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.
Hello Tom (LT) just a query - don't know if it's come up before - but the article size (in bytes) also includes all the references and so on which can be very many in some articles and makes it difficult to evaluate the actual article size. Sometimes the size given prohibits the addition of other material and this may be totally misleading. Thank you in advance for your considered response. --Iztwoz (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Iztwoz that's a good point. I remember our discussions on Heart where some editors were talking about 60k being the limit (I'm sure there is a guideline somewhere - ah, WP:TOOBIG)... the debate then went on to suggest whether this referred to readable text? pictures? references? Looks like this refers to readable text. In my mind an article needs to be comprehensive and some articles (such as Heart, Brain will necessarily be longer than others)... that said the longer the article (in my mind 110-130k) the more judicious one has to be with content. What's your opinion, and were you asking about an article in particular? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes thanks - I was thinking about the Human brain article - seems that the references etc take up much of the page size and so the estimated prose size is impossible to judge. I've had a look at the too big section and the guide sizes given are for prose content - there are a couple of 'tools' suggested to use - but it seems that I'm no mechanic! --Iztwoz (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hypoglossal nerve 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 Shaded0 -- Shaded0 (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Axillary arch 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) 22:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Many thanks, Gerda Arendt. I wasn't aware I received this a year ago, but it's nice to be recognised :). The user Iztwoz certainly deserves another gemstone too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Vitreous
Hi Tom. Thank you for making such constructive edits to the Cerebrospinal fluid page.
Could I possibly interest you in working your magic over the Vitreous_body page? In particular, I feel the page would benefit from the expansion and explaination (not deletion) of the data in the tables. There is too much emphasis on 'floaters', and not enough on the other functions and properties of the vitreous in health and disease. Kind regards, Jkokavec (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks, Jkokavec! I will definitely have a look. My plate is busy at the moment and I tend to work in geologic time, but rest assured I'll get there :P. Would love to collaborate there or on another page if you have time and energy! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking forward to it, Jkokavec! I haven't forgotten, but unfortunately I was only half joking about the geologic time. Can I ping you when I'm up to it? (my realistic estimate is 1-2 months). Unfortunately I have limited to to devote to WP and several articles still on my plate. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Jkokavec just to let you know I've started my work on the article. I do not see as many issues with regard to tables of biochemical properties, but I have removed two or three of the other tables (I have summarised one) from the article. I do not think those tables are suitable for wikipedia... see WP:NOT (a textbook, manual or respository) for more. I will try and actually expand the article in the next few weeks. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The edit I made to add sources was replaced with a single source that does not verify the explicate claim. The editor has showed up to different pages he has never edited. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:PRentry/sandbox2, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)02:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Human brain 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Tom, Iztwoz has done great work sorting out a host of minor issues and fixing the ref problems. Those are all done, barring a few 'page needed's and one dead link. The remaining issue is the weakness of the Society and Culture section, where I have made some specific suggestions. I'd be pleased to see those addressed this week...? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, how are you? I just noticed something that seemed wrong. Nothing related to the article but the format of the review. A level 2 header (==xx==) is used for the "Taking over review" and the "Changes" section. This causes break on the talk page of the article which is why only level 3 (===xxx===) or lower level headers are used on the review page. I wasn't sure if "Changes" was part of the review so I haven't changed it but it would be great if you can fix that. Thank you for your work with the review BTW. Let me know if I can help out. Cheers, — Yashtalkstalk10:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out, Yash!. I will take you on on this offer! If you have time, I would greatly value someone to look over and expand the society and culture and history sections of the article (if you don't, no problem too). --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Unrelated topic on the same article: I've now done the entire first pass GA review. Let me know when you're ready for me to take a second look at thing--no rush. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
For diligence above and beyond that expected of a typical article reviewer, exercised over months and with far more academic rigor than any other GA review I've worked with, in Talk:Myocardial infarction/GA1. Of course, the only reason it makes sense for me to demand so much and you to put up with it is that the improvements you've made to this article can and probably will save lives. (I wish there was a more appropriate Barnstar, but while we have them for tons of trivial topics, no one has made a Medicine Barnstar that I've found. This may be upgraded to that at will should one be developed in the future) Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Be Bold when editing
