User talk:Iztwoz

Thanks

I know articles on Wikipedia do not belong to anyone, but I do have a personal attachment to the Progeroid syndrome article. So I want to personally thank you for taking your time out to copy-edit it and correct any mistakes I made. I want to let you know I appreciate it! Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 17:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your post today

Hi Iztwoz!
Many thanks for your kind message and comment on my page.
Pleased to see how well you have settled in. Cheers! –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 11:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your tireless work with the Guild of Copyeditors, I award you this barnstar. Your selfless copyediting is an invaluable resource to the community. Neelix (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much

I appreciate your help on Lower limbs venous ultrasonography. Doc Elisa ^✉ 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is priceless and I have no words to say how much I'm grateful. Doc Elisa ^✉ 21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper-debit is the situation were there is an augmentation of the debit in one vein. An exemple of hyper-debit is the presence of an arterio-venous fistula. Another example is in a situation of deep venous thrombosis: the superficial venous system is called to drain much more blood than usually - veins can be enlarged but valves can be intact. Eye image or eye sign is the same thing. We can use "eye sign" as it is on papers. Thank you again Doc Elisa ^✉ 20:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for helping my students with their article Beautiful Store. They told me they are very grateful for your assistance! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Me

Apologies if I caused any edit conflicts during your copy edit. I had forgotten about my outstanding request for the copy edit, since the article had already undergone the Good article nomination process. (I work on so many articles at once, I forgot!) I am so glad to have you working on the article, and I will wait until you have finished to see all of your edits and ask any questions I may have. I did remove "very" (which you added) from the lead, referring to the reception, and I also removed the comma before "Public Art Collection" since the source did not include the punctuation (and the lead became inconsistent with the infobox). Let me know your thoughts! Thanks for your contributions to the article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll let me know when you are finished, I will be sure to add the GOCE template to the article's talk page. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for working on the Allow Me article! Another Believer _(Talk) 19:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Lower limbs venous ultrasonography

The article Lower limbs venous ultrasonography you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lower limbs venous ultrasonography for comments about the article. Well done! Spinning Spark 17:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Unipolar brush cell was accepted

Unipolar brush cell, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

Hi Iztwoz,

Thank you again for copyediting the Nefarious: Merchant of Souls article. I have submitted the article for a featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iztwoz,

Thank you very much for contributing to the Nefarious: Merchant of Souls FAC. The article has been featured and I have nominated it to go up on the main page here.

Neelix (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks for your recent edits to Anatomy articles, they're really helping to improve their overall quality and readability. Keep up the good work! LT910001 (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Thanks for your many, many copyedits and alterations to Cervix. I have completed the history section, made some final changes, and nominated Cervix for GA. Wish us luck! --LT910001 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operculum

Thanks for that. I've read authors using "operculum" for the whole bit of cortex covering the insula, and "parietal operculum", "frontal operculum", etc. for the different bits, and I tried to retain it ... but it's clumsy expression, and I'm quite happy to leave it out. Thanks for all your efforts in anatomy here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 18 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!

Your GA nomination of Caenorhabditis elegans

The article Caenorhabditis elegans you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Caenorhabditis elegans for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Narayanese -- Narayanese (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your massive amount of high-quality work on anatomy articles! I don't even have time to keep up reading your content! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sebaceous gland

The article Sebaceous gland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sebaceous gland for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions say a bot will come by to add the GA icon. I will probably check myself, but let me know if it doesn't show up soon.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting this to GA, Iztwoz, it was great to work with you on it! --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all your work on anatomy-related articles. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Golden Doubloon of Anatomy
		You have been awarded the prestigious Golden Doubloon for your contributions to anatomy articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions!

For the large amount of work on many anatomy articles, I hereby present you with the golden doubloon of anatomy, an award bestowed on only a few! (so far 2, I think) --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebellum

I have nominated Cerebellum for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel de Jersey Harvard

Thanks for your help! EEng (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I am astounded at the amount of content that you have created in/for Wikipedia...you are the type of editor/writer that I want to be. Bfpage \|leave a message 21:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of Heart

Hi Iztwoz, I saw you editing Heart just now, and wanted to mention that a peer review has been requested for it here. I thought you might want to participate in that. Cheers, BakerStMD 15:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Medicine Barnstar
		Iztwoz, for your ongoing effort and knowledge on Minimally invasive procedure. thank you Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi

would you mind looking at the symptoms section of lupus nephritis? (ive been editing all day)thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1]thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re grey matter. The new headings and coherence among them is a good improvement: Thank you! However most of my edits to the grey matter page involve incorrect referencing, double referencing, broken sentences, and causal language not warranted by the data. I removed the "thinking about" sentence: I believe that was intended to refer to a paper which asked people to imagine being poor and showed this reduced their working memory, but without a citation, who knows. It is now deleted. If there's something substantive, let's chat on its talk page? best Tim bates (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Galen barnstar

		The Golden Galen barnstar
		You have been awarded the prestigious Golden Galen award for your contributions to anatomy articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions!

