User talk:Anatomist90

Link to user talk page on WikiMedia Commons: commons:User talk:Anatomist90
User talk:Anatomist90/Archive1

Problems

Hello, thank you for your nice images. Please do not add them to articles, though, unless they are properly integrated with the text. You must also solve the copyright problem, or the images will need to be deleted. Please let me know if I can help you with anything. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re to Problems

Looie496, those dissectons were made by my. And I have a site, that prove this, with my contact mail, and name ... what should I do to keep all my uploaded files?

The simplest solution is to add a copyright statement to the web site, saying that the images are licensed in a way Wikipedia can use -- ideally a Creative Commons license. See WP:COPYRIGHT for more information. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image size

Please consider leaving the images you add at their default image size. Please see WP:IMGSIZE which explains why large image sizes are generally not used except for a single image in the lead section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion notice on Commons

Hi! Just a notice here to be sure that you have a chance to comment on a deletion notice on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I don't mind very much if you add images to low-quality articles, but please stay away from cerebellum, hippocampus, and brain. Cerebellum and hippocampus are featured articles, and a lot of effort has gone into making sure the images are well-placed and integrated with the text. Brain is currently a featured article candidate, and again a lot of effort has gone into choosing images.

We have articles on Anatomy of the cerebellum and hippocampus anatomy, where you can add as many images as you want. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Looie. I am very pleased to see your contributions, Anatomist90, but for good articles that are actively maintained, your best practice would be to offer the images to editors on the article's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in File:Attack triangle in mastoidectomies.jpg. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the [[talk:File:Attack triangle in mastoidectomies.jpg|article's talk page]] rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as you did at File:Superior mesenteric vein.jpg, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. Please stop with these. This appears to be spamming for a website, and is at the least not the way to add sources for Commons images. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. I have blocked you for 24 hours because of the image spamming, and because you were ignoring my requests. Please don't do this again. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

It's great that you are willing to share so many of your images on Wikipedia, but the extreme rate at which you are adding them suggests you aren't giving much thought to it. Please take some time to read WP:Images and think about which of your images would be best for each article and how they should be placed. Once you have done this, please go back and apply this to the edits you have already made. Also, please use talk pages to communicate with other editors. Such communication is vital to editing Wikipedia. If you don't have time to put more effort into your image posting, it would be perfectly fine to post them to talk pages instead, for placement by others.--Taylornate (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Here is a more specific link.--Taylornate (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This message is being sent to inform you about a typo in one of the images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slide2bib.JPG. "Conylar" should probably be "condylar" with a "d" (fossa). Shiokumi 11:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Many thanks for the great anatomical images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things

We do not usually put copyright details within our photos as it detracts from the quality
We try to upload the highest quality possible

If you have any question feel free to leave a comment on my talk page. Happy editing. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just out of curiosity, did these subjects consent specifically to images being portrayed to the public on wikipedia? Although obviously there is no identification possible. tepi (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None identifiable images such as anatomy dissections do not require patient consent. This is supported by the ethics reviews in the medical literature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery basics

Hi, thanks for uploading images to Wikipedia.
However, you've added some 40 images to the gallery section in Biceps. I removed them and you keep adding them back. Here are some basic guidlines concerning galleries:

Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery...

Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images...

So, before adding more images to Wikipedia articles, make sure they are relevant and necessary, and please add a suitable caption to them to explain their relevance (more than just the name of the page). In many cases, a better alternative is to tag your image on commons with the relevant category (in this case [[Category:Biceps brachii muscle]].) That way people how want more images can easily find them on commons. Thanks --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've reverted you on a dozen more articles. Please consider adding categories on commons instead. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These images IMO are good. Images are a key part of anatomy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but Wikipedia is not an anatomical atlas, and as we don't have a number of images in geographical articles, we should also include a limited number of them as an accompanying material to the text in the anatomical articles. This is also demanded by general Wikipedia guidelines concerning galleries. For gallery pages, the appropriate venue is the Commons. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that articles should contain a number of key images. The infobox of the New York City article has 11 images in it. Galleries of images can be used on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Jmh649, there should be "key images", but three dozens of virtually identical images from dissections are not that. As a sysop, you should be familiar with basic guidelines such as WP:IG. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but deleting all image is not appropriate. The key is to find a balance. And that is what we are here to discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying problem is that this user is thoughtlessly spamming articles with his images and not responding to communication.--Taylornate (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am corresponding with said user. And have requested that they add better captions to the images in question. They have agreed to work on this. This images are of the anatomical park in question and thus I would not call this "spamming". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess all the emails I get about penis enlargement are not spam because I have a penis? Anyway, I'm glad you have been able to get through to him, though I do think there is a broader problem here than a lack of captions.--Taylornate (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A gallery of 40 of these repetitive photos of cadaver dissections at biceps and similar articles would still be problematic after adding captions. Have you been to his contributions page and seen how rapidly he adds images? Thousands of edits. Always adding an image to a gallery. Never an edit summary or discussion. Always at a rapid rate. Spam.--Taylornate (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see 14 images not 40 at biceps. Are we looking at the same page? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to discuss this. See eg. Brachial artery, Sympathetic trunk, Brachial artery, Optic tract.