Hello Tom. I noticed that you are one of the folks that pastes that "Be Bold" stamp on your welcoming notes to new editors. Personally, I think we are giving ourselves a severe headache with that stamp. e.g.: A consensus of editors spend months building a new version of a page, and just when they have concluded, an brand new editor shows up, in some cases, an uneducated moron looking for an ego fix, and takes your advice, and destroys the article. Considering that we have no clue as to the talents or capacities of any new editor, my advice would be the exact opposite of your "Bold Stamp". It would be: "Edit cautiously and respectfully". Then, once he knows what's going on, and we know his capabilities, he can increase his "boldness". I'll bet I'm in a majority here on this issue. Thanks. Pocketthis (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@PocketthisWP:BOLD. This is an active WP:GUIDELINE the community has endorsed. I include this because we do not have a perfect article yet and the majority of editors, for caution amongst other reasons, do not want to make additions or changes to articles. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. There has got to be a better way to greet a brand new editor, and give him the confidence to right wrongs in articles, other than telling him to be "bold when editing". Time will prove one of us correct, or sadly, perhaps it already has. I know it is Wikipedia policy, and you are just doing your job. This post wasn't meant to be a personal complaint against you at all, but rather an editor expressing his disappointment with wiki policy. Thanks for listening. Happy editing....Pocketthis (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I know that you support me going ahead and nominating this article for GA status, but I'm not quite ready. Not only am I busy with personal matters and don't give Wikipedia as much time as I used to, I'm more reluctant than you are to nominate an article for GA. I'm often looking for what more should be added to an article, or if it should be tweaked further. That stated, I should be nominating the Vagina article within another month or so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Order of sections in a combined biology/drug article
I am interested in you opinion on the above subject. The article is "Antidiuretic hormone". I don't think "WPMOS section order" covers this situation. I personally would discuss the biology (physiology) first, then its use as a medication second - but that's not the way it's set up now. I would appreciate your input before I begin rearranging sections.
A second question: I've never pinged someone using ([[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]) to invite them to a Talk discussion. Where exactly do I enter it? Talk page? Should it be accompanied by a message? Thanks - IiKkEe (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for feed-back and the welcome. New here and trying to understand how I best can contribute. I think the knowledge-based information that is present in the Human Protein Atlas (and a large number of associated scientific publications in peer reviewed journals) regarding normal human organs and tissues would be a basic and very important piece of information to the basic description of the wiki sections that deal with organs/tissue types. A few sentences with the basis for differences between different organs, tissue and cell types should be of interest. I am trying to find the right format and content for this. I think the given references (to both published papers and external webpages should be absolute adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs) 09:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tom (LT), trying to contribute but finding it difficult to discuss format and ways to do this. Yesterday I tried to adhere to suggestions, and made a test try on testicle, put in a new subheading, wrote comprehensive sentences and added references. Today I find it all gone, this time someone named IdreamofJeanie had deleted all without comment? Yesterday also tried to have a discussion regarding copyright violations with someone named Fuhghettaboutit. Interpreted a warm welcome from you and someone named Iztwoz, when first trying to add information to wiki pages relating to human anatomy and histology. Please advice me on how to proceed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs) 08:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for 3 intrusions in one day. I think I'm through. I am interested to know if you know whether WPMOS has a guideline on the use of, in the text of an Article, a parenthetical allusion to an adjacent relevant figure or diagram, such as " ... parts of the animal (see labelled figure on right)". Is it allowed, discouraged, or forbidden? Thanks -- IiKkEe (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
It is not that common, because articles change so often and are displayed in different formats (eg mobile, desktop). In my experience it is better just to put an image near text and put an explanation in the caption. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the input - nothing in WP guidelines forbids it, I take it. Adding a three word parenthetical phrase seems pretty innocuous to me if not overused. A picture is worth a thousand words is definitely true when it comes to the glomerular filtration barrier, the countercurrent system, or the shape of the nephron. "(See figure 1)" to me is code for "now is the time to look at the figure to grasp the word picture I am trying to convey here". I put 2 of these in the Nephron page, and they have been deleted. I'm going to reinsert them and invite Talk discussion. Regards - IiKkEe (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Reply to Nephron editing
Thanks for the heads up. It is never my intent to violate 3RR. Iztwoz and I do have legitimate differences of opinion; I believe BRD will keep the process moving forward.
