Jump to content

User talk:Bloomingdedalus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Improving Immunology Articles

[edit]

Hi Bloomingdedalus, I am simply an editor who thinks some of the immunology articles on Wikipedia are far from complete and the quality can be easily improved. I'd love to do it all by myself, but it'd be even better to do it in a team, to be more efficient as well as to get a wider viewpoints (from the medical, molecular and cellular viewpoints for example). If you are interested, please go to here and just start editing. The purpose of the page (it's a new page) is simply to get everyone together and collaborate, as to ensure there's editors for different topics. I look forward to working with you soon, any help would be greatly appreciated. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 00:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#1)

[edit]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#1)

Next
Released: Fourth quarter, 2013
Editor: LT910001

Hello WP:ANATOMY user! This is the first of what I hope will be ongoing quarterlies, documenting the current state of WP:ANATOMY, current projects and items of interest, and any relevant news. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage

What's new
What's going on
How can I contribute?
Quarterly focus - GA nominations

I would like to take some time on this first quarterly to evaluate the state of the project. We have the benefit of having a relatively-small group of articles that are, for the most part, relatively non-controversial. Additionally, for the majority of our articles, it may indeed be possible to create an article that reflects a significant proportion of the published literature. This is quite distinct from other projects.

However, it appears we only have 5 GAs (Anatomy, Brain, Clitoris, Human tooth, and Leonardo da Vinci) and 4 FAs (Immune system, Hippocampus, Cerebellum, and Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom), none of which relate to purely anatomical items, which constitute most of our mass. By 'anatomical items' I mean muscles, nerves, bones, blood vessels, veins, foramina, and so on, that constitute the vast majority of our articles. In fact, we only have one 'system' (Immune system) at FA class, and none at GA class. We indeed only have 70 articles out over 4,000 at B-class. This scarcity is, I believe, for the following reasons: (1) lack of model articles (2) lack of appropriate guidelines, and (3) general sparsity of sourcing on many articles. How may these be addressed?

  1. Nominating good articles. In addition to suspensory muscle of the duodenum I will be working on Mylohyoid muscle, Genioglossus, Foramen spinosum and an as-yet undecided article.
  2. Revamping the MEDMOS guidelines for Anatomical articles to make them more appropriate. That discussion is here.
  3. Using books as sources. Books are readily available in libraries and have the superb quality of being able to aggregate information, which can be used to source thousands of anatomical articles.
  4. Collateralising sourcing. Anatomical sources often refer to several structures in a single source. Therefore an editor on one article could quickly add a source to another two articles in a related topic. This incremental approach will hopefully accrue for future editors
  5. Tagging articles for cleanup, to let future editors know to use sources
  6. Templates, which will soon be available, to post on the wall of new editors thanking them for their edits and encouraging the use of sources.

I hope that we are able to revitalise this project. Wikipedia has the capacity to become an excellent resource for anatomical information. I again welcome feedback on this quarterly or any aspects therein on the talk page for the quarterly, on my talkpage, or on the WP Anatomy talk page here. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk)

  • This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users.

