know that an article meets that criteria. To nominate an article to become a good article, see WP:GA or WP:FA for featured articles.

Thanks for your note

Tom, Just wanted to thank you belatedly for your kind words on my talk page. I've been busy IRL and haven't kept up with WP much. I'm glad to have my quote on your user page, which is a good jumping-off page for so much useful information. --Nbauman (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter #4

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)

MfD nomination of Talk:Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center/GA1

Talk:Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center/GA1, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center/GA1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center/GA1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Gray's Anatomy

Hello: You used the articles for deletion templates to nominate Template:Gray's Anatomy, but as a template, this is being used in an incorrect namespace. As such, I have removed the template. You can nominate the template for deletion/discussion at WP:TFD. North America1000 08:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge of Dorsum (anatomy) with Anatomical terms of location

Looks like this discussion has been going on for a long time, do we wish to get the merge started? DSCrowned(talk) 10:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

query re merged pages

Hi Tom - I thought it was necessary to make bold any first refs to a merged page (as in cardia) - have I got that wrong? Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late reply, Iztwoz. I think it is reasonable to make most redirects bold, but I don't always, especially where either the redirects are permutations of each other, there are too many redirects (eg Anatomical terms of location), or a redirect is made obvious from what it is leading to (eg "X of Y" redirecting to "Y#X"). There are probably several guidelines and essays that I'm flaunting here, but oh well. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A Fail

So I Failed a good Friend (in here). I think I should take a corvée, but not a whipping. Any task I can do? -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi DePiep, I prefer ducking but that's a little severe I think! Thanks very much for your offer. All's fine on the western front at the moment. Anything in the med/anatomy space that I can contribute to that you're working on? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
No, don't duck me please. I'm not sure about the outcome.
Editing around, I plan to make a list that says: "Articles having {{Drugbox}} that do not have {{WikiProject Pharmacology}} (=the WP tag on talkpage)".
By the way, how is the editors'social sphere in your WP projects? I have good experiences, esp in WP:ELEMENTS, but lately WP:CHEMISTRY and WP:CHEMICALS (ouch, the Venn mixup) give me headaches by editors' behaviour. Like non-talked controversial edits. How do you handle such negative approaches? -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
(Wait. So you are not the WP:PHARM guy, but the WP:ANAT guy (in this list). See, I'd be the fastest sink in the duck test). -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Your request here

Hi. Name's Nephiliskos. I'm member and author of the Egypt Portal. I'm here for your request (see headline). If you like, I can scoure my literature, no problem. What I can already say is: the Ancient Egyptians had acknowledges (medical/anatomical and religious) about the human heart as early as the predynastic periods. In fact, they even practiced human sacrifices and the hearts of the deceased were treated with fetish-like respect. Later, when mummifying reached its haydays, the human heart was mummified, too and stored in a sacred urn. During the Middle Kingdom, first medical papyri appear, describing countless forms of different deseases, and -yes- even heart deseases. I'd like to ask you if I should first make contact with your Portal first, before editing the article "heart". Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your offer to help out, Nephiliskos. It might be worth contacting WikiTalk Anatomy to see if there are any other pages in our scope that would benefit from your attention, such as Ebers papyrus, or perhaps to post to the talk page of Heart itself. It's great to have a knowledagble editor aboard. Thanks again! --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Peer review

I'm curious about what happened with this review, which you just closed. Was it withdrawn and never formally closed, or something like that? Cos I came across it in the "peer review backlog" at WP:PR, where, in fact it is still listed....in any case, thanks for closing before I put any more time into it. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There was a wee bit of a problem yesterday where we had too many reviews (see Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tools#Troubleshooting:_No_reviews_are_transcluded), so I had to do an emergency close of the oldest reviews. I tried to select reviews which had been responded to and not had any replies for at least 2-3 weeks. Sorry if I've made an error. The good news is the peer review process can function like normal now without crashing :P. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah I see. That explains it. Here's what I'm thinking; I think you did the right thing, but I had not finished checking every portion of the article; so I'm inclined to invoke WP:IAR, and continue to add feedback by simply editing the "closed" review. Ordinarily this would be bad form, but it's probably less messy than re-opening and relisting it. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, I mentally replied to this but didn't actually type it in :). I agree with you Vanamonde93, the point of us being here is to improve the encyclopedia and there's no reason why you must' not reply on a so-called "closed" PR. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Double circulatory system for deletion

