Archives

View archived messages here: Archive 1, Archive 2

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers talkback is wishing LT.. Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		LT910001, thank you so incredibly much for your thoughtful review of Wirgman Building and for assisting the article in passing its good article nomination! -- Caponer (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Long time no speak" -- we spoke 2 days ago when I queried orbitomeatal line ;p Hope you enjoyed your travels. I will see what I can do to help out for the above article and/or some of those anatomy suggestions. Just give me a ping when you start on one of those anatomy pages.

Myself and IanFurst are working on orofacial pain and various sub articles in this topic right now. A bit disheartened that there has not been much interest on psoriasis this month ... although it has improved somewhat. Where are all those dermatologists when you need them? Lesion (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your excellent work on Anatomical terms of motion, and for finalizing the ridiculous amount of merges I had flagged and just thought later about. CFCF (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please resume the review. Thank you! --Երևանցի ^talk 00:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, LT910001. Considering what has been discussed at WP:MEDMOS at different points with regard to its layouts (about not always strictly following them), including in the most recent discussion there (this time concerning the anatomy layout), I believe that this anatomy template should at least mention that not every anatomy article will be best suited for that exact layout (meaning though it should obviously follow some material presented there, such as having a Structure section if the article is big enough to have one, it does not have to follow that layout exactly). Otherwise, this template completely neglects to acknowledge to editors what WP:MEDMOS acknowledges: "Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition. Do not discourage potential readers by placing a highly technical section near the start of your article."

With the aforementioned template, new editors (new to Wikipedia, not just to editing anatomy articles) are especially going to be overzealous in applying the anatomy layout without any regard to the fact that an anatomy article may already have an established layout and that it perhaps works best with that established layout. Therefore, I propose that we add the words "though not every article will be best suited for this standard" (or something like that) on to the "We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article." line.

I would have brought this up on the "Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject! template" talk page, but User:LT910001/4 might one day be deleted, more likely so than your talk page at least, and I want this suggestion to remain documented/easily accessible to all Wikipedians (not just administrators with the power to see deleted talk pages). Also, you don't have to contact me on my talk page or link my username to let me know that you have replied to the above proposal; I'm currently watching your talk page for a response to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just now saw that you posted the aforementioned template to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy; I'll transport my above proposal there to that template section. Flyer22 (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Never mind about discussing there since when posting there in that section, I'm editing the template. Flyer22 (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that you requested feedback in this section; I'll move the above proposal there. Flyer22 (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. I just joined WPMED after your post on my talk page. I figure I edit enough of those types of articles as I come across them anyway... Icehcky8 (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Icehcky8, you're welcome! Feel free to contact me or any other interested users if you'd like to collaborate on improving articles. At the moment, I'm working on anatomy articles under WP:ANATOMY, and if you're interested in systems at all (nervous system, respiratory system) those articles need a lot of attention :D. Additionally, if you're ever bored and looking for something to do, you can review a good article or two. It's not only interesting to chose one or two articles that you're interested in, but makes a big difference, and anyone can do it. The list of articles awaiting review is here: WP:GAN and it's great experience to learn how to write good articles yourself. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stapes 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 Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your assistance in promoting the article to GA status. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge from"/"merge to" is not the correct process for what you're trying to propose here. That process is for merging an article into another complete article, but spinal vertebrae is a redirect, not an article, and thus cannot be a "merge" target.

If you're proposing that the article currently at thoracic vertebrae be renamed so that "spinal vertebrae" is its new title, then you need to follow the requested moves process instead of the "proposed merge" process — and if you want thoracic vertebrae to be integrated with the text of another article, then vertebral column is the article that needs to be proposed as the merge target, since that's where "spinal vertebrae" redirects to. I'm not sure which of those two results you're actually seeking to achieve — but since a "merge" target has to be a complete article into which the text of the other article will get interleaved, it isn't even possible to merge an article into a redirect. So either way, you need to repair your nomination to correctly request whatever it is that you actually want.

It's also important to be aware that placing a maintenance template above the #REDIRECT code on a redirect causes it to stop acting as a redirect, and start functioning as an uncategorized page instead — but pages in mainspace are not allowed to be left uncategorized, so that change of page function has to be corrected immediately. So I apologize if I misunderstood what you were trying to accomplish, but what you did wasn't the correct way to accomplish it. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC) ： Ok, sorry, I am not yet fully acquainted with the vastness of Wikipedia's may Byzantine procedures, I reverted as that was not the intended target, but as you say a merge is not even the correct procedure. At any rate, happy new year! --LT910001 (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when you are done with recurrent laryngeal nerve. (A reply here will be fine.) I just got an edit conflict on a very similar edit.Novangelis (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC) ： Sorry, Novangelis, I have finished. Didn't realise you were about as well. Articles looks like it could be a prospective good article in a week or so! --LT910001 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, "real life" for me starts getting busy again tomorrow. My goal for tonight is getting all structure and function tightly sourced tonight. After that, I'll be able to contribute to a GA target next weekend.Novangelis (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done for now. I'll give it another look through when I get the chance, since I'm terrible at proofreading while I edit. Ping me if you need any clarifications on what I've done. For now, dinner and Downton Abbey await me. Thanks for your understanding.Novangelis (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the article is almost ready. I have done some copy-editing, standardised citations to the rp format, and added some headings. Also, I've changed the bold -> italic in parts of the article. I've put the article up for peer review before we nominate it, to get some outside feedback. --LT910001 (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll take a close look at recurrent laryngeal nerve this weekend and see what I can do. Finetooth (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Finetooth. Thank you! --LT910001 (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Finetooth (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias ^talk 08:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question for originator of the article: Why this subject? And: Why at that time? I ask because I am writing a monograph of the subject of violence, and am currently preparing for publication an article specifically on the possible connection between recent (CNY 2014) enforcement (in Mainland China) of fireworks/recreational ordnance bans, the seasonal spike in A&E/ER traffic during CNY (because of fireworks-related injuries), and recent efforts to publicize and manage assault and aggravated battery of Chinese hospital employees. Cheers GoggledSchooler (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question GoggledSchooler. Unfortunately one of the biases of Wikipedia is that it is quite Western-centric, and apart from the main historical articles about China, there is a dearth of information about modern China, in particular mainland China. There was an article in the Lancet, BMJ and the Economist recently (sourced in said article, although I'm sure you are well aware of them), and I was surprised that there was no corresponding coverage on Wikipedia. Apart from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS), there may be other factors that contribute to this dearth of coverage. One is that Wikipedia has strict notability guidelines (see WP:NOTABILITY). These are more strictly enforced and notability is harder to prove about individuals outside of Western countries. Additionally, information about Chinese sources is not always forthcoming, and may only be available if one is fluent in Mandarin. Thirdly, as there are very few English-language sources available for modern Chinese articles, the level of synthesis and preparation required may be greater than other articles, at least when jotting down a rudimentary first article. Lastly, it is indisputably harder to edit Wiki from mainland China, and there are several copycat services run by Chinese companies (such as 百度知道), which impacts on the number of editors here on Wiki. I would love to read your paper when it is published (or in final draft form), so would be grateful if you could contact me again when it's at that stage. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tom (LT). You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 7.
Message added 03:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question bask asking how do we deal with the BLP banners Hasteur (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Foramen spinosum 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 Sahara4u -- Sahara4u (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And raised Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jwratner1. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do something that counts as vandalism? I only erased request that were randomly put on. As it says it is not for discussion of other pages but only how to improve this page.Allied Rangoons (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism, Crab rangoons, but certainly odd. I am guessing you thought the talk page was too long, and so deleted some content. You deleted two topics and the entire text of the good article review, which definitely relates to improving the page. I reverted your edits, and instead removed the review from the talk page, and implemented a bot that will automatically archive the talk page's contents. I think this is what you wanted to achieve, so I hope that there are no hard feelings. In the future, please remember that talk pages are normally preserved so that their content can be read by future users, and content on them is very rarely deleted, for that reason. --LT910001 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, alright. Thanks for letting me know. Allied Rangoons (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stapes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stapes for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My congratulations. Happy to see it. Finetooth (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes would be nice to get this article at GA. A shame none of the more experienced wikipedian-dermatologists (of which I have seen so much "archaeological evidence" to support their existence) seem to be around right now.

Not sure how much more work ... depends upon reviewer I suppose.

If I was reviewing it, I would immediately comment that it is mostly lists... needs some meat. I've been downloading several more head and neck pathology textbooks recently so I have a few more sources. Lesion (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Where the trigger is known, the term lichenoid lesion is used instead."

I was wondering whether it can be supported by any source? For the time being I will add some definitions of term lichenoid reaction/lesion from textbooks. Lesion (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Recurrent laryngeal nerve you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reply No problem. Just finished with adding the caption parameters everywhere. That's about the only contribution I can make to the area. I know a bit about coding and templates, but I know nothing about medicine. I can't help you with that. Cheers, Manifestation 14:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Foramen spinosum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Foramen spinosum for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sahara4u -- Sahara4u (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Recurrent laryngeal nerve you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Recurrent laryngeal nerve for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LT, just noticed this merge from Sept 13 [1]. However the dead space DAB still lists dead space (in breathing apparatus) as if i were a stand alone article. I have repaired this now. Usually you can click "what links here" after moving or merging an article to adjust the links from other articles if needed. I'm sure you know this by now anyway, but just making sure. Lesion (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LT, I'm not sure what you mean exactly about assigning you sections. For GA nominations, can there be multiple reviewers? If so, that's perfectly okay with me, I've just never seen it. Let me know here and I'll see. In terms of sections...how about the first four? Lead, signs/symptoms, causes, diagnosis. Let me know if you're game. Also, I never really saw much of a point in archiving my talk page. Not much goes on there anyway. I never bothered to look up how to archive it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you change your mind? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TylerDurden8823! I will indeed make those edits, however I wasn't expecting you to nominate so quickly! I will be making my edits in the week 28th February-7th March. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's waiting for you. I just made some more changes to it after getting a bit of feedback from Jmh649. The only thing that might need a bit of work is the small signs/symptoms section. Regarding your request to review specific sections of it, how about the first four sections of the article? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bronchus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Image:Pseudostr. epi.jpg|Pseudostratified columnar ciliated epithelium lining the bronchus (Light Microscope, Hematoxylin and Eosin dye, Magnified 600 times

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you rating of the article "Cyclovergence" and placed a question on the discussion page regarding this. I would like to ask you to reconsider the quality scale rating (I do agree with the low-importance rating). Please look at the reason I gave on the discussion page. I add that I may be not neutral about this because I wrote the article in the first place. Regards, --Chris Howard (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your reasons are quite valid, I have restated the C-class. Chris Howard, if you have time, I'd be very grateful if you could contribute some thoughts (any would be valued) on the peer review of this article: Anatomical terms of motion. These are some of WP:ANATOMY's most popular articles and I would like to get it to GA class, so I'd love some input as to whether or not its readable and/or comprehensive, and would be very grateful if you could contribute. --LT910001 (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your speedy reaction.

I am not at all a specialist on anatomy and am more involved with mathematical aspects of motion (see for example work by mathematician Hestenes here). That background is not of much help regarding your request on anatomical terms. In any case I'll be glad to read the article and if something strikes me about it then I will contribute to the discussion there. --Chris Howard (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read through your article and, contrary to my initial intentions, prefer to give you feedback here on your discussion page rather than there. First of all, I wish to express my respect for picking up such an extensive and nontrivial subject to bring it to GA. I have only a few thoughts as feedback for the moment. One is that the expression "medial and abduction stage" is not necessarily understandable to the general reader: in particular the term "abduction" is not explained, and in fact the link "Abduction" in this article's section "Abduction and adduction" currently redirects to a deleted article and then after a second or so automatically redirects further to a not-so-helpful Wiktionary page. It would be good if this were solved differently (for example, redirecting Abduction to List of abductors of the human body that has a concise definition of the term); similarly for "Adduction" which might preferably redirect to List of adductors of the human body). Secondly, I was wondering whether you would want to include information on anatomical motion of the eyes (see Eye muscles), but of course that is quie an extensive subject on its own. I hope these two rather informal suggestions/thoughts may help you move further. Regards --Chris Howard (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Chris Howard, I have copied your comments to the review so that they are in a central location. --LT910001 (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very many (belated) thanks for the barnstar, much appreciated. This is just to let you know that I've now completed my work on all the medicine templates, part of the work I've been doing on switching templates over to hlist formatting, or otherwise de-cluttering the hlist tracking category. Most of this work has been fairly easy, as I use an automated script to clean up the templates, but the medicine templates have, in addition, required a lot of manual effort to clean them up a bit. The main reasons are:

• most of them have one or more subgroups consisting of separate lines, with no obvious indication of the reason for the split. So I have to work out what the reason might be for the split, and what to do about it. The best solution is usually to introduce a new level of subgroups, but not always, and the choice can be quite difficult and time-consuming to make, especially as I'm not a medicine or anatomy specialist.
• the many bracketed items. These require a decision whether they are an integral adjunct to the previous element (and thus left alone), or whether they can be sub-listed (done by beginning a line with a double asterisk under hlist formatting); this process can be partly automated using regex find/replace, but still requires a manual choice to be made for every instance (usually fairly quick and easy, thankfully).

The same problems also happen on many of the science templates, especially the biochemistry ones.

I have not always been consistent in my choices, and it is quite likely I have not always made the right choice. So as well as a "thank you", this is also a note to request that you, with your specialist knowledge, keep an eye out for any instances where I might have got it wrong. Many thanks,

--NSH002 (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the star - made my day! Iztwoz (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]