January 2014

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at English Defence League shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly apologist for open antisemitism. How sickening to see the hatred of Islamic terrorism likened to antisemitism. That quote has absolutely zero relevance to that article other than to state that hatred of Islam, which has waged perpetual war against the Jews and the west and has shown zero signs of progression or improvement, is akin to Nazism. When was the last time a Jew suicide bombed a subway in Britain? Demanded that Britain or any western country change their national symbols? Parasitic terrorist apologists you scum - you should be hunted and thrown in Gitmo. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't say that, it compares the current role of anti-islamic thinking on the British right with anti-seminitism in Britain in the pre war period. You need to calm down and try and read what is said before you react ----Snowded TALK 16:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes the clear parallel that you're supposed to think of disliking the guys who blow up the London subway with disliking, oh, I don't know, Isaac Bashivas Singer. Yes, that's what I think of when I think of Hassan al-Banna, fucking Isaac Bashivas Singer. I'm sure you'd find either of them happily distributing Mein Kampf (not for academic and historical purposes) and stating Hitler was the greatest thing since Shariah law. No, it doesn't say Islamophobia is like antisemitism, it just juxtaposes them so you are... supposed to think of them as similar to one another - which - of course - isn't saying they're the same thing. I guess the people at the Guardian don't remember when the Muslim Brotherhood was all cheers and joy and Allah Akbar when Hitler was bombing London... Oh, but Islam has changed, you can tell because of the incredibly progressive policies they've shown by occasionally relenting from executing women for being raped and not quite fully managing to kill Salman Rushdie and, instead, accepting the inferior sacrifice of a hotel full of civilians... Bloomingdedalus (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I was a little biased, it's utterly irrational to dislike Islam... And disliking Islam is exactly like disliking Jews... Clearly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF35a5E0uss
Don't worry, only 20% of Muslims in the United States, for example, believe suicide bombing is sometimes justified... http://www.pewglobal.org/2009/12/17/little-support-for-terrorism-among-muslim-americans/
Ah yes, "Fewer than one-in-ten American Muslims say that suicide bombing is sometimes (7%) or often (1%) justified." That's 20%? Hating people because of their religion is bigotry. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to Pew Research: http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2009/12/1445-2.gif I don't hate people for their religion, I hate people who try to kill and oppress westerners because of their religion. If Islamists didn't behave like savages and have zero respect for human rights in their countries, I wouldn't have a problem with them. If Saudi Arabia weren't still beheading people for "witchcraft" and homosexuality and adultery and just about anything else I wouldn't call them savages. No religious belief gives you the right to tread on human rights, and any decent person would be "bigoted" against those who claim otherwise. And, you sir, should be deeply ashamed of yourself. Here is an example of antisemitism, from Syrian TV. I'd be the first person to condemn someone who said Muslims kidnap and eat Christian children, because it's not true. But if you tell me they imprison 13 year-olds and gather lynch mobs to kill them because someone said that they defiled to Qur'an - well - that's just accurate. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

[edit]
Reviewing your recent editing, I have noticed several disturbing patterns.
I am placing you on notice of the decided Arbitration Committee case on Palestine-Israeli issues. This case enabled any uninvolved administrator to issue a warning to any participant who they feel may be editing disruptively or engaging in battleground behavior here on Wikipedia, which I am sensing here with you. Per the notice below, you are now notified that further disruptive editing you may make can result in any uninvolved administrator using standard discretionary sanctions to handle the problem. Please review the WP:ARBPIA case results and WP:DS sanctions to understand them and this notification.
It is my hope that you will cease casting such disruptive aspersions on all of Islam here on Wikipedia. Failure to do so will result in sanctions. We are not the place for fighting real-world battles. This is not a soapbox for your to argue from.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.

I haven't commented or edited any "Israeli-Palestine conflict" pages. Please cease being foolish. I put no "disruptive aspersions" on any pages - on the contrary - I removed an irrelevant and dogmatic racist quote that was ostensibly "academic analysis" which compared Jews to terrorists. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it did not do that. As someone who has fought anti-Semitism and all religious bigotry for years here, I can't get my head around your misunderstanding here. Or your ability to group all the citizens of a country or members of a religion as culpable for the acts of a minority or the government. That's the essence of bigotry. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Final warning - Islamophobic racism such as this will get you blocked. Find another topic. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Islamophobia as you call it is not remotely racist. The most Islamophobic man I ever met was an Arabic Syrian gentleman from the Syrian Orthodox Church. His view of Islam was, "all Muslims are terrorists." Personally, I'm inclined to agree with him given the draconian, racist, and violent policies of imperialistic Islamic governments. Please stop your insane bigotry against the Jews you parasite. Antisemitic traitorous racists such as yourself should not be editing Wikipedia. Anyone who equates criticism of a religious ideology with racism ought not be permitted to administrate anything. "I don't like the word Islamophobia. We must distinguish between attacking ideas and attacking people." - Salman Rushdie Bloomingdedalus (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

[edit]

Given your response above, I've started a discussion at WP:ANI#Editor using epithets such as "Antisemitic traitorous racists" - topic ban proposal. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