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double circulatory system to decide whether it's suitable to include in Wikipedia. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks - glad you're back after the 'coup'. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Muscles query

Hi Tom (LT) - Advice on muscle pages please -the TA references to muscles often give the English equivalent minus the muscle usage. I'm inclined to change these as and when but I think I saw somewhere that the anatomy pages like to use the name muscle on the page title. imho I think its an improvement not to use the word muscle in the title anybody who is going to look up a particular name of a muscle knows that its a muscle..? And many pages simply refer to the name minus the muscle part. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

My personal preference is to have muscle pages titled 'x muscle' such as Sternalis muscle and Pectoralis major muscle, but only because I think that immediately lets the reader know what the latin title means. When referring to them in an article I tend to write Sternalis or Sternalis muscle depending on the context. Perhaps this is a question we could ask on the talk page and see what other users think. It is inconsistent that we (1) have this inconsistent between muscle naming and (2) we don't call other articles according to their tissue type, eg Ossicle bones, Rib bone. That said I'd say the main reason is because most bones have unique names, whereas most muscles are named according to their function or related structures (eg Sternum -> Sternalis muscle, chest -> pectoralis (latin) major muscle etc).) --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for response - I was thinking in terms of just using the latin part which still earmarks it as a muscle as in Sternalis muscle the infobox and the TA eng equiv both just use Sternalis. ? --Iztwoz (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure there, but as this could affect most of our muscle pages do you mind if I copy/paste to the project's talk page? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a blanket removal will work as in Suboccipital muscles - possibly when the plural is used and then others could be included. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrenal gland

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adrenal gland you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Looie496 -- Looie496 (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrenal gland

The article Adrenal gland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adrenal 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Looie496 -- Looie496 (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Early PR close

Can you please explain why you closed Wikipedia:Peer review/Misty Copeland/archive1. It had been one day since the last comments on the page. The old policy was it had to go at least 2 days without any comments for a page to be closed. Has that rule changed?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger my apologies. Please revert my changes. I had to close a number of reviews in a hurry so that the peer review process didn't collapse (see Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tools#Troubleshooting:_No_reviews_are_transcluded). I tried to close only reviews that hadn't had comments in two weeks but I must have accidentally closed your review too. I've since made a technical change so that long reviews don't get transcluded in full on the main page, this should prevent the problem from happening again. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
How many edits did you make to close the PR? (I found 2, but suspect there must be a third to the PR page itself)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Two - one on the review page to mark the page as closed, and one on the talk page of the article to change the description of the peer review to past tense. There is no technical restriction that prevents a so-called "closed" review from continuing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
So how does it get listed/unlisted at WP:PR, where it currently seems unlisted?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Have a chat?

Hi Tom,

Mike Pascoe from Colorado here. I would very much like to chat with you about this anatomy project and how I can engage my modern human anatomy graduate students in the project. What's the best way to reach you? Do I leave my email in the discussion thread? Thanks for all that you do! Mikepascoe (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's great! Good to hear from you Mikepascoe. I think the best way to help your students and the encyclopedia would be to choose some untended articles and expand them. In general as I'm sure you know we look for (1) verifiable contributes, sourced from textbooks if possible; and (2) do so in a way that average readers can understand. So I think a good way would be to find some articles is to use the "Assessment table" in our project (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy#Project_assessment). "Stub" and "Start class" are the smallest and most in need of attention. Many of the overview articles are in dire need of attention too. We have also started categorising our articles according to the anatomical discipline they relate to here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy#Discipline. This is useful if you want to set an assignment on eg embryology or neuroanatomy. Feel free to shoot me an email, you can find it by clicking on "email this user" to the left and I look forward to hearing from you further. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

The Userpage Barnstar
Well worded and thoughtful userpage, helpful for novitiate editors such as myself. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Steroid

I began the copyedit, but am edit-conflicting with Boghog. I'll put your request on hold until they let me know they're done. All the best, Miniapolis 20:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tom_(LT)/Archive_4&oldid=1142727937"