This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tom (LT). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for commenting at AfC on this draft. It's always helpful to us when someone with expertise in a particular field chimes in. Onel5969TT me15:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Ping!
Humanity & Genius Award
Your page says here to PING you if someone wants you to contribute to something, and so this is for you. It's an invite to follow me around like a vulture and edit my contributions, and so to the genius who is one in 100-million that put an image out there on WP where it could be found by any idiot editing the subplate article, so we didn't waste our damn time finding an image of a subplate that allowed for visibility of the plate itself. When a person does that sort of thing instead of going to a page and reverting text, like I keep seeing done on WP, they have my support and even though this is an award for simply being a descent human, you also showed your genius without ever saying a word. So from one quiet person to another, I would appreciate you watching my back because I'm new to WP and there are a lot of admins and other editors that revert new text because they don't understand what was written and so delete brilliance. Repudiate (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
By the way, this is the ugliest lime green page I've ever seen, which tells me you are male, but I'm female so we will probably get along just fine. Let me know if you want me to pretty up your ugly space sometime. Repudiate (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar, Repudiate. Hah, thanks for the advice. I'm opened to suggestions :). Green was pretty arbitrary as I wanted something different from the appearance of articles. Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with, we are always in need of more earnest and informed editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You are a doll Tom, and I am partial to pink and purple because in a place like WP it's good to stand out just a little bit, and green suits you to a T. --Repudiate 01:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repudiate (talk • contribs)
I'm pinging you again Tom
I have a favor to ask. Some people are working on an area of WP that needs drastic updating, and the topics of Psychogenic amnesia and Dissociative amnesia are confused and thus combined onto one page. I was hoping you, or someone you knew could separate them by keeping the existing article as Psychogenic amnesia and making a new article titled Dissociative amnesia, which would go under a main category of Dissociative disorders and that goes under psychology, of course. I promise you content for the Dissociative article, if I have to write it myself, but the group working on this project seems to be doing a good job doing the basics at least. There are a lot of existing links for Dissociative amnesia that go to the Psychogenic amnesia page, but I'm willing to bet you could fix that easily. --Rep (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Tom - many thanks for the magnificently prestigious award! Re my thoughts - yes I have to agree that there has been a real overall improvement in the pages. It would seem that there could be a greater number of pages able to be taken to GA level now. ? For starters what do you think of the Lung page now - would you like to put it forward perhaps? I would also think that the Heart page is close enough to consider soon. I wish you a very happy New Year --Iztwoz (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Iztwoz! I'm going to nominate Heart first, because it is more complete and has more citations, saving our work. After that, Lung and maybe something else? I'd love to have 20+ GAs for the end of this year. Hope you have a wonderful new year too, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Iztwoz no, scratch that, I have no idea how I'm going to source some of those historical/social section in the Heart article (I might put in a day of internet searches / google scholar eventually). I have just nominated Lung for GA. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A beer for you!
Thanks for giving me a thanks once in a while for my edits. I was planning on going to bed but because of your thanks on my edit I thought; nah... I will spend half an hour more on Wikipedia. In a time when we are debating "toxic environment" as possible explanation on the falling numbers of contributors it is nice with small appreciations once in a while. If I ever meet you in real life I will buy you a beer. JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lung 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 Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
GA Nomination & Peer Review of Andheri railway station
Hi, i've been requested a peer review for Andheri railway station in which you had reviewed it. As for now the review has not been active so better needs to be archived. And as of the nomination, i had nominated it for GA. o have a look and thanks again. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★13:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tom thanks for the coffee - I had to put some brandy in it! (Am unusually unwell). Having a look at Heart and feel inclined to make a few changes - as usual feel free to revert these. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ear 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 Saskoiler -- Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Mont Blanc massif
I see that you have offered peer review feedback to a number of article in Geography/Places, and so I wondered if I could call on a moment of your time to give me a little feedback on a mountain range article? I have just done a complete rewrite of the Mont Blanc massif in the European Alps, and have dared to make it my first nomination for a WP:GA. I appreciate it can take time for a GA reviewer to alight upon an article and begin work, but I was reluctant to also submit it for a quick peer review at the same time, lest this was a breach of protocol.