[edit]
You appear not to be here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia.
I have indefinitely blocked your ability to edit.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bloomingdedalus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have contributed some to Wikipedia, thought I am not the most prolific writers. Here's the main reason: http://imageshack.com/a/img801/3285/ut8k.png Putting racist anti-semitic propaganda on pages in a disingenuous attempt to discredit groups is unacceptable. The guardian quote on the EDL page is purely racist and has no actual relevance to that article.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia isn't the place to fight your battle. If you would rather argue about the perceived evils of Islam than build an encyclopedia, there are many websites which would welcome you with open arms - this isn't one of them. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bloomingdedalus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You are citing biased sources in an article which falsely equates antisemitism and islamophobia. That is promoting propaganda, not contributing to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The quote I argued against was completely inappropriate, biased, and did not acceptably fit the criteria under which it was categorized - namely - academic criticism. Furthermore, the position stated is simply incorrect, that antisemitism is the same thing as Islamophobia. The quote in question violates the policy regarding WP:Questionable. It is, additionally, libelous against Jews and those who hold critical opinions on Islamic atrocities and human rights violations. From WP:Questionable "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others."

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the issues leading to your block, which were your unacceptable attacks on other editors, including accusations of anti-Semitism and racism. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'll leave it to another Admin to hopefully turn this down, noting that the forged image linked to above is just more evidence that this block was correct. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bloomingdedalus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If he defends that quote equating antisemitism to Islamophobia, he's an antisemite. The Islamic world supports state sponsored violence against gays and atheists. It orders death squads over novels. According to Pew Research, 43% of Muslims support Al Qaeda. It issues death warrants against Journalists, novelists, writers, and comedians. Islam stands against everything that Wikipedia represents in providing a free and neutral exchange of information. Jews don't do these things - antisemitism is completely and utterly irrational. There are many reasons to be afraid of Islamic ideology and states in the present era. Kohemini is not "just an extremist" - the policies of executing witches in Saudi Arabia are not the products of "just extremists" - they are the policies of state endorsed Islam. If Israel was an Orthodox theocracy which killed people on the basis of Witchcraft or otherwise, I'd say it were similar. I could go to Tel Aviv and say I'm an atheist or say I'm gay regardless of whether it's true or not and I wouldn't have to fear the IDF arresting and killing me for it. At least I know that Wikipedia's staff collaborates to demonize Jews and support Islamic terrorism.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for venomous attacks and battleground editing, and those things persist in your unblock request. Bishonen | talk 16:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Pretty sure it's about time to remove talkpage editing for this guy per WP:NOTHERE. 205.166.218.67 (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page access disabled. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anatomy quarterly newsletter

[edit]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#2)

Previous -- Next
Released: First quarter, 2014
Updated cleanup listing and recent changes list in third quarter, 2014
Editor: LT910001

Hello WP:ANATOMY participant! This is the second quarterly update of goings-on in WP:ANATOMY, documenting the current state of WP:ANATOMY, current projects and items of interest, and any relevant news. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list

What's new
What's going on
How can I contribute?
  • Reword anatomical jargon: jargon is widespread and not helpful to lay readers.
  • Contribute on our talk page
  • Continue to add sources, content, and improve anatomical articles!
  • Replace images with better images from Wikipedia commons, or if there are too many images, remove some low-quality ones
Quarterly focus - Where to edit?
One of our two new featured images! (Also featured on the Signpost)

On any given week we have at least 4-10 editors making significant contributions to our articles, with probably more than double this making minor edits. As an editor, I am often wondering: with so many articles, where to start? There is so much to be done (as always, on Wikipedia!), and I aim here to provide a comprehensive list of venues within our project. If I've missed any, please let us know on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page.

An editor might edit:

  • By importance. A user can use our assessment table to view articles by their importance and class. The vital articles project provides a list of designated 'Vital articles' for Wikipedia.
  • By popularity. One way to edit is to edit the most popular pages -- the majority of these need help, and editing is sure to bring benefit to many users.
  • By need. There is always cleanup that needs to be done, whether commenting on mergers, adding infoboxes or adding images. A cleanup list of all tagged articles is now available here: [1]
  • By interest. A series of inter-project categories has been developed to help facilitate inter-Wiki and inter-professional collaboration. These categories sort our articles into organs, system, gross anatomy, neuroanatomy, and several other categories. This should offer a buffet of articles for any interested editors! See here for more details.
  • By topic. Wikipedia's anatomical categories may provide impetus, as may editing a suite of related-articles, using a parent article such as ear for direction. A collection of series are slowly being rolled-out, including one for epithelia and for articles about the gastrointestinal wall, which also act as groups of topics. Templates, as documented on our main page, provide a similar categorisation.
  • By demand. Discussions relating to Anatomy are frequent occurrences on the talk pages for WPMED and WP:ANATOMY. Such topics almost always cry out for more editing.
  • By recent changes. One way to choose a destination for editing is to check the recent changes, revert vandalism, integrate/source edits, or generally collaborate in improving articles that are receiving contributions from other editors. This can be found in the here.
  • By chance. A user is always welcome to improve articles that they randomly 'bump into' by Wiki-surfing or by having bumped for other reasons into a particular article or topic that needs improvement

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Anatomy by User:Mdann52, using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter

[edit]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#3)

Previous -- Next
Released: 1 November, 2014
Editor: Tom (LT)

Hello WP:Anatomy participant! This is the third quarterly update, documenting what's going on in WikiProkect Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list

What's new
What's going on
  • We fly past 10,000 articles (now already up to 10,150). Why is this important? Articles under our scope are automatically included in popular pages, the cleanup list, and will be included as the recent changes list is updated.
  • A discussion about the formatting of infoboxes.
  • A lot of editing on the heart article -- can it make it to GA?
  • The medical newsletter, WP:PULSE finds its feet, and Anatomy and Physiology are featured as a subsection!
  • A new WP:WikiProject Animal anatomy (WP:ANAN) is created to focus on animal anatomy.
How can I contribute?
  • Welcome new editors! We have a constant stream of new editors who are often eager to work on certain articles.
  • We are always looking to collaborate! If you're looking for editors to collaborate with, let us know on our talk page!
  • Continue to add high-class reliable sources
  • Browse images on WikiCommons to improve the quality of images we use on many articles.
Quarterly focus - Anatomical terminology

Anatomical terminology is an essential component to all our articles. It is necessary to describe structures accurately and without ambiguity. It can also be extremely confusing and, let's face it, it's likely you too were confused too before you knew what was going on ("It's all Greek to me!" you may have said, fairly accurately).

In the opinion of this editor, it's very important that we try hard to describe anatomy in a way that is both technically accurate and accessible. The majority of our readers are lay readers and will not be fluent in terminology. Anatomy is a thoroughly interesting discipline, but it shouldn't be 'locked away' only to those who are fluent in the lingo – exploring anatomy should not be limited by education, technical-level English fluency, or unfamiliarity with its jargon. Anatomical terminology is one barrier to anatomical literacy.

Here are four ways that we can help improve the readability of our anatomical articles.

  1. Substitute. Use words readers are familiar with -- there is no need to use anatomical terminology unless necessary!
    Innervated by
    The nerve that supplies X is...
  2. Explain. When using terminology, remember readers will likely not understand what you mean, so consider adding an explanation and providing context. Use wikilinks for terms that a reader may not know.
    "The triceps extends the arm" may not be readily understood. A small addition may help the reader:
    "The triceps extends the arm, straightening it". Consider:
  3. Separate. Do not use long, complicated sentences. Don't write discursive, long comparisons unless needed. Start with simple information first, then get progressively more complex. Separate information by paragraph and subsection. Bite-sized information is much more easier to digest for readers who don't have a solid anatomical foundation
  4. Eliminate. Not all information is necessary on every article. Hatnotes are a simple and effective way to direct readers to another article. Don't provide long lists of synonyms of names for structures that an article isn't about. If a sentence has been paraphrased to the hilt, consider that several editors are indicating it may need to be simplified.
    "The other branches of the trigeminal nerve are the opthalmic nerve (nervus opthalmicus) and mandibular nerve (nervus mandibularis)"
    "The other branches of the trigeminal nerve are the opthalmic nerve and mandibular nerve" is much more easily digestible

This essay is provided in full on WP:ANATSIMPLIFY.

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter #4

[edit]

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter #4

Previous
Released: 1 July, 2015
Editor: Tom (LT)

Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is the fourth update, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. We've had a quiet time over the last half-year or so, so I've slowed down the release of this newsletter and will probably release the next one around the end of the year. If you'd like to provide some feedback, if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list

What's new
What's going on
The vermiform appendix, seen in the bottom left and the cause of much anguish when inflammed, stirs up an interesting discussion.
  • Should Vermiform appendix be retitled to its more common name (Appendix)? The discussion continues!
  • A large number of "back end" changes are made, and integration with Wikidata continues -- see the focus for more.
  • Our set of cranial nerve-related articles receive a review by a subject expert
How can I contribute?
Our articles on the 13 12 cranial nerves receive a review from a subject expert
Issue focus - technical changes

This issue was originally going to focus on how far we've come as a project. However, that encouraging news can wait until next issue, as there are simply too many changes going on at the "back end" of our project not to write about. What do I mean by "back end"? I mean changes that are not necessarily visible to readers, but may have a significant impact on the way we edit or on future edits.

Templates

A number of visible changes have been made to our templates. Firstly, the way our templates have been linked together has changed. Previously, this was a small bar with single-letter links. This has been replaced by a light-coloured box contained within all our templates with fully-worded links, which provides links to relevant anatomy and medical templates. This should make life a lot easier, particularly for students and other readers who are struggling with the vastness of anatomical systems and their related diseases and treatments.

As part of this, almost all our templates have been reviewed and cleaned up. The previously confusing colour scheme has been removed and colour standardised. The titles have been simplified. References to "identifiers" in the titles of navigation boxes (such as Gray's Anatomy and Terminologia Anatomica numbers) have been removed. Where possible, the wiki-code of templates has been updated to give a cleaner, more standardised, format that is hopefully more friendly to new editors. The cleanup continues , please feel free to contribute or propose templates which need attention.

Anatomy infobox

Most of our articles have an infobox. Previously, there were 11 separate infoboxes for different fields, such as muscles, nerves and embryology. These have been united so that at the "back end", every template will take formatting directly from the main anatomy infobox -- however at the "front end", there is little difference for readers. This will make future changes much easier -- including adding new fields, formatting, and reordering the contents. Several changes have already been made: infoboxes now link to a relevant anatomical terminology article; contents are now divided into 'Identifiers' and 'Details' headings, making it easier to grasp content for new readers; and new fields have been added, including Greek and UBERON, with several more under discussion.

External links

An editor has reviewed all our template-based external links. These are the links that often fill the "External links" category, and sometimes used as citations. At least thirty different links sets, with the number of links stretching into the thousands, have been fixed, and if not functioning, deleted. A number of non-functioning dead links (with no archived websites available), and one or two others, have been deleted. This helps keep our 'external links' section relevant and functioning for those readers who want extra information about articles.

Wikidata

Perhaps our most important change has been integration with Wikidata. This is because of both its current uses and potential future uses. Wikidata is a service related to Wikipedia focusing on storing information. Data relating to a Wikipedia item (such as a muscle or bone, or even a template) can have related "structured" infomation stored systematically alongside it. For example, a muscle can have information about its embryological origin, nerve supply, and the relevant sections of Terminologica Anatomica (TA) stored alongside it. Much information that was stored within articles on infoboxes is now stored on Wikidata, including the TA, TH, and TE fields. An immediate benefit is that Wikipedias in every language will (as they update their own infoboxes, be able to automatically include this information. New data can be entered in a much easier format, and data can be batch entered by bots making future updates much easier Future uses include data visualisation. I personally am looking forward to the day when a reader can view a wikidata-based "tree", clicking mesoderm and seeing all of the derived structures, then selecting the intermediate mesoderm, then Pronephric duct, mesonephric duct and vas deferens. The possibilities of using Wikidata for data visualisation are really quite encouraging!