Which of my edits violated 3RR? Regards - IiKkEe (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I have been unable to locate three reverts in 24 hours on Nephron on 13 September - or the day before or after. Could you supply me with the times of the edits? Thanks. IiKkEe (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cerebrospinal fluid 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 Kostas20142 -- Kostas20142 (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi Tom, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words. Cheers, ansh66623:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
adding text on genes and proteins expressed in human organs and tissues
Hi Tom (LT), thanks for your helpful answers and comments. Since you brought up how to communicate, I think here is correct since I want to check with you (but of course also with the other editors that you talk alot with regarding these anatomy-related pages), that it is OK to continue to add a new heading and paragraph where applicable on remaining organ/tissue pages where there is similar information as to what I have so far added for Liver, Kidney, Testicle, Adrenal gland, Salivary gland, Human skin, Gastrointestinal tract and Esophagus. I think works very nicely and adds important knowledge to these very well made and content-rich pages. For Kidney and human skin, the text was rather put under a subheading, but thats because there are some structural differences between the different organ pages and I was unsure if a new heading would fit in? What do you think? Also, how does one handle pages like "skin" vs "human skin", what goes where, guessing that all main information should really be on the main page which is without the "human" before, or?
Best Regards, Figgep (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that it is best to put it in the 'structure' section because it relates to the general structure of something and is a logical continuation of what's already there (gross anatomy -> microanatomy -> genes), so I would be thankful if you could place it as a subheading :)
As for human vs. nonhuman, I will try to be objective as I have participated in many discussions about this. In general the current state of affairs is that articles are split up when there is a sizeable enough amount of information to show that a separate article is needed. If that is not the case, then in general an article will talk about the human form of that thing, with other animal information placed in an "other animals" section. There is the occasional article structured otherwise (see WP:IAR). Not all editors agree with this state. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I note you are a member of 3 WikiProjects, including Medicine and Physiology. I'm not familiar with Wikiprojects, hence the questions. Can you function as an arbiter when two editors can't reach a consensus after a reasonable discussion at Talk? If so, I would like to invoke your help with resolving differences of opinion I am having with 2 other editors. In my view, there is no compromise here: they each want their wording or reference, I want mine. We've each given our reasoning, and neither side has said "OK I don't agree but I'm willing to let you have your way". If you do get involved, do you have the authority to say to "X":
"I have decided we are going to do it "Y"'s way", and "Y" is obliged to accept your conclusion? Or is there some other method of resolution in place that can be invoked? If your reply is that you do have such a role, I'll give you the topics to be resolved and where to find the discussions.
The second question is, what other functions to you serve as a member of Wikiprojects? I've seen your role as advisor on several Talk pages: anything else?. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@IiKkEe I can't act as a binding arbiter but I can try and help out with a discussion if needs be. No editor has that power here. It is probably best to try and work it out with discussion and compromise. If that doesn't work, I suggest a WP:RfC with a very clear question you want editors to respond to. I am happy to have a look in the mean time. What page are you talking about? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Accessory nerve 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 Kostas20142 -- Kostas20142 (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gallbladder 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) 02:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Tom, re thymus editing, I'm a bit other occupied at moment just dipping in now and then. Also I have pages that I need to give attention to first. I can look in now and again, for now. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails
Hi there,
The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.
