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.
Open Citations Month, with its eminently guessable hashtag, is upon us. We should be utterly grateful that in the past 12 months, so much data on which papers cite which other papers has been made open, and that Wikidata is playing its part in hosting it as "cites" statements. At the time of writing, there are 15.3M Wikidata items that can do that.
Pulling back to look at open access papers in the large, though, there is is less reason for celebration. Access in theory does not yet equate to practical access. A recent LSE IMPACT blogpost puts that issue down to "heterogeneity". A useful euphemism to save us from thinking that the whole concept doesn't fall into the realm of the oxymoron.
Some home truths: aggregation is not content management, if it falls short on reusability. The PDF file format is wedded to how humans read documents, not how machines ingest them. The salami-slicer is our friend in the current downloading of open access papers, but for a better metaphor, think about skinning an onion, laboriously, 100 times with diminishing returns. There are of the order of 100 major publisher sites hosting open access papers, and the predominant offer there is still a PDF.
Red onion cross section
From the discoverability angle, Wikidata's bibliographic resources combined with the SPARQL query are superior in principle, by far, to existing keyword searches run over papers. Open access content should be managed into consistent HTML, something that is currently strenuous. The good news, such as it is, would be that much of it is already in XML. The organisational problem of removing further skins from the onion, with sensible prioritisation, is certainly not insuperable. The CORE group (the bloggers in the LSE posting) has some answers, but actually not all that is needed for the text and data mining purposes they highlight. The long tail, or in other words the onion heart when it has become fiddly beyond patience to skin, does call for a pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart.
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 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.
Hello Tom (aka Precious one)! Is there a preferred choice of naming to use - i've always thought it was TA but is this the case - particularly for Neuroanatomy articles. Braininfo which is used a lot on the pages uses NeuroNames so things can get a little mixed. The page posterolateral tract (TA) is Dorsolateral fasciculus on Braininfo (NeuroNames) (and FMA). Can you give some guidance here. Seems more helpful to follow Braininfo info, isn't it? --Iztwoz (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hah, thank you for using my proper title (for once)! There seems to be a lot of variation in the way neuro structures are called and I have less experience about which terms are used in general to make a useful statement about which source best reflects that :(. In general factors to consider are:
Consistent titles with similar structures (e.g. tracts of the spinal cord can probably all be lumped together under 'x tract')
Commonality of use of names (e.g. n gram)
English where there's a choice between two fairly similar options (which seems to be the case here)
I think this area may require a little bit more nuance than gross anatomy where we can be guided more easily by TA. Let me know if there's anywhere I can help out. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I am a programmer and new to Wikipedia. I saw your bot request and wanted to start working on it. I am not sure I have enough experience to operate the bot, but I definitely have enough experience to program it. Once it's programmed maybe we can find a willing operator.
Before I get started, I need to figure out what the message that gets sent to a subscriber should look like. I have created a basic demo of something that might work, but I would like some feedback. You can see it here.
I made some progress tonight. The code is finished. We just have to figure out what the message will look like that editors will receive. The template is located at User:Kadane/PRV/SampleMessageTemplate. I'll leave an example below for both Engineering and technology and Language and literature.
The bot will know based off of the section heading the person places the {{PRV}} tag under on WP:PRV. If they want multiple update they will have to put {{PRV}} under each section they want to subscribe to. Kadane (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Tom, can you give a look to the Liver page. It was classed as B and an editor recently reclassed it as a C. I changed it back and shortly afterwards the same editor changed it back again. I think it's a B class what do you think? --Iztwoz (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Rreagan007 thanks for your edits around WP and to the vital articles project. We notice you've set the class of liver to C. Both Iztwoz and I are highly active in the anatomy Wikiproject and have rated thousands of articles - you can check our contributions log to verify this. Liver meets our B class criteria from an anatomy perspective - it is suitably comprehensive, written, has a suitable number of images, is adequately verified; better than C class but worse than a GA, a standard we would consider B class. As far as the grand scheme of things go this isn't that important, but just to let you know I have changed it back to "B". --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Probably not a lot. If you wanted to go with this I'll help where I can (and when I can) - time is a bit limited for me these days. Best--Iztwoz (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I saw you made a mass message for WP:PRV. I want to help keep the BRFA moving towards approval. I have generated a mailing list that follows the correct formatting at User:Kadane/PRV/Mailing_List. If you want you can move it to your user space so you can make the request. I move back to college on Tuesday and will be back to my regular schedule on Monday the 20th. I am hoping by then we will have enough people sign up to get a trial run approved. Let me know your thoughts. Kadane (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Kadane! Was that the entire list of contributors ?!! that's a bit sad, it looked like about 115 or so entries. You may have seen me surreptitiously planning a message or two in the background here (User:Tom_(LT)/Peer_review_mass_message), also quietly debuting a WikiProject here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Peer review). I am still touching up the links and wording and so forth and will send out a message by this Wednesday. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It is indeed the entire list of contributors. There are 123 total {{PRV}} tags on the WP:PRV page, but only 88 of them are unique. Here is a better overview of the subscribers and their sections User:Kadane/PRV/Jsondump/Pretty. This bot, the Wikiproject, and your advertising efforts should help bolster numbers going forward. In the mean time, you may want to change your subscription status from annually to monthly during the trial period so that I have enough people to message for the BRFA.