Our next issue will focus on how far WikiProject Anatomy has come in the past 2 years.

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anatomy newsletter #5

[edit]

WP:Anatomy newsletter (#5)

Previous - Next
Released: November 2016
Editor: Tom (LT)

Hello WP:Anatomy participant! This is our fifth newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. There hasn't been too much worthy of news, and I have less time to dedicate to this project, so I've slowed down the release of this newsletter.

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

What's new
How can I contribute?
  • Participate in discussions - a number of discussions such as those on our talk page or about our infobox would benefit from your opinion!
  • Continue to add content to our articles
  • Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!
Focus - how far we've come

How far have we come since our first newsletter... the answer is quite a lot! Here goes:

  • Hundreds to thousands of articles improved and standardised by many, many editors.
  • 14 new good articles created or added to our project [4]
  • Improved quality of our articles - subjectively and objectively. GAs quadrupled from 5 to 16, B-class articles doubles from 62 to 115, C-class article well on the way to trebling from 219 to 611, Start-class increased from 1,082 to 1,570.
  • Tens to hundreds of mergers performed between tiny, unedited articles - a remnant of our Gray's Anatomy (1918) heritage.
  • Layout guidelines changed and layout standardised for the majority of our articles
  • In the project space:
  • Active integration with wikidata in our infoboxes
  • Overhaul of all of our navboxes
  • Review and integration of all of our templates
  • External link templates reviewed to ensure they all work
  • To help improve anatomical literacy:

These are substantial improvements and my thanks go out to our many editors who played a part in this. These improvements are almost always the result of consensus, compromise, collaboration and discussion between multiple editors.

I hope we can continue to improve in the future. How can you help? Continue to edit, add content, and create a welcoming atmosphere so that new editors will join us.

Well done to us all, and the many anonymous editors who've helped along the way!

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list

Message delivered on behalf of WikiProject Anatomy by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anatomy newsletter (#6)

[edit]

Released January 2018  · Previous newsletter  · Next

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.

Yours truly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's new

[edit]
new good articles since last newsletter include Thyroid, Hypoglossal nerve, Axillary arch, Human brain, Cerebrospinal fluid, Accessory nerve, Gallbladder, and Interventricular foramina (neuroanatomy)
I write an Introduction to Anatomy on Wikipedia in the Journal of Anatomy [5]
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. [6]
A discussion about two preferred section titles takes place here.

Introduction to WikiProject Anatomy and Anatomy on Wikipedia

[edit]
We welcome all those interested in anatomy!
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 ([7]), 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?

[edit]
  • 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

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WikiProject Anatomy users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list

Wikiproject Anatomy newsletter #7

[edit]

Released September 2020  · Previous newsletter

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.

Yours truly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's new

[edit]
Our new barnstar
new good articles since last newsletter include Epiglottis, Human nose, Pancreas, Prostate, Thymus, Trachea, T tubule, Ureter and Vagina, with Anatomical terms of location also awaiting review
A made-up eponymous term is used in our article that eventually makes it in to university anatomy teaching slides and a journal article
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
In the real world, Terminologia Anatomica 2 and Terminologia Embryologica 2 are released ([8], [9]). Terminologia Anatomica 2 is now included in anatomy article infoboxes, and there is ongoing discussion about updating TE as well
A beautiful new barnstar is released ({{subst:The Anatomist Barnstar}})
Portal:Anatomy receives some attention, and two related portals are deleted (vale Human body and Cranial nerve portals)
Some things left out from past newsletters - A large amount of redirects are created to help link plural structures, and Cerebellum ([10]) and Hippocampus ([11]) are published in Wikiversity.
[edit]

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.

Whether tuning up an older FA at Featured article review, or attempting a new one to be reviewed at Featured article candidates, taking the plunge can be rewarding, and I hope the advice in my essay is helpful.

You can read the essay "Achieving excellence through featured content" here.

SandyGeorgia has been a regular FA reviewer at FAC and FAR since 2006, and has participated in thousands of nominations

How can I contribute?

[edit]
  • 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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloomingdedalus&oldid=1141618816"