User talk:Anrnusna

Welcome!

Hello, Anrnusna, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Moonraker (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anrnusna, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Anrnusna! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oxford Journal of Archaeology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nicholas Purcell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Journal of Archaeology

Hello Anrnusna,

This is just a courtesy visit to inform you that I took the liberty to slightly expand your article citing relevant references. Hopefully, you'd like my little effort. I'd appreciate your say on this. Best regards. (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hammar experiment may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

for the aether wind.<ref>{{Cite journal|author=Lodge, Oliver J.|title=Aberration Problems|journal=[[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A]|volume=184|year=1893|pages=727–804|doi=10.1098/
3. He saw no shift of the interference fringes, corresponding to an upper limit of <math>\Delta v<0.074</math> km/s.<ref name=ham/> These results are considered a proof against the aether drag

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| journal = [[Proceedings of the Royal Society A]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking Proceedings of the Royal Society B within citations

Hi Anrnusna, I see you've been adding wikilinks to many instances of this journal and others in different articles. Just to let you know, it is not Wikipedia policy to do this, and while it has sometimes happened in the past, there are other editors (not me) who go around removing such links as errors. In general, there is no need to make a link to something that is well known and established; and links inside citations are certainly deprecated. Another point is, if you are doing this on behalf of an organisation outside Wikipedia, then you have a conflict of interest (and could possibly be spamming), which of course is inadvisable. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

of China]], the academy publishes the [[peer-reviewed]] [[academic journal]], ''Science China'' (also known as ''Science in China''. ''Science China'' comprises seven series:<ref>{{cite web | url =

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal names in citations

Please consider my comment on long journal names and the comment Template_talk:Infobox_journal#ISO_or_NLM_abbreviation_of_journal_title.3F. My preference is brevity, but I suspect the limiting factor is people's attention, so that long journal names in citations may distract from the journal article itself, and annoy in Wiki articles with a lot of references. Correcting journal names where they don't match the official journal names, the ISO abbreviation or the NLM abbreviation is welcome. RDBrown (talk) 08:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't replace Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci U S A. → Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA since the latter is not an NLM or ISO abbreviation.

This means that PubMed searches using that as journal name may fail.

NLM Catalog entry RDBrown (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. The ISO abbreviation on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America page appears to be wrong. According to the NLM catalog, the ISO abbreviation is "Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.". The NLM abbreviation is the same, but without the full stops (see [1] and search for the full journal name). I will correct Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America and my mistakes. --Anrnusna (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use AWB please replace those abbreviated names with the full ones. Even this seems controversial, and AWB should not be used for controversial tasks. However I will give more chance to use it wisely! Thankyou. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned by this edit (and whevever else you've done it). As far as I can tell the correct reference is still the full name at the date of publication, or an abbreviation of such. See the source [2]. Can you explain your reasoning? --99of9 (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2013 (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 12:23, 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

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) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]