I have been keeping an eye on your contributions, it's looking good. Wednesday sounds great as far as the timeline goes. Will you do me a favor and correct the spelling of my name on your message so that anyone can contact me if they have questions? Best Kadane (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Tom (LT)! You created a thread called Image editing at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
Τζερόνυμο I think we did too. Unfortunately I don't have that much time for WP these days but it was nice to work with you. Please feel free to contact me, or us at WP:ANAT if there's any other articles you have thoughts on. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I 'll have that in mind! Is there another wikiproject focused on human embryology? Or is embryology within Anatomy's scope?Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Tom - have been back on the rib cage and rib pages and suggested a merge of rib to rib cage. In the past (!) I merged some pages to rib cage such as Head of rib, Neck of rib. I don't know why I merged to rib cage and not to rib. Any thoughts please.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Iztwoz. I remember seeing you make those mergers. I think it is simpler to have a division between rib cage (the whole structure) vs rib (anatomy of the single rib), so I think head, neck and what not should be redirected to rib. We use a similar structure for vertebral column / vertebra. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Tom (LT)! You created a thread called How to - revert vandalism with intermediate bot edit at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
Hello, Tom (LT). Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.
@Zackmann08 thank you for your message! One of our strengths here is to bring different points of view together with the same goal, which at the end of the day is to create a good encyclopaedia. So thanks for changing my mind :). I hope as I scratch your back you can scratch mine by apppreciating that (although we can't change it) "settlement" is not the greatest name for that template taking into account all the way it's used :P. I must say it is quite nice to have a level discussion about something here! --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Soliciting volunteers again? What would your mother think?
"Thanks for pointing this out, FLIP1970. Unfortunately we don't have that many anatomy editors to attend to your feedback right now. On the other hand, it seems like you have a good idea about what needs to be do so... how about attempting it yourself! (Wikipedia is made up of volunteers after all!) You have an account and I'd love to lend a hand if you give it a go. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)"
Hmmm… maybe. Standard caution on wishes, etc.
Still trying to figure out how WP Talk works as a messaging mechanism. Maybe a BBS is the approximate model?
I am a retired systems engineer so perhaps not the most general of reader or writer. In many contexts, including marketing and sales, I have developed content to explain specialist or technical content to those having lives where the specialty is not the pole of their existence. In such an effort I have biases toward techniques I have found effective: hierarchical descent from general to detail, reader/listener’s mental model construction then journey, mindfulness of learning styles and goal(s) of the content (tutorial, inform, persuade, entertain, debate, reference, etc.). I have reviewed the “Heart_development” section “Endocardial tubes” for possible re-write. In addition to the references already given, I have searched and reviewed what embryology references might be available with emphasis on discernible academic affiliation to indicate some hope of authority. Challenges:
Intended readership? - I have reviewed the style guides Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Technical_language, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles and its #Anatomy sub-section. Most of the Heart_development article could be assessed as WP style-guides-challenged, seemingly lightly paraphrased from medical texts and journal articles heavy on tasty medical Latin. Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable gives the WP institutional policy on ‘grades’ of readers. What is Team Anatomy’s target reader grade? Target scoring on readabilityofwikipedia.com or readabilityscore.com ? Many obvious common English substitutions for medical Latin would move the needle toward more general readership without loss of rigor. Acceptable? Desirable? Is it possible that some of the medical Latin terms in the existing content were used not because there is no common English substitute phrase but because the terms have available hyperlink targets in other WP articles (see text corpus)? As just demonstrated, there are style ways to do both but see below on length.
Visual learners hosed – The core of the article is the textual description of a complex, Galilean manifold of tissue change, tissue field mechanical re-modeling and signaling. There is no hope for visual learners here. Possibly because CC-licensed, 3D illustrations are not available? Most of what 3D I have found are lifts from Langman’s. My preferred technique is to start with a picture or diagram, annotate it then write to it. Covers both visual and textual learners.
If a more general readership style is used it will tend to increase article length compared to a compact jargon style. Textual gymnastics compensation for visual learners will add length as well if suitably licensed illustration is not available. For example, at narrative start on Day 18 the human embryonic disc component could be said to be approximately stingray shaped, which gives an immediate 3D visual of its shape for the general reader. The existing diagram of the embryo shape is a 2D epiblast-normal view and is presented free of implantation geometry context, so it only works if you already know the 3D shape. Conversely, abandon visual learners?
In a chronological model, both “Endocardial tubes” and “Heart tube position” contain information which seem as if it should be inter-woven.
English or American English spelling preference? For example, ‘fertilisation‘ vs. ‘fertilization’. I use Libre Office for draft work so have access to its tools and extensions for language and style.
Clearly, I blather on, like bullet points and occasionally fugue in to oracular pedantic pontification. Pre-pub external edit for length, style and technical is a must.
Wow, what a great and considered reply FLIP1970 I would encourage you to start making some small edits and, as you get more confident, move on to making larger edits. Everyone is a volunteer here and so brings their own perspective about where the needle should lie in terms of language and organisation, although as you note there are some overarching guidelines. In general articles should be written a level below the intended audience, so specialised articles may contain more technical language than general articles. My perspective is here: WP:ANATSIMPLIFY. Often we can write things appropriately and, in my experience, at the same length or more compactly than with technical jargon. Would be happy to work with you to improve a target set of articles or help you as you learn the ropes. This is a very rewarding experience, about 30 million people, or so view our articles every month, some articles receiving more attention than others (WP:ANAT500) --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Suggesting page move
Hello Tom - have just posted a comment on the Development of the nervous system in humans, talk page. Wondered about your opinion on this.? Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Tom - Sinusoid (blood vessel) was merged to capillary as it was one of the types listed there and shown on diagram. The page was tagged for merge in September 2018 and merged without contest this month. It needs further work on - the page before merge had several uncited tags. At the moment it is none too clear but there is the page Liver sinusoid and seems like more could be added re placental - so personally don't feel that it should be moved - at the moment it fits onto page and think a separate sinusoid (blood vessel) page unnecessarily confusing. But that's just my general reader's thoughts. best --Iztwoz (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, Dthomsen8 I have no idea. I have no special knowledge of Tajikistan and have never lived there, been there, studied about, or know any Tajikstanians I could ask. If you would like to flesh out this list perhaps you could do some research yourself? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Human brain's talk page.
Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is our sixth newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest.
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.
Vagina receives a lot of attention on its way to good article status.
We reach two projects goals of 20 good articles, and less than half of our articles as stubs, in July 2017. [2]
A discussion about two preferred section titles takes place here.
Introduction to WikiProject Anatomy and Anatomy on Wikipedia
We welcome all those interested in anatomy!
Seeing as we have so many new members, and a constant stream of new editors to our articles, I would like to write in this issue about how our project and articles are arranged.
The main page for WikiProject Anatomy is here. We are a WikiProject, which is a group of editors interested in editing and maintaining anatomy articles. Our editors come from all sorts of disciplines, from academically trained anatomists, students, and lay readers, to experienced Wikipedia editors. Based on previous discussions, members of our project have chosen to focus mainly on human anatomy ([3]), with a separate project for animal anatomy (WP:ANAN). A WikiProject has no specific rights or abilities on Wikipedia, however it does allow a central venue for discussion on different issues where interested editors can be asked to contribute, collaborate, and perhaps reach a consensus.
Project and article structure
Wikipedia has about 5,500,000 articles. Of these, about 20,000 fall under our project, about 5,000 of which are text-containing articles. Articles are manually assigned by editors as relating to our project (many using the rater tool). As well as articles, other Wikipedia pages in our project include, lists, disambiguation pages, and redirects. Our articles are improving over time, and you can have a look at our goals and progress, or last newsletter, to get a better idea about this.
Our articles are structured according to the manual of style, specifically here. The manual of style is a guideline, which "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and prescribes the layout of anatomy articles, most of which follow it.
Our articles are organised in a particular way. Most articles have a infobox in its lead, describing key characteristics about the article. Because we have so many articles, articles are often linked together in different ways. An article tends to focus on the primary topic it is written about. Further information can be linked like this, or piped (like this). We use navboxes, which are the boxes at the bottom of articles providing links to similar topics, as well as hatnotes. Typical hatnotes in articles include {{main}}, {{see also}} and {{further}}. This lets us link to relevant and related articles. The bottom of articles also shows categories, which store groups of related articles.
Tools
For interested editors, our project offers a number of additional tools to help edit our articles. On our main page appears a log of the most edited recent articles. An automatic list of recent changes to all our articles is here. We have a list of the most popular pages (WP:ANAT500). To keep abreast of news and discussions, it is best to monitor our talk page, newsletters, and our article alerts, which automatically lists deletion, good article, featured article, and move proposals. We also have a open tasks page for editors to create lists of tasks that other editors can collaborate with. Articles are also manually assigned to a "discipline", so interested editors in for example, gross anatomy, histology, or embryology can easily locate articles via here.
Our project has all sorts of smaller items that editors may or may not know about, including a barnstar, user box ({{User WPAnatomy}}), welcoming template ({{WPANATOMY welcome}}) and fairly comprehensive listing of templates (here).
Invitation
We are always happy to help out, and I invite new editors, or for those with any questions relating to how to get around the confusing environment that is Wikipedia, to post on our talk page or, for a kind introduction to questions, at the WP:TEAHOUSE.
How can I contribute?
Ask questions! Talk with other editors, collaborate - and if you need help, ask!
Continue to add content (and citations) to our articles
Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!
Find a space, task or type of article that you enjoy editing - there are lots of untended niches out there
Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:
THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.
Updates
It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...
With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!
Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing
The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:
{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.
We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.
Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review
I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.
So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.
Update #3: advertising
We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!
You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2020.
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 deleted 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. LizRead!Talk!03:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.
Hi Tom - hope all is well, you don't seem to have been around much lately. Just thought I would mention the page body cavity something seems amiss (to me) at first it states that body cavity refers to any fluid-filled space in an animal and goes on to include human body cavities that are not filled with fluid such as the cranial cavity. Am I missing something here? The fluid containing cavities such as the pleural cavity, are not mentioned. All best --Iztwoz (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Iztwoz, unfortunately (from a Wikipedia point of view) I've been on an intense two year training program that is pretty all absorbing. I agree the body cavity page is strange and also that it is weirdly organised. I might post on WP anatomy and we can talk there about it. With regards to the definition - technically the cranial cavity is fluid filled (with cerebrospinal fluid) but frankly the lay definition of a body cavity is, surely, a cavity that is in the body. It just happens that most are fluid filled and therefore some people describe them like that. I have however heard the orbital cavity described as one which is surely an exception and clearly it is not completely filled with fluid anteriorly. Hope everything is going well on your side! --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Tom I went ahead and did some editing without noticing that you had already done some - I hope I didn't affect anything you did - I did make it more 'human body' oriented but of course if that's not wanted feel free to change - apologies again for possibly giving you more work.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Iztwoz actually these aren't so bad. I linked the set to the relevant non cavity articles (eg "Thorax" to "Thoracic cavity") and left it at that. The cavity articles are in surprisingly good form. --Tom (LT) (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Abdomen
Hello Tom have just made some edits on Abdomen page - is the table really necessary? and should I ask such things here on on article talk page? Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Iztwoz no strong feeling here. Tried to neaten some things up and didn't really see the point of the bullet points there; a table is a little easier I think but wouldn't object if it were removed completely. --Tom (LT) (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your recommendations on drafts and for your interest in becoming more involved at Articles for Creation.
Participants list
The first hurdle is getting your name on the list of participants. With your experience, you should be a shoe-in and a very welcome addition to our corps, but because AfC has had problems in the past there's a somewhat convoluted process to follow:
Click Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, scroll down to the "Editing" section and ensure the box for "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" is checked. Then scroll to the bottom and click "Save". This will add a "Review" tool to the "More" drop down at the top of the page. It will only be visible when the current page is in the draft or user space. It will only work correctly after your name has been added to the participants list. There have been recent reports of a serious bug when using the tool with Internet Explorer or Microsoft Edge, so I hope you're using another browser. See WP:AFCH for more information about the tool.
A vital step in the reviewing instructions is to check for copyright violations. The description in the instructions of how to do this is medieval. In practice reviewers use a tool. If you add the line importScript('User:The Earwig/copyvios.js'); to User:Tom (LT)/common.js, you'll get a "Copyvio check" tool in the left-hand panel. Click it as the first step in reviewing every draft. It will run Earwig's Copyvio Detector on the current page.
If you encounter a copyright violation, then you may have to mark some revisions for deletion. You don't have to use a tool, but most reviewers find it easier. If you add the line importScript('User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js'); to User:Tom (LT)/common.js, you'll get a "Request CV revdel" link in the "More" drop down at the top of the page.
One way to help reviewers find drafts they want to review is to tag drafts with WikiProject templates. The draft will then appear in the project's article alerts (if that's what drew you to AfC, I'd be interested in hearing it). This can be done manually, but another script makes it quicker. If you add the line importScript('User:APerson/draft-sorter.js'); to User:Tom (LT)/common.js, you'll get a "Sort (draft)" link in the "More" drop down at the top of the page.
Twinkle is handy for requesting speedy deletion or taking a draft to MfD. It looks like you're already a user
--Worldbruce (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Worldbruce I appreciate your message and instructions. I've followed them (except for adding request revdel as I don't feel confident using that yet). --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Quadripedal
Hi Tom, I'd changed the image "File:1303 Human Neuroaxis.jpg" on Commons (after a request at the Teahouse) before I realised that it was from your own text book. Apologies for any offence that I might have caused. It was not intended. I'm happy for you to delete my version which has the wrong font. Thank you for all your expert contributions to Wikipedia. Dbfirs08:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my misunderstanding based on "own work". I guess someone uploaded it from OpenStax CNX which has the appropriate licence, but it wasn't you. Sorry to have bothered you. My "investigations" were defective. Dbfirs07:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Tom. I know almost nothing about editing Wikipedia, so I hope that I am sending this message correctly. I am the guy who made a YouTube video with a joke about renaming a ligament of the human body, that later made it into a published journal article. One of my viewers thought it would be funny to change the Wikipedia page for the median umbilical ligament. You were the one who fixed the page (thank you), and the person from whom I found out about the published article containing the term. I was wondering what the event looked like from your perspective. How did you know to fix the ligament page? How did you find the published article? I have tried contacting the authors of the article a few times and they have not responded. I hope things are going well for you! ARToftness14:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks ARToftness! I too tried to contact them. I think I had a look at recent changes to articles and someone had made a fairly benign change. Out of interest I checked out the article and saw "Xander" and thought - well, that must have interesting history as a word as it doesn't sound like typical eponymous names for anatomical things (which are usually Latinate, Greek, or German)... which led me to discover it. I thought it was pretty interesting how it had come about. I wonder if we explored publishing this as a letter to a medical journal, perhaps Journal of Anatomy? I'll explore this further and send you an email via Wikipedia if you're interested. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Tom (LT), thank you for your reply. Writing a letter does sound interesting! Please let me know what you discover as you explore that possibility. As an exciting update, I have received an email from the first author of the journal article that used the terminology "Xander Ligament" -- in which the author also expressed his confusion as to where the term came from. Apparently, it wasn't used in several early drafts of the article, and it was not in the version sent out for peer review. He shared with me evidence of this. It must have been added at some point, but he says he does not know when that would have been, or what the source of the term was. The second author of the article no longer works at Mayo, which may explain why our attempts to contact the corresponding author (the second author) did not work. It is good that I tried contacting the first author directly (using a different article to find his email address). Please let me know your thoughts. ARToftness (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
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.
Thanks for your work on this important article, and for everything else you've done with WikiProject Medicine. I noticed that you have a lot of other GAs, would you like me to check them for million awards? Some of them look like vital articles that would have high readership. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Talk page Comment
Hi Tom and a Happy New Year, but I would appreciate it if you could restore my talk page I tried the revert button you provided but it does not work. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I have managed to do this now. Sorry but - "Once a rebel always a rebel", and zero potential for change. I shall do a bit of clean up on page.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Request help with possible new Council for WikiProjects
Hi. I am trying to create a forum where various WIkiProjects can exchange ideas and information about their best ideas, efforts, methods, and accomplishments. I am the Lead Coordinator at WikiProject History. I tried to create an active exchange at WikiProject Council, but did not get very far when I tried to do so.
I would like to get some interested editors together who might be interested in helping with this idea, either with getting WikiProject Council moving again, or creating a whole new WikiProject to do so.
You can sign up to help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editors Forum/Members. Right now, this page is a redirect to a draft in my user space; we will move it to the project space as soon as we have ten people signed up.
eventually, the goal would be to have a few people from a wide variety of WikiProjects and varioous topical areas, working together at WIkiProject Council, to help us create a forum and an exchange for ideas and information.
Would you be interested in helping with this? Please let me know. If you wish, you can simply comment on my talk page to let me know any comments or thoughts on this. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Idea for new community workspace
Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.
You have been very helpful, so I wanted to get your brief input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen. I see a few possible options for making this happen, so I would like to get your input and feedback on this. which of the options below would you prefer? also, please reply to the brief questions below.
Would you be interested in an idea of this nature?
If so, which option below seems most feasible to you?
Create a new page/talk page at the existing WikiProject Council, where members of various WikiProject can gather to offer updates, information and ideas on the latest efforts at each of their own WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Town Hall.
Create an entirely new WikiProject with an inclusive name such as
Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sm8900, I saw your efforts at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council. If you want my two cents, I'd advise as I mentioned before to do things gradually, with consensus, and recognise that a WP is active because of its members (rather than by, say, direction or a lead editor). Additionally, in my experience it's fruitless to reinvent the wheel here on WP, so I'd participate in what we already have rather than try and create something completely new. Therefore I would advise you to stop your mainpage edits to WP council (it doesn't seem to be going very well with the editors there), take stock, and propose creating a task force under the project (such as "Wikiproject Council/Forum" or "/Town hall") with the purpose of having blue-sky discussions in general about Wikiprojects and ideas for revitalisation and crossmingling of ideas etc. My feeling is that it might be better to have a local venue for your enthusiasm to discuss with other editors some ideas about what to do before you start actually doing anything. If there are a few interested editors in your idea, then you can localise all your discussion there. Hope that helps, --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Although as I think about it, it seems like things have calmed down over there. The main discussion page might be a great place to keep having a chat. I do think it's useful that someone keeps bringing up these basic issues, as that kind of energy does stimulate thinking which may eventually result in a solution (taking into account that, unlike mainspace, in Wikiprojects changes occur via consensus rather than boldness) --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pancreas 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 Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The article Pancreas 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:Pancreas for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, may I ask if you know the answers to the questions posted at Talk:Angiotensin-converting_enzyme_2? I am not confident of my answer there and would like to seek for your assistance. Thank you!
Thanks for contacting me; I see others have already responded on the talk page. I've done my best to simplify the lead. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tom - have just moved page funiculus neuroanatomy to funiculus neurology but think this was a wrong move ? Thank you --Iztwoz (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Iztwoz sorry for the delay. Agree that "neuroanatomy" is more appropriate. I'll propose a RM on the talk page for yourself and others to comment.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tom (LT), just a note: if you've got the time/interest, Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Biology_and_medicine is severely backlogged, with nominations languishing for many months (as yours did) before they get a review. By the time reviews come along, nominators have often lost track of sources or are busy in real life. If you've got time to undertake a thorough review and help unclog the process, it'd be much appreciated. That said, if instead you're improving articles, that's probably a good use of your time too. I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, yeh I have reviewed quite a few GAs as you can see on my main page. I usually can't commit the amount or regularity of the time to do a good GA review so I stick to gradual editing with some occasional sprints at the moment. When I have time or don't feel like editing I move to the reviewing side of things which is also quite enjoyable. At the moment with things heating up at the moment in the real world I don't think I'm going to have time for either. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thymus 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 Cinadon36 -- Cinadon36 (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trachea 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 Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi Tom (LT), you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
Care to do a peer review? You peer reviewed the article Elcor, Minnesota and helped elevate it to FA status. This one has been sitting out there for a couple months.
Thanks!
DrGregMN (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tom, it would be better to use the Talk Page rather than leave long edit summaries as you did here. [4] A discussion through edit summaries is rarely productive or collegiate. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Graham Beards, completely agree with that. Hopefully we can both improve in our use of edit summaries and the talk page. You have just deleted a quote as 'not necessary' (Special:Diff/966276919/966359760). I provided this quote because you recently deleted the entire statement, despite it already having a source to back it up (Special:Diff/966137544/966137750). This is confusing. Seeing as a running commentary on the article has been provided in your edit summaries, despite my proposal to discuss on the talk page (Special:Diff/966080415/966080495), I have assumed that was your preferred method of communication. All this said, the article is looking much better following our edits. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Prostate
Hi, Tom... what is your preferred method for collaborating on content? I don’t take on GA reviews because ... well, I don’t find the GA process very useful, as one person’s opinion ... but I can help you tune up the prose for your GA review. Different people I have collaborated with use different methods. Have you ever worked with inline (hidden) comments, where reviewers embed hidden comments and questions in the text, so you can resolve them as you have time? Or do you prefer lists on article talk? Or do you prefer that I directly edit the article? Most reviewers are hesitant to edit directly, so as to not mess with your GAN ... But also, leaving long lists on article talk might discourage GA reviewers from taking it on ... let me know how to approach the work, and I will dig in as I have time. It is in pretty good shape already! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia, I am always trying to rope people into collaborating. If you'd like to edit collaboratively that's great. If you'd like to collaborate by providing some feedback that's good too. If that's the case, I can still personally identify a number of areas in Prostate that need work so I would be more than happy to ping you when it's at a standard I'm happy with and then we can go from there (I don't see much point until then, as you'll likely start by commenting on those areas).
With respect to the utility of GA, I am a big fan. The anatomy space has really been quite untended since the mammoth work put in by Arcadian in 2007. The standards set by GA - that is; statements are verifiable; content is easy to read; article is comprehensive; images are acceptable - they are not difficult to meet but I find them very useful goalposts to get articles to, as anatomy articles often need quite a bit of work to get them there. I feel these standards are useful because they do help improve the reading experience and also the content. Once they hit that standard, I feel articles are also easier to periodically keep an eye on to ensure that they remain there. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
With regard to FA, a horrible and public experience that occurred to me earlier in my editing has really turned me off it. At that time I felt as if it was run by a cabal of editors who made a number of, what seemed to me, unrealistic demands in a very time-consuming manner that were not able to be discussed, and then concurrently edited in a stylistic manner, which at the end of the day served to utilise my hard work on the articles, but felt as it was mostly to remove my imprint and push me out of their editing space. It was quite stressful and time-consuming. So I prefer to stick away from that for the moment.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Tom, sorry to take so long to get back to you; it's been one thing after another. I wasn't trying to convince you to head to FAC: I was offering my reasoning for why I would help with the article, but not engage the GAN. And explaining that I don't want to drop a wall of text on the article talk page if they will be off-putting for the GAN. I can help with this article simply because I have more knowledge than I'd like to have about the prostate, and can suggest a number of improvements. But only if you want, and only when you're closer to ready! I just want to know here where to park my notes so they won't interfere with your GAN (your talk, my talk, article talk, or sandbox). And if you don't want the additional feedback, that's fine, too (because I try to always work to FA standard, and it may be more than you want to take on). (What was your dreadful FA experience, if you don't mind saying?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia, reflecting on your earlier offer of collaboration there are two articles which over many years I have decided would be good to get to WP:GA status and ideally one day WP:FA, so collaboration and feedback would be much appreciated. Those articles are Anatomical terms of location and Anatomical terminology. Unlike what I've said above about some articles, I think an eventual WP:FA is likely to contribute significantly and constructively, because the focus on utmost readability, consistency and comprehensiveness is very important. Those articles (and the "anatomical terms of" set) are to me very important articles for the anatomy space. They receive lots of views, and if written and structured well they have the potential to assist their hundreds of thousands of viewers to gain a better understanding of anatomy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I have delayed in getting back to you ... six-hour drive to cabin tomorrow, and then three days when I can catch up, more later, pls ping me if I forget! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Catching up now. OK, unlike prostate, I know next-to-nothing about anatomy, but I can help mentor you through the process and help assure you are well prepared before you approach FAC. Which of the two do you want to take on first? And how does that relate to your timing on the prostate GAN? I am struggling to keep up, so want to prioritize. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not too rushed about prostate; usually I wait 6 - 9 months before the GAs are reviewed. Anatomical terms of location would be most helpful. I know it is not yet ready for GA however having edited it for the last 6 years I am really struggling to view it from an external perspective to get a grip on both major and minor issues that it's facing --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I am way behind on things I owe people ... would it be OK then to hold off until you are through GA? You can follow some of the comments and edits I am making at two other articles as they work their way up to FAC ... complete blood count and Buruli ulcer ... and then I can engage yours with more focus and time once you are closer to ready. This archived discussion might help, and page numbers are now being requested, even on journal citations (see References at dementia with Lewy bodies). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like you're quite busy! My quasi-FA experience, from two people I thought were FA regulars, that was here: Special:Permalink/901168385 (now removed from my talk page). I think I also have matured in my editing since then so I may have responded in a different way, but that was a really dis-spiriting experience. Thanks for your help and advice so far. My concrete plan is this: I will wait for both to pass GA; then I'll ping you for your suggested improvements to Prostate, and will do what I can with references post GA for ATOL prior to pinging you about that one. I've posted also on WikiProject Anatomy talk page for some feedback there. See you in 2021 (when I these will probably get reviewed), --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Yes, I'm still backlogged from the Arb Case, and have struggled to catch up. For now, I will take these off my to-do list then. When you are ready for feedback, would you mind posting to my talk page instead of pinging me? One problem I am having is that I lost track of pings, whereas when something is on my talk page, I don't archive it until it's done. That is, I can use my talk page as a To Do list, and not have to deal with those dreadful pingie thingies. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Nice to meet you HansonJunior. What made you interested in that page and to think to contact me? Unfortunately I don't have time to bring it to GA myself, however I'm happy to help out if you'd like to try. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Intermammary cleft
Hi Tom can you intervene on this - if you think warranted - the page ought to be just about the anatomic structure which granted is very small but an editor has kept trying to make it relevant to cleavage (breasts) page. I gave up on edits since the person is mindbent on this, but have just noticed that it was redirected to cleavage (breasts) page. I have reverted this but cannot retrieve the talk page - also its likely to get reverted. Alternatively to get this page away from cleavage is there another anatomy page it could fit into. Thank you --Iztwoz (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Iztwoz that article really has really changed quite a bit. Thanks for notifying me.
In my opinion, Cleavage (breasts) is like dimple, one of those anatomy space articles covered mostly from a social and cultural point of view. I will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red who might be able to help bring a broader group of editors to desensationalise the article.
With regard to intermammary cleft, I agree that these are two separate articles with significant cross-over; one is about the anatomical area, and one is about the visible area that only includes part of the visible surface of the anatomical space, so they don't always match up. I've reverted and requested further discussion.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Here are two discussions you may be interested in - this (a merger discussion) and this (response to you post). Thanks.
BTW, looking at the complaints and issues raised, I have removed the non-anatomical stuff from the anatomical article, inclduing content about pathology. A focused article for everyone to develop (though I doubt that this article will ever have enough content to move beyond a start class, right now closer to a stub). Aditya(talk • contribs)01:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prostate 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) 17:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ureter 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) 16:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
The article Prostate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prostate for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The article Ureter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ureter for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello to all! This is the second Wikipedia Peer Review newsletter, containing some updates relating to peer review since the initial newsletter in August 2018. I intend these as infrequent newsletters that can be used to interact with interested editors and also let people know about relevant changes.
Thanks again to everyone who has been responding and helping out at peer review, it's great to see the venue so active.
I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, want to include something in the next newsletter, wish to receive these, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or add / remove your name from the mailing list.
Editors can now choose to be contacted periodically by User:KadaneBot with unanswered peer reviews in specific topic areas. If you'd like to be contacted, please visit the volunteers page and update your preferences
Peer reviews on "Article alerts"
If you're a member of a WikiProject, you may have noticed peer reviews getting included in the article alerts lists, which is sure to enhance our subject-specific visibility.
How can I contribute?
Answer some reviews! A list of unanswered reviews is here: (WP:PRWAITING)
Add yourself to the volunteers list, and receive regular updates about unanswered reviews here: (WP:PRV)
Or, if you only want one request a blue moon, Click "watch" on the list of items that somehow missed getting added to the unanswered list (here). Sometimes, these reviews linger for months!!
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of patient-reported quality of life surveys until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}21:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hope all is well. If you have time, and since you recently made some major edits to the page, would you mind taking a look at Epidural administration and seeing if the changes I've made are good? If not, it's totally okay - I plan to keep working on this article over time and hopefully take it to GA eventually. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 07:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Berchanhimez looks great. I have made some edits for grammar, copyediting, and to highlight some statements that are uncited. I note that a few sentences around the place need sources, and a few sources that are used could be updated to be more reliable (either more recent, or moved from a primary to a secondary source). Overall looks good. Feel free to disagree with my edits and edit on top of them. Let me know if you'd like further input closer to GA. I'm pleased we are able to get it looking so much better as compared with where it was. I wonder if a way to break up the long 'complications' section might be to divide it up into subsections, some ideas I have are something like "Failure to work" (pain control, complete failure - not sure if this section will be too sure), "Systemic effects", and "Local effects" (bruising, bleeding etc. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tom, thanks for having a look! Absolutely, I'll go ahead and get that cleaned up shortly with additional citations. Thanks for bringing that to my attention! Rytyho usa (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anatomical terms of location 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 ArnabSaha -- ArnabSaha (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Request for advice on article
Hi Tom, thanks for your comments on Draft:Sano Genetics. It would be great to get some more clarity on what kind of news articles would qualify for a Wikipedia article? The note mentioned that the references used only have passing mentions of the topic, but it is the main focus of the feature from the Guardian, and is featured as one of 15 by Business Insider. Do these not qualify? Or do are the publications not considered reliable? I haven't included some industry publication coverage as I didn't think that would qualify so it would be great to get a better idea of what qualifies! Thanks for your help! Clarealev (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I do not believe these are independent reliable sources per WP:ORG. One is a list of 15 startups to watch, and one relies heavily on information the company provides. You are welcome to make any changes you see fit to the draft and then request a third opinion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
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 deleted 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. LizRead!Talk!16:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
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 deleted 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. LizRead!Talk!16:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Request on 18:21:29, 6 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Tulkas76
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Seminal vesicles 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 Berchanhimez -- Berchanhimez (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gerda, sorry yes I was thinking sbout my reply and then got distracted. I can only see the one question, yes I can confirm I've viewed the sidebar. I can see that I dont hold the majority opiniom but I can also confirm I find them to be useful, although I am approaching this from my general perspective. Its great to see a number of editors participating. I appreciate your yearly precious gems by the way :). Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
One question is about Bizet, the other about a specific opera by Pergolesi. I'd really like to understandwhat in the sidebar you find useful. I was unable to understand in these seven years since I was restricted for battleground behaviour because I thought the side navboxes are clearly redundant. Did you know that It took me about a year to see that the little "show" button below the composer's image - old Handel for his youthful works - opened something? In a recent DYK review about an opera, I was asked if I had no better image to offer than of the composer. So - just for my enlightenment, can you explain what you find useful (for half of our readers, while the other half doesn't see any of it, which makes it somewhat unfair to start with)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I personally find that they are useful because they contain only a small amount of links and, if I was viewing an article about an opera, operas by the same composer would be one of the first things I'd like to see. From my own perspective, I've found sidebars quite useful when they contains some useful links. The concerns you mention above see to be mostly cosmetic; so I would address these (as I have in the past with sidebar edits) by making the picture smaller and auto showing the links. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. We obviously look differently. When I come to an opera article, I want to know about that opera, not be taken elsewhere. That's my main concern. The topic "opera" is - for all composer navboxes I know and made - the top topic, and clearly separated from others, see {{Georges Bizet}}, therefore the "scope" argument that Nikkimaria brought up, and that Voceditenore has refuted now, is of minimal concern if any. Did you know why the five Bizet operas had a side navbox and no infobox, as all of Bizet's masterworks? Because of respect for one certain user who created them and hated infoboxes, only, that user hasn't edited in years. I thought we could drop the consideration of one person's interest now, in the interest of the many users who - like myself - want to know about the opera first, not other operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I really enjoy working with lots of different volunteers on this website, as it's usually the case there are many points of view which often leads to a better outcome than a single voice, even if I don't necessarily agree. Because many discussions are subjective there will be times when we disagree and I also don't see a problem there, and I try to treat each topic on its merits rather than based on the involvement or past involvement of editors. I don't however have anything else to say on this matter, and am happy if you want to add that you have discussed this with me on my talk page on those discussions.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, - I didn't want to do that without your consent. I agree with every word you said in this response, especially "each topic on its merit", but that is exactly the reason why I wanted a response specifically for the case of Livietta e Tracollo which, when you commented "useful", looked like this. You didn't answer, so I don't know if you looked, and still not what might have been useful, but I no longer care. Thanks to Voceditenore, that article is at peace, and the topic will be, I am sure. Seven years of perceived war, in which I was perceived as the key aggressor, were seven years too many. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tom (LT)! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Stale non declared drafts in userspace, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
Thank you again for opening the pre featured article review discussion on the peer review talk page. You have put together a great proposal that will hopefully help to make the peer review process more active. If anything, you have encouraged me to be more active in that space. Thank you for your work there! Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is our seventh newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest.
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.
We reach a project goal of 150 B-class articles in July 2020, increasing by about 50% over five years, and are one good article away from our goal of 40 GAs, doubling over the last five years
I have been asked to write up something introducing the Featured article (FA) process to anatomy editors, but I took a more general approach to explaining why one might want to contribute featured content and the benefits to the editor and to Wikipedia. I also tried to address some misconceptions about the FA process, and give you a guide that is somewhat specific to health content should you decide to take the dive.
A vital purpose of Featured articles is to serve as examples for new and aspiring Wikipedia editors. FAs are often uniquely comprehensive for the Internet. They showcase some of our best articles, and can enhance Wikipedia's reputation if they are maintained to standard—but in an "anyone can edit" environment, they can easily fall out of standard if not maintained. Benefits to the writer include developing collaborative partnerships and learning new skills, while improving your writing and seeing it exposed to a broader audience—all that Wikipedia is about!
Looking more specifically at WP Anatomy's featured content, the Featured media is impressive and seems to be an Anatomy Project strength. The Anatomy WikiProject has tagged 4 FAs, 1 Featured list, and 30 Featured media. Working towards upgrading and maintaining older Featured articles could be a worthwhile goal. Immune system is a 2007 FA promotion, and bringing it up to date would make a nice collaboration between WikiProject Medicine and the Anatomy WikiProject. Hippocampus is another dated promotion that is almost 50% larger than when promoted, having taken on a bit of uncited text and new text that might benefit from a tune-up.
SandyGeorgia has been a regular FA reviewer at FAC and FAR since 2006, and has participated in thousands of nominations
How can I contribute?
Ask questions! Talk with other editors, collaborate - and if you need help, ask at our project page!
Continue to add content (and citations) to our articles
Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!
Find a space, task or type of article that you enjoy editing - there are lots of untended niches out there
This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WikiProject Anatomy users. To opt-out, remove your name from the mailing list
Vitamin K: GA review
Copyright check in August: at that time, three sites (m,blog, Youngevity Wiki, Mays3.weebly) showed >95% probability of match. Very likely these were copies of Wikipedia rather than the other way around, as they all appeared to have content that was in the July 2015 version of the Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for getting this underway. I intend to start by addressing the citations needed and excess citations, and then continue with the other items. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi David notMD, great to hear. Would you mind putting further comments about the review on the review page? :) That way it's nice and centralised for everyone. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if this was something in your wheelhouse or just felt it was a decent list to make, but thought I'd let you know that the conversion from template to list is done. Feel free to hack and slash in whatever manner you feel fit. Primefac (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Tom, as part of ratcheting up the new FAC PR template, I have also been trying to clean up article milestones. GimmeBot used to incorporate all talk page templates into Template:Article history, but he was chased off by a sock and a prima donna, and no bot has done it all since. I am trying to understand why this did not convert to the Template:Old peer review ... I had to go find it manually. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
That is weird. User:Writ Keeper developed the script (for which I remain ever-grateful, although it is not always 100% reliable) and I tend to bring up those sorts of thing with them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Bold edits to templates
I'm not too familiar with the template space so I thought I would ask for your advice before I potentially do something stupid. Are bold moves of navboxes allowed? I've been looking at {{Myeloid blood tests}} again and feel more strongly than ever that it should be moved to {{Clinical hematology blood tests}} - and I get the impression you and I are the only editors who care deeply about these things, so I don't think it would be controversial. But I've noticed that you tend to open TfDs in situations where I would be tempted to just make a bold edit, so I thought perhaps there might be a policy/guideline/unwritten rule against doing that... Spicy (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spicy, I think that sounds like a great move and you can do it boldly, certainly there's no need to go via TfD. I have also been making some bold edits in the background :).
In general I propose template stuff there (via Twinkle, which is amazing if you don't have it) if it's likely to be controversial, if it's going to be difficult to undo (eg moving lots of links), or if it's a good central place to discus something (eg if I plan to do a partial merge and split and so TfD is the best central place). I don't think your planned move satisfies any of those criteria. Also very happy to be pinged if you need more opinions or help with template stuff. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Edit of Template:Old peer review
@Tom (LT) I notice your sandbox of this template has a function that would be immensely beneficial to the bot you suggested and that I am operating. The function is that the existence of a valid reviewedname removes the broken link category. I am wondering if it is possible to add that functionality to Template:Old peer review and Template:oldpeerreview
@Tom (LT) There is a problem in that because the parameter that I specify is reviewed name, not reviewed link. The template only removed it from the category if there's a reviewedlink from what I understand. My bot operates on the reviewedname parameter. BJackJStalk17:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tom: I'm from the WP:BIRDS project, and have volunteered to try out your new process. A couple of suggestions. 1) You might explain somewhere in your directions box that the N in ArchiveN is to be replaced with the number from the template the Peer Review setup creates. It took me a few minutes to figure out why I kept getting a red link. 2) The listing on our project's peer review page looks a bit of a mess. Is there any way to make the listing bold-headed, instead of just including it in three === marks ===? Also, is this going to put all of the peer review's verbiage on that page too? We really just need a listing of the article's awaiting peer review there, not all of the comments too. MeegsC (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi MeegsC - is the current formatting any better? I also updated the instructions - let me know what you think. Really great to hear from you for feedback - I've had quite a few "thank yous" but no specific feedback, so I appreciate you taking the time to give me some. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tom: Yep, both of those are nice improvements. Thanks! One more question: in the instructions, you suggest adding "November 2020" (for example) to the archived peer review, but you've added it to the active review request in our example. Does that make any difference? MeegsC (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@MeegsC: - it doesn't make a difference. Actually I'm not sure if it's worth putting or not. My exposure to most reviews suggest they remain untended for years (I've seen some more than a decade) so I'm inclined to suggest that the Date is put there too. What do you think about that? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea to me; maybe it would goose some editors to respond. It would be great if the date got added automatically when the request was created, rather than somebody having to remember to do it. And maybe add another showing the date it’s archived? MeegsC (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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.
The article Anatomical terms of location you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anatomical terms of location for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ArnabSaha -- ArnabSaha (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
,_160906,_ako.jpg)