Thanks also for your brief attempt to mediate the Talk page of vagina. You noted:
The vagina involved in most intercourse is WP:SKYISBLUE as is the fact that the brain interprets sensory information
In this light, I wonder if "nerve endings" should be eliminated from the relevant section of that page. Isn't it also "skyisblue" that orgasm comes from genitals rather than fingertips or lips? Flyer denies Penfield's long-established Cortical_homunculus in Talk by claiming that "there are different types of nerve endings" but this claim is not evidenced or even referenced in the text, so what is the rational basis for mentioning "relative" nerve endings? The justification of protecting women who don't climax via vagina is beginning to sound like a dogma that *no* women have a vaginal orgasm. Martindo (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Martindo hard to give a considered reply without a more concrete statement to base my reply on. Had a few stabs at replying but it would be helpful to have something more concrete first :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
One problem with having a motivated and qualified person "manage" a WP page as de facto gatekeeper is info which is in her head but not in the references then becomes assumed background info even though nobody else can see it. This is why writers ask other people to review their work and sometimes pay editors to challenge gaps in reasoning. You can RFC if you want but I have no interest in participating. A better approach to determining usability of the page would be to ask ordinary users, some students of anatomy and some who are not, if the section containing a convoluted description of "fewer nerve endings" is clear to them. Maybe 10 out of 10 will say yes, or maybe some will point out gaps. Martindo (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Martindo, are you going to drop this case, or are you going to keep pushing? I ask now so that I can be prepared for taking this to a WP:RfC or some other form of WP:Dispute resolution. Of course, I already am prepared, since I doubted that you would let this go. I made my case times over with reliable sources. I know what I am talking about. By contrast, you engaged in WP:OR time and time again. If the nerve endings/orgasm aspect was a WP:Sky is blue matter, there would not be so many men and women who do not know that the clitoris is key for a woman to orgasm and that an orgasm is unlikely to result from vaginal intercourse. So, of course, the "an orgasm is unlikely to result from vaginal intercourse" aspect and why it's the case is something that should be mentioned in the "Sexual activity" section of the Vagina article, just as it is mentioned in the Orgasm article, the Clitoris article, the G-spot article, and the Sexual intercourse article. That you are steadily fighting this is beyond bizarre; it's akin to a source reporting on the men threatened by the fact that penile-vaginal sex alone is unlikely to bring about orgasm and/or sexual satisfaction in women. The content is not about "orgasm com[ing] from genitals rather than fingertips or lips." You are the one who took the conversation to a fingertips and lips topic. And that "there are different types of nerve endings" is very much supported by evidence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
And as for so-called dogma that "*no* women have a vaginal orgasm," perhaps you should actually read the research I pointed you to on the talk page. The vast majority of researchers today are very clear that a so-called vaginal orgasm is very likely nothing but a clitoral orgasm. That you do not want to accept this should not be Wikipedia's problem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem isn't the research Flyer cites on Talk. The problem is that somehow this solid research doesn't make it into citations in the actual page content, but only as assumptions that her content is based on. A prime example is "different types of nerve endings" regarding Penfield, which was not noted anywhere in the actual page but is assumed as justification for emphasizing "few" versus "really few" nerve endings in relation to clitoral/vaginal sexual response. Other assumptions include extrapolation of observational studies based on a small segment of humanity (Americans, French, whatever) and the more general belief that medical research is always scientific -- sometimes a rare case study is published in order to alert the medical community and inspire research, sometimes stats are published for public health purposes but causality is only speculated, etc. but controlled experiments are not the only content in biomedical journals. When I criticized her writing, I was not referring to style but to assumptions as well as ignoring other (presumably less controversial) parts of WP such as Sensory Homonculus which some students might find before reaching this page, thus they'd wonder about the apparent misdirection of focusing on nerve endings as "proof". And then there is the possibility of undue weight within this section. As you can see (and hopefully breathe a sigh of relief about), I have not participated in this page for 3 months and have no intention of editing it further. Martindo (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Martindo this conversation is on my talk page and therefore I am guessing you expecting some sort of reply here. I have to apologise that am really not sure what you are talking about. I'm sorry you feel there are some discrepancies somewhere. I see you mention the homunculus above. I think I have already mentioned this but the homunculus refers to central interpretation of peripheral sensory data. Flyer is referring to how peripheral data is collected, so it is inaccurate to compare the two. If you have further issues I suggest clearly and succinctly writing an RfC on the talk page of vagina. Then I and other editors can contribute. Let's consider this discussion finished and anything further can continue back on the talk page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This discussion is done for me. There is no "extrapolation of observational studies based on a small segment of humanity," and I don't see how this discussion can validly continue on the article talk page. Martindo would be stating the same thing, and I would be stating the same thing with sources to back up what I am stating. Martindo would be wasting my and others' time. I already told him that it is silly to act like vaginal anatomy on this matter is different in different parts of the world, such as China compared to America. There is no valid reason whatsoever to think that women in China have a lot more vaginal nerve endings and are more capable of orgasms experienced vaginally than American women are. There is no solid proof that "vaginal orgasms" exist beyond clitoral orgasms. That is a fact. The only extrapolation done at the article on this topic has been Martindo's original research. Again, we go by what WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. If Martindo continues this at the article talk page, it will be shut down with a RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I've made a small suggestion in the Talk page regarding the Sexual Activity section. That's all I want to say about a page I had little interest in editing in the first place. I saw some vague statements based on incomplete explanations and what I perceived as sloppy notions of science. There's no point in prolonging or re-igniting those issues.