Thanks for your many, many contributions to anatomy articles this year! Our suite of anatomy articles has definitely improved over the last 1-2 years. What are your thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you (and me)!

For a short coffee break with a wiki-colleague whilst editing Heart. Thanks for your help on Lung and your many mergers which I've just noticed :). How's it going? Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Your work to provide references is an example to all other medical editors. I admire your work. Bfpage \|leave a message 02:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in Cerebellum article

Hi,
I'm editor-in-chief of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, and we're about to consider a snapshot of the Cerebellum article for publication in this journal: Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Cerebellum. This would make it easier for external sources to use and cite this work, and after we've advanced the journal these publications will be searchable in PubMed as well. As you have been one of the most active contributors to this article, we would like to include you in the "author" list, but we want these to be the authors' real names. If you approve, you may edit that article to change your username to your real name, or include it in a reply to me. Otherwise, you will be attributed by a link to the history page of the Wikipedia article. Also, the work has undergone peer review, and I'd appreciate if you could have a look into the peer review comments, and help amending the mentioned issues before publication in the journal: /Cerebellum#Peer review. You may also check at its history to see what corrections have already been made by other authors.
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the article! The only issue left I find from the peer review is to add some references to the last paragraph in the introduction. After that, I think it's ready for publication. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now published. Thank you for your help! Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You do excellent work. Many thanks for all you do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing Hippocampus in WikiJournal

Hi there,

It seems you have been among the most active contributors to the Hippocampus article as well [2], and therefore, would you like to join the process of having this one as well published in the journal (which have since been renamed to WikiJournal of Medicine)? As with The Cerebellum article, it would be great if we could make it easier for external sources to cite it, and eventually bring it to PubMed.

We would now want all main authors of Wikipedia works to agree with an Agreement for having the article published in the journal (so that any conflicts of interests can be declared). After I've invited the other main authors of the article, it can then undergo peer review, and I'd appreciate if you could then help out in amending any issues raised therein.

Also, would it be all right for you to be the corresponding author of the work in WikiJournal? You can have your email displayed, or have a link to your Email User page.

Best regards,

Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC) Editor-in-chief, WikiJournal of Medicine[reply]

Great! Could you also remove the <nowiki> around the ~~~~ to sign? Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review comments

Hi again,

The Hippocampus article has now been peer reviewed, and comments are seen at Wikiversity:Talk:Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/The Hippocampus#Peer review comments. Could you look through them and make amendments?

Best regards,

Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thyroid

Thanks for your help and for expanding it, especially the history section. I've done a fair bit of work and will take a break for a week or so from editing it. If you are around and have time would you mind having a look / cleanup? With much appreciation...! --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second peer review of the hippocampus

The issue of peer review coordinators is solved for the moment. Also, as part of the journal's new standard of having at least 2 external peer reviews for every publication, we have now received a second peer review of The Hippocampus: Wikiversity:Talk:Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/The Hippocampus#Comments from 2nd peer reviewer
I hope you can amend these comments when you have the time. Let me know if you would prefer to have a co-author for the article to help in any amendments, and we could find one. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you noticed, many of the comments in the second peer reviewer were of a rather editorial nature, as they relate to the guidelines that can just as well be applied to other articles as well. I therefore found it appropriate to give an "ediorial response" to some of them: Wikiversity:Talk:Draft:WikiJournal_of_Medicine/The_Hippocampus#Editorial_response. Yet, I think the remaining points are for the author. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on amending the article! I've now synchronized the article in Wikiversity with the Wikipedia article so that it reflects recent edits. Could you add the sources in the image captions (such as for the one saying "Source: brainmaps.org") at the page in Wikiversity? Also, we decided to recommend adding "Image 1:", "Image 2:" etc in image captions to allow for easier referencing.

I will then ask the peer reviewer if he thinks the article is ready for editorial board decision. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Both the peer reviewer and I find the article to be ready for editorial board decision. Nevertheless, some additional suggestions have been presented by the reviewer: [[Talk:Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/The Hippocampus#Response to update]]. Also, as mentioned in my last message there should be a source description for each image in the the article in Wikiversity. So, just let me know when you think the article is ready. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, let me know if you think the article is not ready, otherwise I will bring it to the editorial board for publication decision shortly. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can now announce that the article is published in WikiJournal of Medicine! It's been a great improvement of the Wikipedia article. The entry on the main page at Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Medicine has some of the abstract included. Let me know if you prefer a different image or format. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve this