This is getting out of order.
Wikipedia is not a textbook.
A solution would be to include the "images are found on Commons" tag and then put the images in common. Wikipedia is not an image gallery.
Additionally there is no guarantee of accuracy as these are not being reviewed,
This doesn't solve the major problem on Anatomy articles, which is lack of sourcing, which if anything is compounded by uploaded images of unknown accuracy.
If being uploaded for purposes of education, suggest contact Lesion and work on a Wikiversity page.
Ping to Jmh649, CFCF and Taylornate. LT910001 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably say no more than 10 or 15 images. It increases load times and thus makes things more difficult for those in the developing world / on poor connections. With respect to Taylor's comments 1) there is no guarantee of accuracy of anything here. Images can be reviewed just as text can be 2) agree commons tags are a good idea and organizing things on commons would help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I expressed particular concern over accuracy or whether or not images can be reviewed...--Taylornate (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De-indenting

Taylornate, I think that was a mis-attribution meant for me. Concerns about accuracy are just one of many concerns with this rampant uploading. Brachial artery has something like 29 images attached. There are three perfectly good venues to bump this large amount of pictures to, all of which have links that can be integrated into Wikipedia: (1) commons, (2) Wikibooks, if you wish to work on an Anatomy textbook, or (3) Wikiversity, if you are interested in education. However, Wikipedia is not a textbook (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK).

I'd be very happy to work with Anatomist90 to help integrate more prominent links to either Wikibooks or commons into the Anatomy infoboxes. My real concern is that this is wasted effort, as at a later date these will be removed by other editors. --LT910001 (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Taylornate (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

Having cut open living people I can say with confidence that dissections are a more accurate reflection of reality than say a stylistic diagram ala Netter. Adding too many images without proper captions is also an issue. Anatomist is doing great work. What I suggest is a compromise:

Anatomist adds all the images to Wikimedia Commons
Anatomist adds them all to a single category with other images pertaining to that body part.
He links the best few (one to three of them) to Wikipeia and adds the category to Wikipedia

Comments? Anyway we need to improve the previous image additions before adding more. I have altered biceps to the above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable and would solve one of the problems, but I think the biggest problem is communication. If in addition to the above, Anatomist90 would be more receptive and responsive to on-wiki communication and collaboration, I would be very happy. I believe this is commonly viewed as a necessity here anyway.

The images are good but I think their potential is much higher. A few comments on the images themselves:

I often feel disoriented looking at them. I think it may be a combination of the narrow camera angle and the way the background is cut out. This is a big problem in my opinion.
I don't like the copyright notice.
Use the annotated image template or something similar for the labels. This way, the labels could be tailored to the article and drafted collaboratively. Also, labels can be links to other articles.
Ideally, all images would be integrated with the prose, but maybe it is better to have the dissections by themselves. I'm not sure.--Taylornate (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all of the following. I have asked him to remove / not add further watermarks. One issues is that English is not his first language. I am communicating regularly with him via email. He is reading the comments you leave here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm continuing to revert further additions until this contributor actually discusses anything at all here. Jmh649, if these images are important to you go and get them on Commons. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure and I have restored further additions as these images are useful and encyclopedic. The user in question is not required to reply here. You have been deleting single images of dissections from many pages.

Take for example this deletion [1] the user in question has removed the water marks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a lay perspective I think these images wonderfully elucidate the article subject, are inherently encyclopedic, and I have no idea why they would be removed as "image spam". They are generally of very high quality and provide an entirely different visual context from and are complementary of the medical illustrations that already populate these pages. This editor deserves encouragement rather than blanket reversion and it appears that as Doc James is in communication with Anatomist90 to improve their presentation for wikipedia and there may be language issues involved some latitude should be given for an absence of talk page discussion. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see the watermarks go. This is progress.--Taylornate (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, good progress on captions.--Taylornate (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above topic. This progress must be measured against the rampant uploading that's going on. LT910001 (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query re. File:Slide7uuu.JPG

Hi, just a quick question with this image.