As for the matter of gatekeeping: it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when one person does most of the work, usually out of a noble combination of expertise and dedication. When new contributors become increasingly dissuaded by rapid reverts and the requirement to respond to Talk by wading thru long rambles, the page devolves into a de facto narrowing of control by fewer editors.
I confess that I was very put-off by a shrill note on my user Talk page that threatened to report me to some sort of kangaroo court because I dared to undo a revert of my initial edit (or maybe I was rephrasing it). If that’s not the behavior of a gatekeeper, please tell me what is. However, name-calling isn’t a useful response to a perceived threat, so I’ll stop repeating it.
My view is that a good faith edit rarely results in a change so dire that it must be reverted instantly. If Talk is essential, then why not go there before making a revert? Let the change stand and see whom it draws out as a new editor to refine the wording, or to argue against it.
I have seen other WP pages with far more partisan defense of quasi-sacred text than this one, and some (politics, entertainment, biotech) that I suspect are guarded by paid hacks in multiple time zones — for example, an edit made when it is midnight in New York and dawn in London might be seen by a troll in Singapore who responds within minutes with a revert. That's why I titled a section of Talk "Preparation for Good Article nomination" -- it is a good article overall.
Many years ago, I got a piece of gender advice from a buddy’s girlfriend: “if a situation is comfortable, such as sitting down at a table or having an orgasm, the woman should go first; if a situation is uncomfortable, such as carrying out trash or making an apology, the man should go first.” So, I hereby apologize to Flyer for wasting your time with repetitive challenges to your ideas and justifications. I’m done. If you have any further interest in hearing my opinions, rethink "no solid proof" in light of the Cautionary Tale I posted on my user page User talk:Martindo #Cautionary_Tale_about_Experts_Denying_the_Experience_of_Ordinary_People. Martindo (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, Martindo, I am not comfortable with your statement above - "such as sitting down at a table or having an orgasm, the woman should go first". This is not something that would be said in conversation in the part of the world where I live. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Like I noted above, I do not have anything else to state Martindo on this matter. Even though he may mean well, I do indeed feel that he is wasting my time and others' time, per arguments I made on the article talk page and above. And I obviously do not care for his characterizations of me and/or what has been happening in this dispute. He has gone to the talk page yet again even though he stated that he was "done." His comment of "let the change stand and see whom it draws out as a new editor to refine the wording, or to argue against it" has already been answered times over on the article talk page. We are not going to let unsourced and/or inaccurate information stand. As for titling the section on the talk page "Preparation for Good Article nomination," that is pretty much a title I used. Martindo simply copied it. I'll go ahead and reply on the article talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tom.
Regarding your idea to exclude redirects from categorisation by field (you left me a message on my talk page a couple of days ago. Sorry for the long delay for my response); I would like to have redirects included.
I think it gives a better overview with redirects included, so synonyms are shown. If an editor is looking for articles about e.g. muscles in the leg he/she would think that we do not have an article about Fibularis brevis since it would only be listed as Peroneus brevis if redirects were excluded.
I think you can all ready get such a list as you are requesting by using Tools.
Redirects are categorised under Anatomy articles about an unassessed area and if we were to unlink redirects to the field categorisations this list would increase by about 20.000 rendering it useless to find unclassified articles.