		The Bio-star
		I'm awarding you this for cleaning up and expanding the striatum article, fixing the significant omission of material on the ventral striatum in that article, and for taking the initiative to merge ventral striatum into the striatum article. I know that was a lot of work, so thanks for doing it! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of MEDRS

"What is biomedical information? Biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health. Generally speaking, such information should be supported by a reputable biomedical source, such as review articles, higher-level medical textbooks, and professional reference works." Meditation making your cortex thicker, based on a primary source? Think, dude. Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abductive (reasoning) Firstly the article is not in the medical category; secondly the information referred to is not even in the Clinical significance section; thirdly the Oxford journals ref is completely acceptable imo. Seems to me that it's just something you don't agree with. As regards your other ref to some material you removed as it was poorly expressed - somebody has gone to the trouble of adding material with refs - because it could possibly have been better explained is no cause for removal - if you can express it better - do that. Or take it to the talk page. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brainy Barnstar

	For sterling work on Human brain
	Thank you very much for helping to get this to GA, despite not being the nominator! You can definitely claim GA credit for this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After 4 years I'm back

Hi I'm glad to know that you are always here. Thank you for your help. Cheers Doc Elisa ^✉ 20:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		For your work with User:Chiswick Chap on improving the Microorganism article! pwnzor.ak (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microorganism GAN

Hi Iztwoz, I'm putting the article up for GA as it's now in a decent state, well-structured and certainly covers the main points. Shall I add your name as co-nominator? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chiswick Chap yes you can, but don't feel obliged to. I am still making changes - shall I continue or leave it as it is. --Iztwoz (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it, and feel free to continue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's under review already ... some of my articles have been languishing there for months. I'll start dealing with some of the review items now, feel free to do any of them that take your fancy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your high-quality contributions. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Tom (LT) submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate User Iztwoz as Editor of the Week. Iztwoz truly deserves this prize. They are one of the leading anatomy editors, highly active editing medical and anatomy articles with a stellar history of high-quality contributions to a huge number of articles. I have always found Iztwoz to have a level head, and to be willing to talk and discuss any issues at hand, even with difficult and problematic editors. Iztwoz is committed to quality work and has made a huge impact in the anatomy space. I am sure even a cursory look and their activity and large number of edits will demonstrate their suitability.

WikiProject Anatomy

Iztwoz

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning October 15, 2017

Highly active medical and anatomy editor. Level headed, willing to discuss issues. Able to collaborate with difficult and problematic editors.

Recognized for

their Committment to quality work in Anatomy mainspace

Notable work

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Vulva

The article Vulva you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vulva for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your work on bringing Vulva to good article status. Well done!! Tom (LT) (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raising Thiamin to GA?

I noticed you have been a frequent contributor to the Thiamin article recently. Is your intent to raise it to GA? I did so for Vitamin C, and am in process of editing the Vitamin E article with same intent. All of the vitamin articles get many visitors per day, and in my opinion needs improvement. At present, only Vitamin C is GA; the rest are B-class or C-class. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David notMD - no it wasn't an intention to take it to GA but will carry on with edits as and when; I think it would be really helpful were you to further the pages. All best --Iztwoz (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Septin

Hi, you uprated the article on Septins from "start" to "C" in the MCB infobox. Could you give hints what would be missing to make it B grade? Thanks. Gormfull (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gormfull - It may well merit a B grade, it was just a quick and obvious change from start status. If you think it needs changing you can do this - if you are asking about what criteria are used to grade they on WP:MOS somewhere. But I shall take another look. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you Iztwoz, I added some information in the lipid raft page too regarding the cell unroofing topic. For my understandings, The draft pace can be moved to the public by an expert user, can't you make it for me? The Xiao Li (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sinusoid (blood vessel)

Hi Iztwoz, hope that you're well! Was doing my (increasingly infrequent) trawl of recent changes when I saw this merge into capillary. In my mind they constitute a fairly and independently notable part of the microanatomy of certain organs like the placenta and the liver. I do note the article gets quite a few page views (looks like 50 - 100 a day [3]). I am inclined to think this warrants its own individual article unlike say 'fenestrated' capillaries. What would your thoughts be? --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on talk page Tom.--Iztwoz (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

potential mix-up of cerebral and cerebellar

Hi Iztwoz,

thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I only just now figured out my "cerebral"-to-"cerebellar" correction missed the incorrect links you have just corrected. Now I fully agree with the article, thanks for the nice work!