According to Gray's: "Lingual papillae [...] are limited to the presulcal part [i.e. the anterior 2/3] of the tongue"

In the above diagram, the filiform papillae label points to the region that is posterior to the sulcus terminalis and the vallate papillae. Hence, this label points to the lingual tonsil not the filiform papillae? Filiform papillae would only be present anterior to the sulcus terminalis, or so I understand. Lesion (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read something about this being an over simplification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gray's 40e doesn't tend to oversimplify things imo ... having said this if you have a source I would be interested to read it because I would like to use it on the article if it contradicts grays. It is over-simplification to say that taste buds are confined to the anterior 2/3 of the tongue, they are found in several other sites in the mouth and further down the aerodigestive tract. However, taste buds are not synonymous with lingual papillae. I have had as close a view of the slide as can be allowed, and I am sure it is inappropriate to label these structures filiform papillae. Filiform papillae are supposed to be the smallest of the lingual papillae, hair like tufts. Whereas the area that the label points to contains much larger, nodular structures which would be more appropriately labelled as lingual tonsil since they almost certainly represent lymphoid tissue posterior to the sulcus terminalis ... I also note that further forwards, the fungiform papillae labels don't exactly point to fungiform papillae. I think the labeling may have been done rather arbitrarily, to indicate that the papillae are all over the area shown. Lesion (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dissection images layout

Hi, your images can be a useful resource for someone who would like to learn more about anatomy, and the ability to look them up at wikimedia commons is good. They might by some be deemed as of low quality, and there are most of the time already images of higher quality and clarity (though not dissection images) in the articles on wikipedia. Therefor please use this format under additional images if you wish to add images so as not to flood the page:

~~Dissection images~~

Flooding the page with images does not always allow for a better understanding, and there goes quite a bit of though into the layout of articles as well, which may be compromised.CFCF (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use this format. CFCF we have discussed that we do not use hidden galleries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preferable then if images are not of exceptional quality to keep them at commons and only link to commons. CFCF (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree just a selection of the best images here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop flooding articles with bad/low quality images

Please do not flood articles like you did at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Median_nerve&oldid=579896245 and don't just put random images in the middle of the text like at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radial_artery&oldid=579777716 (there are many more examples, those two were just extreme).

Considerable time goes into patrolling and removing your edits. I have gone through your edits from November and removed images that don't belong, and I've been nice enough to keep some in articles with scarce material or those images that are of slightly high quality - but next time I/we may not be so patient.

Just because an image does display a structure doesn't mean that that image is useful in visualizing the structure in an encyclopedic entry. Quite often your images show a structure a little off to the side from an odd angle with not-specified other structures removed, which if it weren't for the label could be something completely different. Often if it weren't for the labels it would be impossible to see where we were, and that doesn't have encyclopedic value. The images I have kept have more often than not been kept because they have some form of overview, such as at Biceps femoris muscle.

Maybe some form of list of your suggested images could be made that so that they can be gone through independently before being added. What do you think Jmh649 LT910001? Maybe under the WP:Anatomy page? -- CFCF (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed this immediately above. If this actions were continuing than further commenting would be appropriate. But since these edits took place before the above discussion not sure if this is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I shouldn't have linked those two edits, because the edits did continue; between the 12th and 13th over 20 edits all with the same effect (not linking all). Ex.:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latissimus_dorsi_muscle&oldid=581523167 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pectoralis_major_muscle&oldid=581523007

-- CFCF (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible mistake on medial diencephalon view

Hi there, I've juste noticed what could be a mistake in one label of the colored illustration Slide4ZE.JPG present on articles like "choroid plexus" or "cingulate sulcus" . I think the "Hypophysis" yellow label is actually the "Anterior Commissure". It would be great if you could check this please. Thanks in advance. Térence Glauser (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
- {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} ~~~~
To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
- {{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}} ~~~~
You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu^Talk 12:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

File:Slide7ddd.JPG

Hello,

Your file at Commons contains an error. The upper right label should say Cardia of Stomach, instead of Cardiac of Stomach.

I would correct it myself, but the file is JPEG. ¬Hexafluoride ^(talk) 15:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Anatomist90. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Inferior epiphysis of humerus.jpg

Hi there! I looked at one of your pictures which you uploaded in 2011 - in specific: "Image:Inferior epiphysis of humerus.jpg". But I am quite confused of the labeling and I think it might be wrong. In the picture you can see the humerus from an anterior view, but the left side labeling says medial epicondylus. I write you, because I am not sure, if I am right and you're picture is relativly wide-spread on more than one wikipedia-articles.

Best regards PCPeacekanone (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]