The change you are talking about would require the use of bots or countless man hours to implement
If you still think implementing such a change is a good idea I will gladly discuss it further with you, but at a first glance I strongly oppose. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi JakobSteenberg, I must have not communicated clearly. My meaning is only that redirects should all be categorised as with field "unassessed area". I agree redirects should remain tagged with our project. That is all I am suggesting. What do you think? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, Tom. No, you communicated clearly. I understood that you would like redirects to be categorised as with field "unassessed area". As stated above I am not in favour of such a change for the reasons listed above. Sorry, if I answered a bit unclear before. JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, I understand. My perspective is - we already have redirects listed under our project. I devised the "fields" system so that contributors can easily have a list of articles that can be edited in a specific discipline - eg organs, microanatomical structures and so forth. I've been using it a fair bit recently and found it's very time consuming and somewhat frustrating to use when there's 3-4x the number of redirects that clutter up the list (especially because it's hard to work out on name alone which ones the articles are). A list of articles alone is much easier to use - the redirects are still contained within our project's scope, but with redirects included it becomes quite unwieldy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Tom (LT). Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Hey, Tom. When you get a good chance to do so, I ask that you review Barbara (WVS)'s edits to the article, especially the ones she's made to the Microanatomy section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me. The Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas12:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Tom (LT), you were going to return to finish your review in a couple of days, but it's been over three weeks, so I suspect you've simply forgotten about it. Please return when you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "massmessage-sender" user right, allowing you to send messages to multiple users at once. A few important things to note:
Messages should only be sent to groups of users who are likely to be interested in the topic.
For regular mailings such as those for WikiProjects, localized events, or newsletters, users should be informed of how they can unsubscribe from future mailings.
The mass messaging tool should never be used for canvassing with the intention of influencing the outcome of discussions.
For more information, refer to the guidance for use. If you do not want mass message sender rights anymore, just let me or any other administrator know and we will remove it. Thank you and happy editing! — xaosfluxTalk16:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
If you have the time, any help at WT:MMS would be useful! When sending MMS's for others, making sure their message is good is important - check that it is technically in good order (e.g. no un-closed tags; at a minimum includes a timestamp code), that their target list seems appropriate (how was it sourced?), and that their message meets content guidelines. I usually add an HTML comment at the bottom that it was a request from "User" at WT:MMS. Happy messaging. — xaosfluxTalk16:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Xaosflux, I agree that was super straightforward. I unfortunately don't have enough time to monitor another area of WP but will send my own messages from now on. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks BabbaQ. I unfortunately don't think it's suitable, based on the criteria listed, but have provided some alternate venues that you can contact. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Iztwoz, not sure what you mean here - did you make the move and you want me to find the correct TA term? Why then the 'cistern' move? Happy to help out but not sure how to search the TA - anyhow appreciating your work as always, --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I'm extremely appreciative of all the time you put into reviewing the HMB article for GA and at FAC. As of right now, it seems fairly likely that this article is going to be promoted to FA status; if it weren't for you, I probably would still be waiting for a GA review.
Always great to have another editor around, Whispyhistory. It's my view that it's better to use a commonly understood word if possible, particularly when most readers will understand the meaning of directions in anatomy (eg above, below, in front of, behind). Most of our readers are either lay readers or those studying the content, and so I think speaking the same language as our readers (instead of using Latin equivalents) is best if possible, so that they can understand the content. I wrote an essay with some ways to do that here: WP:ANATSIMPLIFY. If I was writing and I worried there might be some ambiguity I may write something like "X is behind (posterior) to Y". That said there's no absolutes. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you out while you're around these parts. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll re-read and edit if I can think of a simpler way to say it. I'm relying on mainly Last's/Snell/Gray, but let me know if any other good sources.Whispyhistory (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Some solid sources. Not usually - in general they fall under WikiProject Anatomy (where editors interested in anatomy live)... clinical content still needs to follow WP:MEDRS (i.e. use a "reliable source"), but doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be tagged with the project, which has more than enough articles already under its scope - one reason why we separated out the articles a few years ago. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban
Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:
Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:
