I didn't mean to step on your toes or crush your spirit when I reverted your edits to abdomen. We definately want you to be bold, but procede with caution before deleting a page's entire content. Look at the page's edit history. In this case the very first edit to the page was creating abdomen as a seperate article from human abdomen. Also use the link on the left hand panel that says "what links here" to help clean up ambiguous or erroneous links to incorrect pages or to clean up redirects after a page move. I agree with you that the page badly needs help, though. Maybe you can fix it so that it becomes a full fledged article on abdomens in all animals. Feel free to reply if you want, either here or on my Talk page. TheLimbicOne 19:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to completely re-write the article to clean it up, then feel free to replace the old text with your new text. TheLimbicOne 20:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on your Talk page. --Mattopaedia 02:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made signifigant changes to the body cavity article and invite you to review it for completeness, style, and factual error. TheLimbicOne 11:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oopse, I meant "I'd be interested in your findings in the body cavity article". Feel free to make these changes to peritoneum yourself (I'd hate to draw undue credit). TheLimbicOne 13:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what the heck. Just rip into body cavity instead of sending me changes. :-) TheLimbicOne 13:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia (again)! I replaced your deleted sentence in the article Labium. It seems as if your main objection against the sentence is that it would simply be for "People who are interested in vulvas" (cough User:Alexander 007). However, your arguments aren't ground for the deletion of the sentence; conversely it results the deletion of the vulva in the See also section. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has to be factually accurate. In fact, I added more to the article about the Labium and its "role". AndyZ 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! I didn't remove that sentence because I objected to some of the motives of "people interested in vulvas" in that schoolkid looking up rude words in the dictionary kind of way. I don't object to that at all - 20 years ago I would have been looking for precisely that reason! The reason I removed it was because I felt the neutrality of the article was compromised by labouring one interpretation. I've since re-read the NPOV policy and realise majority opinions may receive proportionately more space in an article without necessarily being POVist.

I've reconsidered my stance therefore, and decided I'll leave that aspect of the article alone. Now I've had more time to think about it I feel my major issue is there is one article for labia (plural) and one for labium (singular). They're both alternative forms of the same word and have similar links. Perhaps they should be merged. I'll put it up for consideration & post this to their discussion pages here and here. Mattopaedia 23:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my latest proposed merge at eumetazoa as it's apparently controversial. TheLimbicOne(talk) 02:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for the heads up. I see the Branchial arch article as a general article, and I could see why you would nominate to merge the subcategories, such as the First branchial arch, into it. They were previously stubs for the most part. But I initially, and continue to see, that in the future all that information placed into the branchial arch article would make for a sprawling article, and it would be better to have the information broken up. As it stands now, the first branchial arch article is really very small considering the amount of information that could and probably should be in there. But my focus is not in that field--- it only touches upon it. This is why I made the stub in the first place. If the articles are merged together, no harm will be done in the short term, but I think it will save time and effort in the long term because the information is going to need to be split up eventually anyways. Other articles may want to link to an article solely on the second branchial arch or on the sixth branchial arch, and it would be better to have readers see the specific information in that article. Also, concerning the branchial pouches and branchial grooves, I think they DEFINITELY belong on a different article. Though associated, they are entirely unique and separate topics from that of the branchial arch--- enough so that they warrant their own article. I never created separate articles for the pouches and grooves, but I figured someone would come along and create them. - Dozenist talk 15:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, I hadn't realised you're an orthopod! The medics are rather dominating Wikipedia, we're still trying to lure some surgeons into here. The problem is, general surgeons usually try to do a laparotomy, which cannot be achieved on Wikipedia without breaking the servers :-) JFW | T@lk 18:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have actually had an orthopod around, Myles Clough (Mylesclough (talk · contribs)), but he appears to have left again. He edited a few articles and uploaded a bunch of useful images, e.g. Image:Nof pauwels3.jpg. I've worked on osteoporosis before. JFW | T@lk 10:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you are a participant in the WikiProject Preclinical Medicine. The article Connecting tubule has been nominated for deletion. As this is an anatomical subject I was hoping to get somebody within the project to adopt the article for expansion. I could find no way to add the article to this project. I hope you or your fellow particpants would consider adopting this article to love. James084 22:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of inactivity, Medicine has been selected as the new medicine collaboration of the week. I am taking the unusual step of informing all participants, not just those who voted for it, since I feel that it is important that this highest-level topic for our collaboration be extremely well-written. In addition, it is a core topic for Wikipedia 1.0 and serves as the introduction to our other articles. Yet general articles are the ones that are most difficult for individuals to write, which is why I have invited all participants. I hope it isn't an intrusion; I don't make plan to make a habit of sending out these messages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your interest in topics surgical. Perhaps you'd be interested in adding an internation perspective to the breast implants entry