Nevertheless, if you were able to cast an eye over it and offer any criticism, I would be grateful. Our Wikipedia:Alps Project so far has just the one GA article on mountains in the Alps, and nothing yet at Featured Article level, and I think I have the knowledge/skills to change this. But as a fairly new active editor, I've still a lot to learn. Any quick feedback you could give me, either here on on the article's talk page would be very welcome, and I could address it before it gets picked up formally by a GA reviewer. Thanks. Parkywiki (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
My pleasure, Parkywiki! All good articles are reviewed against six criteria, which can be found under WP:GA? and help understand where to focus your editing. I find your article quite easy to read and fairly broad. Some comments I have (which you can take or leave at your discretion!) are:
I suggest model your article against an existing geography good article - a list can be found at WP:GA
suggest adding references to the "Ecology" section
suggest (if relevant) expanding information about the social and cultural / historical significance of the area in pre 19th century. Do the Romans, Suetonii, Franks etc. have a role to play? 9if not then ignore this!)
suggest if at all possible concatenating some of the lists and removing or rationalising some of the numbers such as heights, which make the text quite heavy to read (if possible)
No, that's great - thanks very much for that feedback, all of which I will take on board. Good point about early history - not something I had considered, I'm ashamed to say. I had used the WP:GA criteria and the toolbox for WP:FA to help guide the article's structure to the best of my abilities and personally would only have used metric measurements, but felt Wikipedia preferred to see Imperial equivalents, too. I will look to see how I can tidy this up in advance of someone being kind enough to pick this up for GA review. I really appreciate your advice - thanks again. Parkywiki (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome... and thanks for your edits, it's clear you've put a lot of effort into the article. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a quickie to report back to say that I've now acted upon all your suggestions, and I think you've helped me make it a whole lot better. Although I'm still awaiting a GA reviewer to pick it up, I've also asked for quick feedback via WP:PR regarding suitability for nominating it for WP:FA instead, having addressed (I believe) all its requirements. Fingers crossed: nothing like being bold, eh? Parkywiki (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Parkywiki I'd definitely recommend a GA nomination first. FA is a different kettle of fish and your article will be scruitinised in a way that can be a little brutal, so it will help to first go to GA. Have you got a model article that's similar and an FA? It always helps if you can use another article as a model. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The article Ear you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ear 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 Saskoiler -- Saskoiler (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
New sections added
Hi Tom (LT) wondered if you had seen the new sections added to Taste, Nociception, Equilibroception, Somatosensory system, Auditory system, Olfactory system and Visual system and your thoughts. I'm inclined to remove and address issues on talk page but will defer to your judgement. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I've been pondering those all yesterday. On the one hand these are information dense, difficult to read, delete a fair amount of content in some cases, and I'm not sure they are really improvements to articles. Also this sort of editing could fit the pattern of an editor who is copying and pasting from somewhere. On the other hand, I can't find anything that contains that material on google and so I have to assume these as good faith edits. Plus for the most part they are expanding articles, which is a good thing and their additions can always be edited to improve readability. I think we will need to talk to the editor and then go through the edits with a fine tooth comb to ensure not too much is deleted.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I missed your response - Also are they in the right place - in terms of usual anatomy page structure; seems (I've only looked at one really - (they are quite heavy-going) seems that there is duplication on function section. ? Also there are diagrams added made by the editor with no easy way of verification. And there are a lot to go through! For current readers I don't think the edits are helpful as they are and I think they will take a long time to sort properly. I thought an idea might be to (ask the editor to remove the section(s) and ask for smaller entries to be entered - easier to OK or not..... Nice that Spring is here! --Iztwoz (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Iztwoz. Oh dear. Maybe your original play is best, especially for some articles like Olfactory system where a relatively easy to read segment has been replaced. Unfortunately I have a gruelling nighttime work schedule at the moment so I'm unable to go through these with a fine tooth, but I will try next week. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
My latest thought was to suggest the overview section be placed at the end of the article more by the way of a summary making it easier to move items up into relevant sections and not disrupting the whole page(s). Shall I go ahead and do this anyway ? --Iztwoz (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello guys, as Tom noted I'm new to Wiki edits so forgive any etiquette or editing mistakes as they are not intended. First, I can assure you that all of my additions are original and the numerous hours I poured into them have made them steeped in fact. I created the diagrams and corresponding texts for myself as a memory tool for my work as a neurologist and decided I would take the time to share them on a public platform. Second, I attempted to chose clear references where the abstract itself would confirm my assertions as I understand the depth and width of my edit. I also tried to limit the number of citations as I didn't want an overbearing amount of references discussing brain areas not directly connected to the specific system in question. With such an extensive topic spanning the entirety of the brain I chose to sacrifice eloquence for information and I believe that to be the source of the issue you've encountered with readability. To my knowledge no one else has ever published an exhaustive tracking of neural pathways like this; beyond the dedication it takes to ensure each relevant path is mentioned, to then prove its connectivity and function within one article (without it getting too long or unbearable) is a very difficult task. Third, I was extremely cautious with my deletion of content due to my respect of other authors but much of what I have removed is citing outdated/debunked studies or is entirely unfounded. Some of the deletion did come as an attempt to avoid repetition or confusion within the article. Fourth, the diagram for taste is completely readable should you enlarge it, and while I understand the want for a more compact picture eloquence comes at the price of exhaustiveness. I have no objections to the sections being moved lower on the pages and serving as conclusions. Fourth, Hordaland mentioned the SCN's relevance in the visual system edit. Every structure I mentioned in the edits plays an integral role in the intake and processing of a given sense; if the role of the entire system is to provide the sense of vision then without SCN that sense would not function. Therefore, I attest that SCN is an integral part of the system that allows for vision. Fifth, I understand the issue raised with flashcards and should those citations have to be removed I've provided enough on each article to do without. That being said the cards I've cited are the 2 most iconic cards in medicine and studied by nearly every North American practitioner; they are extraordinarily well known and from credible sources.--XenusG (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
about this: "To my knowledge no one else has ever published an exhaustive tracking of neural pathways like this"... that is not a good thing.... oy Jytdog (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
LT910001, just so you know, the editor who nominated this article, Duckduckstop, has been blocked as a sockpuppet. He nominated a total of 17 articles in a short period, including this one (which was clearly unstable when it was nominated). Thanks for taking the time to review. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, BlueMoonset. What an unusual circumstance... happens once a blue moon ;)?--
Hi Tom. As a novice reviewer, I still have few doubts about reviewing GAs and am writing an essay, so your answers will to summarised there too. Considering you seem to have done 60+ reviews, would you kindly answer some questions I have regarding GAs in general? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure. Another good place to start would be "Wikiproject good articles". My advice would be start by reviewing articles that are small or insignificant and then move to the more difficult or interesting ones. Always remember that you are reviewing against the six criteria - I ran into a lot of problems early on when I strayed beyond these; what this means is you can point out what things are blocking a nomination, and suggest some other changes, but only the ones blocking the nomination should be the ones you wait for. The other ones are usually your points of view only. Remember to note that the contributer has put work into it, and that you're happy to compromise and discuss some points (usually the nominee has a rationale for things, too). I think User:Joopercoopers/Zen and the art of good reviewing (which I have just found) is a pretty good summary. The other thing is to avoid missing a potential disaster... make sure the article's topic actually exists (especially if it's unusual); check some sources; and check to ensure the article isn't a direct copy from somewhere else.
If you'd like, I'd be happy to have a look at one of your past reviews, or even keep an eye on a current review or two of yours as you review it. I find GA reviewing very satisfying and thoroughly interesting. My general knowledge has expanded a hundred fold after articles like Arpad, Female genital mutilation and Wade's Causeway! --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your advice. I've read through the Zen and the Art page too. I've been lurking at WikiProject GA and even had my GA recruitment done long ago. The problem with me is that I always have incessant doubts and queries regarding how to do reviews, so thus I go very slowly. I hate to bother you too much and will stick asking my planned questions only. I intend to ask other experienced editors too so that my essay is as helpful and accurate as possible. Here's what I've managed so far: Wikipedia:FA and GA answered queries. Here are the questions, you can answer them here:
Criteria 2c, 2d requires access to sources: should a reviewer avoid an article where they have not much access to any of the sources given? or fail it if the nominator has partial access themselves?
Criteria 3 requires subject knowledge: does that mean one being unfamiliar with the topic should not review it?
I like reviewing for the same reason. I'll also show you one review later which I feel I could have failed, by then I realise I'm taking way too much of your time ;) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your most comprehensive review of the article during its GAN. I highly appreciate your work. Have a nice week! Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Templates
Hi Tom (LT) - wondered if you could free up the cranium/neurocranium templates for editing. They have been unavailable for some time. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Tom - If you go to Cranium template on Skull page and try to edit - (same for neurocranium on that page) your confusion should ease! --Iztwoz (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
OK thanks. Not sure if this is something I did or someone else did. The template had been redirected, but the "name" field hadn't been fixed. Is it OK now? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Esophagus 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 Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your stellar work on anatomy articles on Wikipedia (I hope Heart soon adds a new feather to your cap!), for careful GA reviews, despite unwelcome circumstances. Indeed, you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Well, I thought it was going to be about the band... No, just kidding. I will be your GA reviewer, and expect that my scientific background will be adequate. Since you've had this languishing since March, which I consider horribly unfortunate, I will do my best to help you make this article successful. Thus, I'm dropping you a note now to let you know I'm working on it and encouraging you to watchlist the GA1 page so you can see when I start with substantive comments. Since it's important and an old nom, I'm not going to be in any particular hurry; I'd rather get it right. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Heart 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 Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Prosaic answer: It's related to HMS Euryalus, the first article I edited nearly ten years ago. I work in marine industries, and most of my editing is about obscure ships and ports.
Allegorical answer: The ship Euryalus was a frigate which raced about in the background of events like Trafalgar doing the various necessary tasks to tend to the ships of the line. A bit like Wikipedia editors bustle about in the background tending to Wikipedia articles.
Ephemeral allegorical answer: The ship is named after the more talented half of Nisus and Euryalus, and was chosen because the mythical Euryalus put honour above self-preservation. Or perhaps merit above common sense. The Royal Navy seemed to believe that naming ships in this way would inspire the crew, though what they were thinking with HMS Weazel is harder to fathom.
The article Heart you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Heart for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I would like to help you out on this GA-nomination and help cut down on some of the work that you have to do. Can you tell me what to work on? How about the society and culture information? Best Regards,
Hi Barbara (WVS)! Thanks for the offer - I'm always pleased to have someone to collaborate with :). I think I can manage the GA review for heart on my own (it's so close!), but I would really like to collaborate with you on another article. Some I've been looking at include Gallbladder and Pelvis to GA. Let me know if you want to help our on another anatomy article :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes please! I will finish up ref 93 on the heart because I found an accessible source on google books and this will get rid of any red letters that still appear in the reference section unless, of course you've already done this. I have two good articles to my credit and also have done the review of two others. I would like to work on the Pelvis and since I am active in the area of Women's health, I believe that this would most benefit the Project. The Very Best of Regards,
Are you at a spot where you're ready for me to re-review Heart? I was waiting until you indicated you were done working on those sections still marked as in progress... Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I've re-reviewed things, identified a few more issues, but this feels a LOT better than when I first reviewed it, and it wasn't even in all that bad shape then. We're still on track for GA as far as I'm concerned. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Epithelium
Hello Tom, Just wanting to voice some concerns over the epithelia series and comments you might have - there seem to be a lot of related pages that could be combined in particular I cannot see the point in having separate pages for each type of cell when this could be covered on the type of epithelium. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Iztwoz sorry for the delay. Sounds like a great idea. I put a topic up at the project's talk page in case anyone else wants to contribute. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth, Chiswick Chap, recalling our previous interactions on past articles, would either of you be interested in trying to bring this vital article to GA class? I can help provide information about anatomy, physiology and disease, but it is such a broad article having a couple of hands would be very appreciated. What do you two think? --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, Chiswick Chap seems to be on vacation. I will be happy to collaborate on improving "Human body" if you don't mind leaving it till the end of the month. At the moment I am taking part in The West Country Challenge and that is taking up most of my time. It finishes on 28 August, and then I will be free. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tom (is that how you like to be addressed?), I'm beginning to wonder if I feel like being involved in the whole area. It seems that editors are entrenched in not wanting a human anatomy article (or a human physiology one); and we just had a weird revert on human body, which I may or may not have not managed to sort out. On the whole I edit best in quiet corners where I can work fairly rationally. If people want the anatomy to be a mess, I'm inclined to leave them to it. But your views on the human body article would be welcome. I think it's now inI had just managed to get it to a decently-cited and accurate state, if rather short (aka minimal, sketchy). It certainly needs a bit more detail before GA. I don't think it would be a great idea to try to build in a comprehensive human anatomy article into it (I think that would be a different structure, and a wholly different focus, suitable for a human anatomy article, with sections on each region of the body -- to align with a modern approach to anatomy, the opposite of the old systems approach), though that is perhaps what those guys want, if they've thought about it at all. What are you personally hoping to do with it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear. I had a pleasant day today and went home contemplating how to improve the Human body article by inserting some basic anatomical information. But it seems there have been some major reversions. I also like to work in quiet corners although have always enjoyed collaborating in a constructive way. I think I will just keep going on the Human body article and hopefully we can get the nicer looking systems part put back in, if that is the way the consensus-ball swings. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I was noodling away quietly also. If you think you can swing the ball back to a reasonable position, let me know. I suspect that it's possible - the list formatting and referencing are obviously separate issues which ought to be fine with everybody, see what you can do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
With regard to human body/anatomy, some thoughts:
As for us regular anatomy editors, all I can say is what CFCF said on the anatomy article: anatomy articles tend to be: excessively fragmented, repetitious, difficult to navigate.
1-2 years back we renovated a whole suite of the basic anatomy articles and found, as CFCF states, that human body and human physiology were not just unloved, but also unvisited - one reason being that there were so many forks. If I was a lay reader, I would search for "Anatomy of the human body" or "Human body" but certainly not the odd(er) sounding "Human anatomy"
All anatomy articles have these sections (WP:MEDMOS#ANATOMY) "Structure, function, clinical significance, history". The reason being that it is odd to fragment anatomy and physiology sections without considering them together. So a Human anatomy article would necessarily have sections on anatomy, physiology, clinical significance, history -- and would end up looking very similar to our existing Human body article
Lastly, I think enough basic anatomical information can be inserted into our Human body article to make it serve as a useful letterhead to our anatomy suite. In my mind it's very logical that this serves as the head of our anatomy articles which it goes without saying all relate in some way to it.
Hope you can follow my thoughts. But please consider if we end up with a Human anatomy article we really will need some editors to edit it, or it will be as unloved as it was before we merged it into this current article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Having finished with the West Country Challenge, I observe your discussions above and think I will give this article a miss, instead helping take European hare to FA, the other thing I had postponed contributing to. Animals are less complex than humans! CC will remember how difficult Tree was when I made wholesale changes and a guardian dragon came out of the forest. Some time later, the danger retreated, and we took the article to GA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, that's clear then. Tom, if you feel like negotiating with the guardian dragons, maybe something can be salvaged. I'd have thought that 95% of what I did was non-controversial, frankly, and perhaps if it's taken in easy stages it can be sorted out. I'm already working on European hare, among other things. Let me know how things go. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tom, did some edits on hypoglossal nerve - think they are OK.? By the bye, any further thoughts (as in second or third) about the structure of Clinical significance on Thyroid page? thank you --Iztwoz (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks as always Iztwoz. Have been a little snowed under with work but am planning some edits soon. I really want to separate the concepts of what people notice vs. what causes those things. As you point out though, "symptoms" is somewhat confusing as hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism are groups of symptoms rather than a single symptoms themselves. I hope this table helps:
Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota
Hello LT910001,
I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.
I would like to invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via either Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.
Please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu if you are interested or have any questions.
Thank you,
Bowen
Hello, Tom (LT). You have new messages at Bobo.03's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello WP:Anatomy participant! This is our fifth newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. There hasn't been too much worthy of news, and I have less time to dedicate to this project, so I've slowed down the release of this newsletter.
I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or remove your name from the mailing list
Participate in discussions - a number of discussions such as those on our talk page or about our infobox would benefit from your opinion!
Continue to add content to our articles
Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!
Focus - how far we've come
How far have we come since our first newsletter... the answer is quite a lot! Here goes:
Hundreds to thousands of articles improved and standardised by many, many editors.
14 new good articles created or added to our project [2]
Improved quality of our articles - subjectively and objectively. GAs quadrupled from 5 to 16, B-class articles doubles from 62 to 115, C-class article well on the way to trebling from 219 to 611, Start-class increased from 1,082 to 1,570.
Tens to hundreds of mergers performed between tiny, unedited articles - a remnant of our Gray's Anatomy (1918) heritage.
Layout guidelines changed and layout standardised for the majority of our articles
These are substantial improvements and my thanks go out to our many editors who played a part in this. These improvements are almost always the result of consensus, compromise, collaboration and discussion between multiple editors.
I hope we can continue to improve in the future. How can you help? Continue to edit, add content, and create a welcoming atmosphere so that new editors will join us.
Well done to us all, and the many anonymous editors who've helped along the way!
Hello! While looking through old merge proposals, I stumbled upon a 3-year-old proposal to merge caGrid into CaBIG for which you were the only contributor (though as you note, you didn't propose the merge). Not surprisingly, I know nothing about this topic. Any chance you'd still be interested in performing the merge? I'd say since no one has chimed in for the last few years, it's probably safe to declare the merge uncontroversial. All the best. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Opposition to tooth decay diagram
Blausen 0864 ToothDecay
Hi, I recently read your opposition to my proposal to use a diagram as the lead image for the article on tooth decay, indicating that you considered it "too cluttered" and that it does "not focus on what carries are". As the person who created the image, I am wondering what you would have preferred to see removed from the image to make it more suitable/ less cluttered (would you have me remove the blood flow and nerves? The dentin? The pulp chamber? The jawbone? Or would removing these things make it more difficult to understand the overall context, that it is a tooth and where the carries are? Or should I remove the labels for these parts (I have only nine labels on the image), leaving perhaps only the labels for the types of cavities and removing labels for the "Enamel" and "Cementum", etc.?) and how the focus might be more emphatic than it already is (would you preferred to have seen larger/ more dramatic carries? I have covered the three major types in the diagram, having decided that variety was more important than size here). Consider the lead image for the article on
Cutis which is currently in use as a lead image for more than 20 articles on the Engish Wikipedia alone.
Skin
I have done my best to make the illustration accurate and detailed, including as much visual information as a reader might want to absorb while grasping what a cavity is while not demanding anything more than a casual glance to get visually situated— I am at a loss as to how to make the image more focused on what carries are, yet this is one of your major concerns. I am contacting you to ask you to elaborate, if you would. Thank you. KDS4444 (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@KDS4444 firstly, thanks for making this very high-quality image. Please don't take my comments as about the quality of your work. It's an excellent and very informative diagram and definitely includes inclusion on that and several other articles. I have also seen and admired your skin diagram. That said, I feel (as I stated in discussion) that a lead image should engage the reader and present in a very simple and straightforward format, using a real photograph if possible, the subject of an article. So I standby my comment about the other image. So I feel your image definitely deserves inclusion in the article (perhaps in the 'pathophysiology' or 'mechanisms' section) but stand by my comment about the lead image. We are all here to contribute to the spread of free knowledge, not for the creation of lead images, so I really hope you don't find this too dispiriting... the images are excellent. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
There are already several images for the pathophysiology section of the article. I have removed mine and nominated it for deletion. Thank you for your feedback. Much appreciated. KDS4444 (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@KDS4444 I think it is a little over the top that you are now proposing it for deletion. It is a great image that deserves to remain and may find a use one day.--Tom (LT) (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
You think a photograph is good? You take one and add it to the article. I drew a diagram. A thorough, detailed one that showed numerous details that no photograph ever could. Photographs are the fallback of those who cannot illustrate. I think deletion is entirely appropriate. If the image is unsuitable for this article, then it is clearly unsuitable for any other related article, and therefore warrants deletion. Photos are better, then use photos. Not diagrams. I am sure you learned this was true when you learned your own discipline, and I don't want to contradict you now. A photo is worth a thousand words, no matter how little it conveys, yes? I withdraw the distracting image. It will hopefully be removed soon. Thank you for giving it your consideration. Garbage in, garbage out! KDS4444 (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, LT910001. 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.
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thyroid 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 Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The article Thyroid you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Thyroid for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject:Physiology
Thanks for leaving a message on my Talk page. I very new to this and still learning how to navigate on Wikipedia. Do you see many undergrad students working to improve Physiology articles? I realize it is not easy to work on Physiology articles. DO you have any tips for my students who will be working on them? Thanks!Ushasankar (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ushasankar, looks like Trpytofish has provided some good advice on the WikiProject physiology page. As for my advice - I would say make sure your students use sources (don't be shy to use textbooks), and make sure those sources are secondary sources. That would be most appreciated by those of us who edit around here :). WP:MEDRS is a page which has some more information, and the information Tryptofish has provided, especially having someone to help out via the course page by registering at the education noticeboard, will be very useful Enjoy! --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi {{u}Iztwoz}}! Have been in the midst of life-related time consuming activities :P. Getting back into editing presently. Hopefully can lift another 5-10 articles to GA in the next year or so... am hoping for at least 6 of the cranial nerves, and a couple of others to boot. Anything you'd be interested in collaborating on? --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tom, I seem to be concentrating lately on Lymph node and Bone. By the way i've recently posted merge proposal for bone tissue to bone - a move you were agin. Howsoever i think bone could be better for the inclusion and bone could possibly be a future FA. ? --Iztwoz (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Scott how strange as I just use the default signature. I'm not sure how it disappeared, I must have accidentally checked the box in preferences. (yep, turns out so.). Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Tom (LT)
I forgot to put any reference to my edit on esophagus...but,the reference u gave is outdated,the revised edition of Gray's anatomy for students has already been published...and this revised edition has corrected the facts about number of constrictions of esophagus...ISBN978-0-443-06952-9 go through this book.page no.215...
Thank you.--Belbasesuraj (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tom - just to query your acronym additions(s) - the actual definition of an acronym is that it is of the initial letters that form a spoken word, such as NASA. ? Best-- Iztwoz (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hm. That's as maybe but I don't think that such a cavalier approach would stand up in the SCOSEM (Supreme Court of Semantics). --Iztwoz (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hah. That's OK. I have a pro bono arrangement with the legal body ILLE (International league of literal etymology) who can vouch for me. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Glad to hear it! I don't want to dishearten you but what I've heard about ILLE would make your hair stand on end. --Iztwoz (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Your peer review story submission
Tom, thank you for the submission for the Signpost: User:LT910001/sandbox/Peer review history and call for reviewers I have given it a brief read, and I think it will make a strong addition. However, we have had a number of strong submissions in recent days; in order to keep this issue's size manageable and get it out on time, I'd like to push yours back to the next edition, which should publish in late February. I'm sorry we couldn't get it into this one. I'll review more closely once we've got the current issue published. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I just took another pass at the article. If you're available to take a look today, please do. One important detail, could you check on Maskell? It looks to me like you may have identified the wrong user. Please check my edits and supply a brief bio. We'd like to publish in the next few hours; I apologize for letting so much time pass before giving this a close read. It may be best to push it back one more issue at this point, so we have time to work through it; but if you're available now, I'm happy to push forward for this one. Let me know. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Great -- if online chat would make it easier, I'd be happy to connect on Google Chat, IRC, or Skype. My apologies, Tom -- it's been a very busy couple of weeks for me, and I forgot that we had not progressed very far in the editing. If it's going to be effective at recruiting people to the cause, I think it'll take a bit more work; I'm happy to dig in this evening (my time, currently 6:40 pm). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Overall, I should say, it reflects an impressive collection of research into PR's history. If it can be tightened up in a few places, I think it would make a big difference. But I'll wait for your reactions to my edits thus far before forging ahead. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry we weren't able to connect yesterday. If you can supply a brief bio, I'm happy to run it in this edition. If you'd like my more focused feedback and editing, I'd be happy to hold it for the next one, and will be sure not to put it off till the last minute this time! Your choice, either is fine with me. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
_(14586469407).jpg)