FelixTheStudent (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<ref> issue on Lung

Hi Iztwoz, can you have a look at the system-generated error message on lung in the Microanatomy section? It appears to be related to your edit on 16 August 2019. Thanks and best wishes. Ran0t0 (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ran0t0 - sorted.--Iztwoz (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For having introduced step-wise and significant improvements to the Cell biology article. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhombencephalosynapsis

Thank you for your kind words. This is uncommon on WP. Much appreciated. Virion123 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 11:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Tom (LT) (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Substance use disorder

It is in the DSM5, infact it covers more than 100 pages (481 to 489). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but in that case the page Substance use disorder needs changing. It is described as a medical condition and later "In the DSM-5, substance abuse and substance dependence have been merged into the category of substance use disorders". Also it doesn't make much sense to refer to the use of cannabis for example as a mental illness, which use is often referred to in the case of schizophrenia.? --Iztwoz (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay have corrected SUD. SUD only refers to cases were negative health effects occur, not all possible use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that is clearer.--Iztwoz (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skull

Hi Iztwoz, hope that you're well. I was looking at skull and saw you merged it with human skull a couple of years ago. It seems like there's about a 60 / 40 split of human / nonhuman information and I was contemplating resplitting it to the two articles as it's getting pretty long, but didn't want to reinvent the wheel. I couldn't find the relevant discussion and was wondering if you recalled where it might be + what your thoughts would be about a split? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom (LT) - you supported this proposal in February 2016 see its talk page. The merging of human specifics with other animals had already raised a fair bit of discussion - my own view was a preference for Human.... and keeping the Other animals section but there had been a few outcries that the articles were humancentric hence the reorganisation of several other human-specific pages. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Sorry for the delayed response. I do remember the set of discussions. Sometimes I restumble upon an article after some time and things look a bit different - looks like Skull has expanded somewhat. Do you think it's worth rediscussing a split from skull Skull? I feel as if the nonhuman elements have increased and it's quite long, so there would be a reargument for splitting. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom (LT) have just had another look at the page - first thought was that it is not a long page at all - less than 40K. Next thought was that it seems strangely skewed and am of the opinion for it to follow the guidelines suggested on its talk page (similar to how other pages cover things, with the Other animals section - even at the risk of upsetting somebody's applecart! At the moment it has a section with the strange heading of ...in vertebrates, that excludes humans. Also best to continue on talk page. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - thought I'd start here. No further thoughts for the moment but as you say if there's anything else I'll post it on the talk page. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumocytes

Hello. I saw you reverted my edit of type I/II pneumocytes to type I/II cells on the grounds that it is mentioned in the text. However, I believe that the term type I/II pneumocytes is a more accurate description as it includes the prefix pneumo- which refers to the lung. Also I wanted to bring to your attention this very nice illustration (Media:Cross_section_of_an_alveolus_and_capillaries_showing_diffusion_of_gases.svg) which includes that term. Finally, I find the term type I/II cells such a vague term (it can refer to any organ) that can be confusing to a person that is not a pulmonologist. kupirijo (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello kupirijo - the simpler use of terms is always preferable; also they ought not to present any confusion: a Google search for Type I cells only comes up with the alveolar type and registers 443 million hits; a search for Type II cells only comes up with alveolar cells and registers 375 million hits. The term pneumocyte is made very clear on the page. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neck

Those neck lines aren't due to mature age but clearly to excess body fat. Lopkiol (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reference to mature. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Human nose

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Human nose 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 Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ajpolino

Medical image usage

Images having the purpose of showing a given anatomical feature of what is considered the normal human body should not be taken from individuals presenting with unhealthy characteristics, such as excess body fat. Lopkiol (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that you take your issue up with the person who added the image? Thank you--Iztwoz (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Human nose

The article Human nose you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Human nose for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ajpolino for reviewing this and for your helpful comments. Keep well, best --Iztwoz (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter Million Award

	The Quarter Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Human nose (estimated annual readership: 300,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I haven't lost you

		The Special Barnstar
		For a cool head (despite our previous disagreements) and help with Cleavage (breasts). The sceince is still weak, but I haven't given up on the hope of help from you, Tom (LT) and Dr. Vogel, the science minded people I know. May be you can take another look at the article and how it is shaping up. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DNA virus

I tried to explain on the talk page of Baltimore classification what I was doing, but I don't get why you undid my redirect. Velayinosu (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Velayinosu - I reverted because such a merge for a long-standing , well-viewed page needs prior possibility for discussion see WP:MERGE - my one revert would suggest that it could be a controversial move and therefore needs the merge tags added so that other editors can arrive at a consensus. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar for you!

		The Psychology Barnstar
		For your erudite, steadfast contributions to Schizophrenia. You not only bring accurate, well-written information to the beautifully curious masses, you're also a role model for scores of editors around the world. Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 02:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Membership renewal of Wiki Project Med Foundation

Membership renewal

You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2022.

ReJoin Wiki Project Med Foundation

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

Merge of Muscle to Skeletal muscle

That was rather WP:BOLD of you. Did you discuss this merge with anybody else before undertaking it? I can understand thinking that "skeletal muscle" might be the primary topic of "muscle". However, vertebrates have muscles that aren't skeletal, and your merge included a section Skeletal_muscle#Invertebrate_muscle_cell_types, that isn't relevant to skeletal muscles at all. Changes in potential primary topics should be discussed via WP:RM, not (unilaterally?) implemented via a merge. Plantdrew (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Plantdrew the merge proposal was posted on Skeletal muscle in June and supported - there had been a number of discussions over the years on various muscle related pages - in short there was a lot of duplication on the pages and the page Muscle on its own served no purpose. The page Muscle tissue is more relevant. It was not an issue of choosing Skeletal muscle as a primary topic but of noting that muscle was a usual aka of skeletal muscle. There is still a fair bit of work called for on the pages and I am intending to carry on with edits in a more focused way in the future - perhaps you could help out? --Iztwoz (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why put some old-fashioned style on the pages of pernicious anemia and vitamin B12 deficiency? (Although I took a long time to develop it)

We can agree on some things, but you don't give a chance to someone who has devoted months of his work to showing people a vitamin B12 deficiency, knowing that I am also affected. Johna188 (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johna188 - I appreciate that you have spent a lot of time on the page BUT you have already stated that your English isn't that good; you keep adding material that isn't strict to the source used; you added a file showing a girl with fever and added the caption of showing pallor. Some of your edits have been helpful but some of your well meant efforts have also been reverted by others - why do you think that is? Best --Iztwoz (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi Iztwoz. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hi Iztwoz. I saw that you are listed as a volunteer at WP:PRV where you list copyediting and philosophy as some of your interests for providing peer review comments. I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on the Quine–Putnam indispensability argument article which I've put up for peer review here. No worries if you are too busy to provide any comments on this though! Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alduin2000 sorry for the very late response. The topic is a bit above my grade hence the minor edits.--Iztwoz (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the edits either way! Alduin2000 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afferent nerve fibers

Hi, I knew that afferent nerve fibers in cranial nerves went directly to the brain and not to the spinal cord. Lopkiol (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lopkiol the text was referring to afferents from sensory neurons in the PNS not to cranial afferents. You changed link to CNS over spinal cord which is part of the CNS. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iztwoz, cranial afferents are part of the PNS.

Thanks Lopkiol shall be making some changes.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Iztwoz!

Happy New Year!

Iztwoz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle

Hi, just making sure you've seen this. Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Dr. Vogel have posted an RM on Muscle tissue page.--Iztwoz (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol \| May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Iztwoz,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New pages patrol needs your help!

Hello Iztwoz,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs on Eukaryote

Hi Iztwoz, two things to note. Firstly, the article is unfortunately in Vancouver ref format, so authors are Bloggs JB not Bloggs, John B., more's the pity. Secondly, there's no need - indeed, it's actively undesirable - to add refs to the lead; if you think refs are needed for some reason, the "new" material must go in the article body, but it's rather fully cited already. And I assume you know the article is up for GAN so we don't want any sort of to-ing and fro-ing at this point really. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chiswick Chap - it's been a while since I looked at the page and had forgotten its GAN proposal. I added refs since there is no mention of Asgard archaea in any section. I had earlier thought to remove the then one ref. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ALS Good Article Nomination

Hey there wiki-buddy! I'm hoping I can attract some interested folks to consider reviewing the Wikipedia page about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis for Good Article status. As you may know, ALS is a rare and fatal neurodegenerative disease that quickly causes people to lose the ability to move, speak, and breathe. The Wikipedia page about ALS is read over 2,000 times each day in English alone, and often experiences spikes in traffic whenever a celebrity is diagnosed. There have recently been a number of genetic advances made in the space and some recent drug approvals, thanks in part to the momentum started by the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. I've been grinding away at it since early this year but keen to see it improve further, hope you'll consider! PaulWicks (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link to section Axial Twist

Hi Itztwoz! thanks for your actions on my additions to heart and gastrointestinal tract. Indeed, it is confusing that the link to section contralateral brain#Axial Twist on the page contralateral brain is really confusing. I propose to make Axial twist to its own page. The topic is related to Inversion (evolutionary biology), but it does not really fit there either, so it is probably appropriate to make a new page. Once that's done I would re-add the links heart and gastrointestinal tract. Marci68 (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll look out for it. Best Iztwoz (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Page Move Pseudomonadota

The close was made based on the contents of the RM at the time. It stands. However, there is nothing to prevent the initiation of a new page move at this time. That is the course of action to be taken if you can support and desire a title change for this article. Mike Cline (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Iztwoz (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CYP4F2

Hello! When you have time, please let me know what you think on CYP4F2 article? I expanded it based on the reference on WP:MCBMOS that you provided. How can I further improve the article, or fix the omissions or errors that you may find and tell me about?

And thank you again for your feedback on the enzyme name that you provided! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

I've nominated a few articles for Good Article (GA) status, but it seems that we do not have enough reviewers: all of my nominations have been sitting there for months with no response or review. I did my part by reviewing some other articles myself, thinking that it would help with the backlog and get my nominations noticed, but it was not a fun experience: I didn't have a good mentor, and I made a few mistakes there; I asked experienced editors to help: they upheld some of my reviews, but asked to cancel one of them. I am still learning to review. But I'm not going to make any other reviews, because I afraid of being banned for incompetence :-( Still, I would be very grateful if you could lend me a hand and review one of my GA nominations that you deem most ready for GA. This would motivate me to produce more articles or polish the ones that are not yet good enough for GA. I feel hopeless when my nominations are neglected for so long. :-) I hope I will be lucky and at least 3 of my articles I nominated get reviewed before the New Year :-) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied on your talk page.--Iztwoz (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Iztwoz: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coagulation factor VII

Hi Iztwoz, I recognized that you moved the page coagulation factor VII about two years ago, stating that it is the preferred name for the protein. However, upon comparing the frequency of "coagulation factor VII" with "factor VII," it appears that "factor VII" is actually the much more commonly used term. Would you be open to the idea of reverting it back to this shorter form to maintain conciseness and alignment with the titles of other coagulation factors? –Tobias (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tobias - firstly I tend to just use the UniProt name for consistency in the articles, but there are times when a common name takes priority. Your finding that Factor VII for example is the more commonly used I think just reflects the number of times it is referred to in an article as is the case on the Wiki entry. I think the entry name ought to be the UniProt name here since it is descriptive and used by several major websites, whereas just Factor VII is not, all following references need only be the shortened form. - the variously named factors would still redirect to the target page. Also there are pages named relating to a deficiency such as Factor X deficiency which seems to validly stand since a deficiency is quite specific. Am inclined to change other pages accordingly.?

Thanks Iztwoz (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, you would use the UniProt name in cases where it's not clearly the more commonly used name. In this article, there is clear priority for the short form, not only because it's simpler but also because it's unnecessary to refer to it as 'coagulation factor VII.' When I search for 'coagulation factor VII,' almost all entries use the short form, including prestigious publishers like the National Institutes of Health, which hosts PubMed. I plan to move other pages, like coagulation factor XIII A chain, to the simple form as well. Why should 'factor VII' not be descriptive, while 'coagulation factor VII' is? Both terms refer to the identical protein, whose position in the coagulation cascade is indicated by its number. –Tobias (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly if you had already made your mind up why trouble me for an opinion? I still stand by my reasoning - Factor VII on its own means nothing. I suggest you ask Boghog's opinion who is more knowledgeable.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to join the discussion, @Boghog. Mainly, I want to reach a consensus and understand your reasoning, but haven't grasp the basis yet. I understand that you think "factor VII" means nothing, but you haven't given a reason to make it somehow logical. For instance, the full name of metamizole is metamizole sodium, yet it's commonly referred to as metamizole which is not unspecific since there is no other medication with the same exact name. The same reasoning applies to factor VII; there's no other factor VII that it can be confused with. I only see that every other coagulation factor is either referred to my a more common name like fibrinogen or just "factor..." and this exception is inconsistent. Either we move all other coagulation factors to "coagulation factor..." as well or we shorten the title of this article maintain consistency throughout Wikipedia. –Tobias (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coagulation factors