Not really my cup of tea, actually. I'm more into bones, professionally. Mind you, it is quite an impressive entry. By the way, I generally prefer it if people leave some kind of indication who they are. Its nice to know who I'm talking to. So why not sign in before you edit, so you can leave your mark on your work? Mattopaedia 12:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

the main page of WikiProject Medicine has just been redesigned, comments are welcome! Please consider listing yourself as a participant.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Mattipaedia, just wanna give you 2-thumbs-up for creating the userbox. I shall be inserting onto my user page forthwith. And just ignore that Fuddlemark character (if that is his real name). --Jquarry 22:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only a few of us. Do we want to get together sometime? Please reply at my talk page --One Salient Oversight 08:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Meetup

In order to defeat the "deletionists" would you be prepared to keep Safia Aoude's article?Phase4 11:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, mate!FelixFelix ^talk 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt, thanks for your quality work on the WP:ASE project ! Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same rules, fresh new data :-) I send this because you asked for updates, which will probably not happen more than twice a year. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a big list, because we now cover the whole encyclopedia, not just the beginning of the alphabet! The list would have been impossibly long, so we filtered out articles that have been written by somewhat experienced editors. So this list is articles that really need help... articles written by an inexperienced editor and not reviewed by anyone. Please keep up the good work ! :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've uploaded File:RCPA logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Steve. I've replied here. Mattopaedia (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... for your self-inclusion on the RD regs page and apologies for letting you slip through our non-existent screen ;-) Oh, and good luck retaining your sanity while observing our "...that was medical advice..." --- ""No it wasn't, it..." pathology! -hydnjo talk 01:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just as well I enjoy pathology! Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 02:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought. Now on a more serious note, once you've settled on a sig (^ that one is distinctive) please edit the regs page - accuracy counts for we obsessive types :-) hydnjo talk 02:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something I've been meaning to do for years, but mostly couldn't be bothered figuring it out. Now it'd be really cool to be able to do some kind of global find & replace - for consistency's sake of course - I'd hate to upset all the OCD editors out there ;-D Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 02:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do that, it would be like rewriting history. Not to worry though, the Adrian Monks out there who don't understand about that will be kept busy for a quite a while with your abundant contribution history - good for the rest of us! -hydnjo talk 03:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carry on then!Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 03:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to pitch in remember to preserve the date and then fill-in sig with three tildes, not four. ô_o hydnjo talk 04:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	Thank you for joining Cardiology task force, a collaborative effort to make the project more comprehensive and a lot of improvment needed for many articles. Below are some ongoing tasks for you to take part in, or you can add a task to do. Another great place to check out is Category:Cardiovascular system stubs. Happy editing, Maen. K. A. (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cardiology task force, tasks you can do:

Hey, thanks for your note of support. I must confess to being a bit bewildered by the whole thing. I don't have the appetite to discuss this any further on the RD talk page, it's all become rather wearying. Once again, I appreciate your taking the time to write. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 02:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Faith Lutheran College, Redlands, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!, history of dermatology, or list of dermatologists pages? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. I'm more interested in dermatopathology than clinical dermatology, and I use David Weedon's book as my main reference. I've got exams coming up, and I sometimes write articles as a study aid. So I'll do my own Weedon Push from time to time. Cheers. --Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 01:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with the list of cutaneous conditions! Also, whenever you add a new condition to the list, make sure it isn't already in the list. ---kilbad (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! Thanks for fixing that. Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 11:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page and now there is a boat load of clean up that needs to be done. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Guerillero (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. My focus is more on histopathology than psychopathology, so, although I have opinions I may share on the subject I probably won't do a great deal of subject work there. Cheers! Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 11:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microbiology in general is not a sub-specialty of pathology; most microbes don't cause disease. The the caption for the image I removed makes it sound like they do. 24.208.241.121 (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing back! You're of course completely correct that most microbes don't cause disease, and the scientific pursuit of microbiology certainly encompases study of all micro-organisms whether or not they are pathogens. The article Microbiology describes this reasonably well. Pathology, however, is the study of disease, which I'm sure you're well aware. Pathology as a broad discipline uses many methodologies, including microbiological techniques. The pathology article, which is a work in progress like all of wikipedia, attempts to describe this multi-faceted aspect of pathology. The caption simply reads "Agar plate with bacterial colonies." I don't understand why you feel this caption suggests most microbes cause disease. Perhaps you could explain that, or even better, rather than deleting the image and the caption, you can write a new caption. But please be mindful of the intent of the article when doing so.

Can I also suggest you consider registering on wikipedia? Its simple, free, and hides your IP address. It also distinguishes your work whenever you edit, which makes it easier for others to talk to you about your work.

One last thing, too: when you edit a users talk page, the general convention is that new sections are added at the bottom of the page to preserve their chronological order. That's why I've moved this section. Most user's talk pages mention this somewhere near the top, and I think most users will appreciate you following this convention.

Finally, please do continue being bold! Cheers! Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 13:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on the creation of yet another one of Wikipedia's missing medical articles. You are hereby awarded the WikiProject Medicine's Missing Articles Trophy. On behalf of everyone at WikiProject Medicine, Thank you. Kindly Calmer Waters 14:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work to expand and improve Wikipedia's coverage of cutaneous conditions! ---kilbad (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh! - *sniff* - My very first barnstar! I'm touched. I'll treasure it always! Thanks Kilbad! And thanks too for the Bologna info. Cheers! Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 00:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Actinic elastosis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 12:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've started a list of the articles we should aim to include in the first wave of this project. We are aiming to start off by transferring about 100-200 articles into about several developing world language Wikipedias. It will hopefully expand after that. I've started a list here User:TimVickers/Article list. Please add articles that you think will be useful, and of reasonable quality. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good-eye Mattoaedia.

I have responded to your request for more discussion and sources at Talk:Spinal disc herniation. As I too would prefer not to get involved in an edit war, I am going to try to take a step back and participate mostly on the article talk page.

I see you are located in Australia. What state are you in?

"Chizz", DigitalC (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The only thing I usually give to controversial subects is my opinion, and I seldom get into long winded debates - I find them a bit tiresome - so you probably won't hear much more from me on this subject. I'm in Queensland, where the former cyclone Olga has dumped half the month's average rainfall overnight. Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 23:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not suprising on the rain front. I drove up to QLD this time last year and roads were closed between Townsville and Cairns due to the flooding. Beautiful weather during the day, but most nights it just dumped rain.

I will see what happens on the page and talk page, but if I need an opinion, would you be willing to give one? Unfortunately it is likely to be a long-winded debate (as it has already become, and my wall of text may have stifled discussion rather than encouraged it). DigitalC (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I have anything worthwhile to offer, I'm happy to do so! Let me know. Where are you from? Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 01:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could get your thoughts on my first feature picture nomination at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pyogenic granuloma 1.jpg? Please know that I am not asking necessarily for your support, just your thoughts on the image and possible feature status. ---kilbad (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question about elbow braces and tendinitis at RD/S. --Belchman (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Nipple adenoma at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Interior(Talk) 03:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A 2010 Cochrane review has just come out and wondering if you could comment further [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, as requested, are on the Pharyngitis talk page. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 22:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neomandan (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Hi Matt. G'day or Hello, whichever you prefer. I am a neonatologist in New York, US of A. I was wondering if I could use and cite your helpful & clear diagram of the brachial plexus? I would use it in a presentation for a board review session I am giving to docs who will taking their general peds boards exam. Thanks![reply]

This page doesn't have "Edit" 'buttons' at the side, so I can't change it. Maybe you can help, or direct me to someone who can. There appear to be a couple of difficulties with the text. 1st Problem. Under "Anatomical basis of the cardiac cycle", it says: Two of the chambers, the left and right atria, are entry-points into the heart, while the other two chambers, the left and right ventricles, are responsible for contractions that send the HEART through the circulation. Surely this should be BLOOD. 2nd Problem. Also under "Anatomical basis of the cardiac cycle", it says: The sino-atrial node sends out electrical waves of excitation to both atria, and IT is prevented from flowing into the ventricles by strands of non-conducting fibrous tissue situated laterally from the tricuspid/bicuspid valves... It is unclear what the word 'IT' refers to. The context indicates that it could be BLOOD again, but within the sentence, it should refer to THE SINO-ATRIAL NODE because 'IT' is singular and so is 'THE SINO-ATRIAL NODE'. I don't think this is correct because I'm fairly sure sino-atrial node can't flow anywhere. If it is meant to refer to the ELECTRICAL WAVES, it should be 'THEY ARE', not 'IT IS'. Only after typing most of this have I seen that it probably refers to the ELECTRICAL WAVES. The word 'FLOWING' causes some of this confusion because most people don't talk about electrical signals flowing, but they sure talk about blood this way. By the way, someone else objected to the term "lubb-dubb" for the sound of the heart. While it may not be a technical term, it is fairly descriptive of what's happening. If someone decides to change it, I hope they use something similar. I had no difficulty understanding what it meant (unlike the problems above). Ynotna (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 07:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattopaedia! I had been a long time, I just refreshed the WP:ASE list! Your help in checking potentially biased articles would be greatly appreciated! The list is intentionally short, I will keep adding fresh words every time the list becomes empty. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I checked it a while back and not much had changed. Might have a look this weekend! Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 22:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I figured somebody unblocked it and said nothing, or the block expired. Weird, and a royal pain in the ass. But thanks for your help anyway!! Cheers, Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 14:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--MaenK.A._Talk 09:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 23:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll have a look. Sounds interesting! Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 04:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. RECIPIENTS (CATEGORY) -->

Thank you for your interest in meta:Wikimedia Medicine. We hope to create a non profit corporation to promote the aims of the Wikimedia Movement within the topic domain of medicine. This means we plan to promote the creation and release of "health care information in all languages" under an open license. This will be done primarily via speaking and collaborating with both individuals and organizations who share our goal. We are working on anumber of collaborations already and are open to more ideas. Documents of incorporation have been submitted and we hope to be officially "off the ground" by mid Dec 2012.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.[reply]

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sign up for monthly delivery

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 2022.

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk), 2021.01