Hello Iztwoz,

I noticed your recent move of factor V and still aim to reach a consensus instead of just reverting both of your moves on factor V and factor VII like you did to me in several other cases. I understand your reasoning, and UniProt is important for research in the U.S, but ain't the internationally used non plus ultra and therefore should not be the main reason to move all factors. In most literature I came across, both factors are referred to as "factor ...", not "coagulation factor ..." (1, 2, 3, 4 and the more I research this topic, the less convinced I am of the necessity of these changes. Moreover, using the concise version in medical literature aligns with the statistics I previously shared with you. Additionally, making titles concise doesn't compromise descriptiveness; for example, "factor V" is widely recognized as the primary name of the protein, rendering additional description unnecessary. If there is anything else you want to tell me, just go on. –Tobias (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As before I suggest you post a Requested move on the pages concerned to have other editors' inputs. For consistency on pages UniProt is preferred as stated on Project page. Iztwoz (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, protein titles are typically based on the UniProt entries, my mistake. In this case, I don't refer to the protein naming conventions, but rather to the general rules which advocate for short and concise titles. The protein naming conventions don't align with this principle in this case, making it a sensible exception. Consistency is another key aspect of these guidelines, which isn't currently being upheld. By the way, I'm not the one initiating a move right now, this would be your turn to post a move request. –Tobias (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fail to see your point - Coagulation factor xxx is the full descriptive name (as used by Medlineplus, FDA, and others) it's not as if its a different common name as is the case for Protein C (coagulation factor XIV) for example.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave you literature that doesn't use this form. What you refer to is the full name, but we're looking for the most commonly used and that is just "factor ...", according to these and other scientific publications, statistics and the body text of other articles here on Wikipedia itself. Additionally, there is no such thing as another "factor X" in any kind of science to distinguish it from, meaning that the full name is nothing more than redundant and unnecessary. –Tobias (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page Factor X about a Spanish tv series and another on factor 5 about a German gaming site.....--Iztwoz (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made myself clear and was patient enough. –Tobias (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make clear that I'm truly sorry about how things unfolded, I had hoped we could make this a pleasant experience for both of us, but that's challenging if you just move an article while we're discussing that very move which surely isn't uncontroversial as you might have noticed. –Tobias (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You had said that you wanted consistency in the names so that has been the approach.? The articles are meant to be for the general reader - factor 8 for example is a well referred to clotting factor known to many in various disciplines. A reader unfamiliar with the term may look it up here and is much better informed to have an immediate descriptive term. I am sorry that you seem to be upset by this exchange.--Iztwoz (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have just noticed all your reverts - I give up. Consistency on your terms apparently. --Iztwoz (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I referred to with my previous message, should've mentioned the reverts directly, my bad. I want to assure that I'm not upset, more a little helpless, and that these reverts are nothing personal and I just thought we could figure this out another way. I appreciate your work, just didn't know how to react when you made that page move that we're discussing simultaneously. We could add "coagulation" in the lead for the rest of the factors as kind of a little compromise and make the lead sections consistent in general to ensure clarity to the general reader that this is about the specific protein involved in clotting. –Tobias (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Leiden updates

Hi Iztwoz. I hope this message finds you well. I am calling on you to have a look at an edit request I posted not too long ago at Talk:Jeffrey_Leiden#Updates. Since you have made edits on the Jeffrey Leiden BLP before, I am hoping you won't mind doing it again. The edit request is composed of 4 straightforward bullet points, and the last one was already implemented by an editor who said: "I do not plan to make the other edits, but do not oppose if other editors make them." You can see his answer here. I hope you will kindly implement this edit request. Thanks, JohnDatVertex (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tecrea

Hello Iztwoz. I'm investigating whether to put Tecrea up for deletion. The article was created by a single-purpose account and it's in very poor shape, almost exclusively citing the company website. So far I haven't found any sources that might demonstrate it passes our notability guidelines for companies. However, I noticed you added a link to the article in the see also section for drug delivery. I reason that if an independent editor has gone to the trouble of doing this, that might be a sign the company is notable. What are your thoughts? Do you know if there are any decent independent sources covering the company? – Teratix ₵ 14:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tetratix - I added the item before it was tagged, as just a nanomedicine company. Having looked over the page it is included on the page List of companies of the United Kingdom but only one citation link seems to be working the rest are deadlinks, agree that it seems to not be notable enough. Iztwoz (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Iztwoz. Thank you for your work on Spinomesencephalic pathway. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: Many thanks Iztwoz (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Sultanabad, Gilgit-Baltistan

Cltr (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reticulospinal tract split reversion

Hi Iztwoz, while new page patrolling I came across the redirect Reticulospinal tract. It seems that @Jay Hodec split an article out of Reticular formation, which you reverted with the summary "Undiscussed Split of material already merged to Reticular formation". However, it seems that the merger of Reticulospinal tract into Reticular formation was performed by @Seppi333 back in 2017 without any discussion, so Jay Hodec's recreation of this article was not against any consensus.

If you agree with my reading of the page histories, I think the best way forward is for you and Jay (and perhaps Seppi) to discuss whether Reticulospinal tract should be an article or a redirect. Toadspike [Talk] 20:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Toadspike - It is usual accepted practice to merge a small article with a larger article with no prior discussion, where being presented on the same page is an improvement; where the merge is thought to be more major the merge proposal is posted for discussion. Having been merged with no objection it is by consensus welcomed. On the other hand to split content from a page I believe needs to be proposed first; with so many pages and so few editors much harm can be done by unannounced splitting of content.

Case in point - the lead states clearly the presence of two systems referring to the moved content as one of these in bold; the material in the body of the text was simply removed leaving the lead stating its role. Further the page that had been recreated soon had a lot of tags attached to it. Iztwoz (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also content is usually split if it has become too large, warranting its own page - can see no valid reason for the split in this case.--Iztwoz (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make good points, and it seems Jay Hodec doesn't have any objections, so I'll leave this be. Sorry for bothering you! Toadspike [Talk] 22:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and no problem. Iztwoz (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iztwoz and Toadspike: Sorry for the belated reply - I didn't notice Iztwoz replied till now.

As I've briefly noted in the edit description, the Reticular formation page was far too crammed and should in fact have been split up into even more independent articles (e.g. independent Ascending reticular activating system for one). Also note that I had additionally expanded the Reticulospinal tract article, and that my improvements have been discarded with the re-merger (any I may expand them further in the future). On a more general note - just take a glance at the article as it stands right now - does it seem well structured so that a reader can easily find their way round it? This despite the fact the article is currently quite incomplete and should be expanded to at least twice its size to adequately cover all the aspects of this structure.

More generally, the reticulospinal tract(s) are obviously an independent anatomical entity and warrant their independent article - the Vestibulospinal tracts, Tectospinal tract, Rubrospinal tract, Corticospinal tract, Corticonuclear tract etc. are not and should not be folded in with the Vestibular nuclei, Tectum, Red nucleus, or Primary motor cortex, respectively - but this holds even more so for the reticulospinal tracts since the nuclei of the reticular formation have myriad distinct functions.

Kind regards,

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jay - Your opinion that the Reticular formation page was far too crammed is your opinion. It is a B class article which means that a lot of work has gone before. It seems to me to be now C class and does need more structuring. The whole page is only some 64K bites. When you 'spun off' the section on reticulospinal tracts you made no effort to change the lead - but that said - are you familiar with WP:SPLIT. There is very little that can be added to the tracts section - not enough to warrant its own page.

You complain that your edits to the spun off page were an improvement now lost - did you not see the improvement needed tags? You say you want to expand the tracts - this can be done on the section.

You say that even the ARAS should have its own page - again this is your opinion. If you feel that your opinions might be validated then they need to be posted on the talk pages so that other editors can voice their opinions and a consensus reached. Your opinion that each tract needs its own page is again - your opinion. I suggest that you post your points on the Project Anatomy page for interested editors to respond to.

Thanks Iztwoz (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your counter-argument is in short - "that's just like your opinion"? Going from the bottom up - independent, structurally distinct and functionally significant tracts (anatomical structures) clearly warrant their own articles based on wiki notability criteria, and this is also borne out by precedent (likewise with the ascending activating system which is another extremely notable neuroanatomical/neurophysiological entity in its own right). Otherwise, you seem to be arguing that we should just arbitrarily collapse as many anatomical subcategories into a parent article: e.g. all the branches (and branches of branches) of the femoral artery into the femoral artery article. So, please, answer me why the reticulospinal tracts do not merit an independent article, whereas all aformentioned tracts (and unmentioned ones) do? What makes this case different?

I'm not sure what you're aiming at with the "tags" point - any content that I've added was pertinent and properly referenced.

"There is very little that can be added to the tracts section" - this statement is based on a literature review? In any case, ~9k for a distinct, notable entity is far more than enough to merit an independent article - especially by the standards of the sorry state of WP:Anatomy articles.

It's entirely possible I've been negligent in carrying out the split for which I apologise, however, this is not really pertinent to this discussion.

As per WP:BOLD, I don't think I need to pre-clear every split with the relevant wikiproject (especially one where I might not get a reply by the end of the year) - and especially if I find it to be common-sense and in line with guidelines/standards.

I think is as about much as I can say on this subject, so if we haven't come to an understanding by now I think the dispute is best left to third parties to "arbitrate". Anyway, sorry if I'm coming off a bit brusque, but I'm a bit short on time so can't edit for formality.

Kind regards,

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Iztwoz. Thank you for your work on Acetabular labrum tear. Another editor, IntentionallyDense, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Great work on this article!

Using "you" in an article doesn't fit Wikipedia's Manual of Style. See WP:YOU.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|IntentionallyDense}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Re|IntentionallyDense}} Thanks for comments but I only split the material and added small lead Iztwoz (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. I didn't check the edit histories before commenting on that. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove wikilinks?

Hello, @Iztwoz

I noticed you removed many of the wikilinks that link to the article foot process. You removed it from the articles: podocyte, astrocyte, pia mater, human brain, and you instead bolded many of these terms. Can you please explain why your removed these links? From my point of view, they don't reduce the quality of these articles at all.

Thank you for your contributions PecMo (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shall reply on Foot process talk page Iztwoz (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discoid in "thalamic reticular nucleus".

@Iztwoz In answer to your query, the meaning of the word "discoid" is clear, and apparently refers to the "cylindrical" shape described in the "Dendrite" page. The editor who added it was 128.135.223.183 on 2005-6-6. You'll have to find that editor to ask what it is. Good luck!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thalamic_reticular_nucleus&diff=prev&oldid=14775276

I was not able to find any supporting reference for the assertion. So I have left it as it is. Some wiser person might know where it is supported. Sayonara. Alan U. Kennington (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]