User talk:Wouterstomp

Hi! Welcome to my talk page.

Please create a new heading for new subjects (manually '= = xxx = ='). To respond to a message under the same subject, find the applicable heading below, press the "Edit" button on the right, and add your message to that section.

Click here to leave me a new message. Also, please remember to always sign your messages with '- - ~ ~ ~ ~'

Archives

Cholera vaccine

HI, it seems like you didn't like our changes in the cholera vaccines entry and reverted to your earlier entry? We are interested in informing public health officials about the potential use of cholera vaccines in large outbreaks such as in Haiti, Zimbabwe, etc. Many look first at wikipedia what is available and it may be helpful to provide more information and examples about previous mass cholera vaccination campaigns? Please let us know whether you want to collaborate on such an entry?

David A. Sack, M.D. Professor, Department of International Health Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health 615 N.Wolfe Street / E5537 Baltimore, Maryland 21205 443-287-8795 (office) 410-502-6733 (fax) 443-686-1651 (mobile) dsack@jhsph.edu<mailto:dsack@jhsph.edu

Lorenz von Seidlein MD/PhD menzies school of health research John Mathews Building (Bldg 58) PO Box 41096 Casuarina, NT 0810 Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeliveringOralVaccineEffectively (talk • contribs) 02:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that was User:Jmh649, not me (he reverted it to an earlier version by me). --WS (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks have replied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Monthly update for WTMED?

FYI User_talk:Biosthmors#Monthly update of WPMED goals?, thanks! Lesion (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SeHCAT

Thanks for visiting and rating this page. Would you like to tell me why this is Start class? The Referencing is comprehensive without being exhaustive.Jrfw51 (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on collaboration

Hi Wouterstomp, we haven't had much chance to communicate other than on the WikiMed talk page. You recently wrote how enjoyable it is to collaboratively edit - I completely agree! Some of my most enjoyable editing (and I believe better quality) was collaborating on lichen planus with Lesion. Your comment caused me to reflect a little while. I think we could try and implement a system using a tag or box placed on an article or its talk age, reading something like "User X invites other editors to collaboratively edit this article from 13-16th June 2013", with the tag or box automatically dated and tagged with the user's username.

Then for the next 3-5 days this could be placed on an "invitations for collaboration" list. Just a thought, but I think this'd be quite possible using the existing structure on Wiki, and will think about it the next few days, I would find Wikipedia much more enjoyable if there was more collaborative editing and this would be a nice way for editors to collaborate. The downside would be sudden, rapid influxes of editors demanding RfC, committee oversight, or strict adherence to MEDRS by existing editors. But I feel a little warning wherever it is listed that editing is in process and the invitation for collaboration is specifically for active participants rather than contributors to the talk page may help ameliorate this. Thoughts? LT910001 (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yes that sounds like a clever and easily adopted approach. However it does heavily rely on extra manual work, which I don't know if many people will actually do. What I was personally thinking of was some automatic (bot?) system, but one approach does not exclude the other. Will think it over a little more. --WS (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for collaboration: LT910001 (talk) has expressed an active interest in editing this user talk page over the next several days, and invites other editors to collaborate during this period.
This page was last revised at 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC) (85 minutes ago). To keep requests active, please remove this template within 3 days of making the request.

I had a little play-around. A template like this could be added to an article's page, with documentation something like this: User:LT910001/2. Pages can then be viewed using the 'what links here', or posted manually once daily. LT910001 (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, but we should have a bot post them somewhere automatically (like how it works with peer reviews). --WS (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Interesting that you mention stubs. I've been thinking of reforming that rubric: [1]. Maybe I should write an op-ed in the Signpost about it to describe my views. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, completely agree with that, there are plenty of stubs that are good enough as they are. If it were for me, we would get rid of those stub templates completely and leave that status only for the assessments. I don't think many editors get converted through those. --WS (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this discussion when viewing the topic above. I agree with your opinions, I think the 'stub' template has had its day. cfr. the thousands of anatomy articles about tiny structures. LT910001 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After some more discussion I rated an article that was kind of short but I thought fairly complete up to B-class. So maybe it was just my misinterpretation of the rubric. =) This wasn't a WP:MED article, for what it's worth. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Longitudinal WikiMedicine Page Assessment

Hello, I saw your comment on the WikiProject Medicine/Assessment talk page pasted below: ...... There's a new calculation being listed with the stats. Basically, it's 6 points (against) for every stub, and 5 for every start-class article within the project's scope. The goal is to get to zero (all featured/all the group's wikiwork is complete). This might be useful for tracking over time, but the lag in reassessment plus the growth in articles might result in significant work being recorded as losing ground. The average status might be more useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   "Is this tracked over time anywhere? Just a single number as is shown now doesn't say much. Would be nice to have some automatically updated graphs on some of the assessment statistics (also motivating to keep them up-to-date). --WS (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC) "

I am also interested if the change in assessment over time is saved or shown anywhere. Have you had an answer to your question?

Thank you!

BrandonHidaka (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brandon, for the wikiwork factor, no I haven't found an answer to this, let me know if you do. For the other assessment numbers, your best bet would be to manually extract numbers from the history of the assessment table (e.g. here for medicine). --WS (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible review calendar

Hello User:Wouterstomp; Your user page indicates a possible interest in medicial article reviews. My present thoughts are to nominate an FA review in medicine, do you have any possible interest? BillMoyers (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I am certainly interested in medical articles, but what article are you talking about, and what exactly is it you are asking me to do? --WS (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Wouterstomp, Thanks for getting back. It is actually not a single page, and possibly 3 or four Wikipedia medical pages which I was referring to. They affect several of the wikipages in Psychology and Psychiatry following the New Edition of the major diagnostic manual, the DSM-5, for Psychiatry earlier this year. The issue is that the majority of the wikipages related to mental health are still in DSM-4 language and all of them require the DSM-5 transition edits to be listed-and-addressed to remain current with the new DSM-5 and not become obsolete. My thinking was to offer to do the technical side of these enumerations of needed DSM-5 transition edits by nominating the pages for a GA or and FA review, and having an administrator associated to make sure that the page management editors (often other Admins) are assured that editorial standards are addressed objectively according to established Wikipedia page review standards and policies. My prediction would be of needing about one week to set up each one of the related wikipages and then let page management for each of the individual wikipages deal with the GA/FA enumerated points objectively and responsibly. Does this sound of possible interest? (Here is a link for the new DSM-5 manual discussed above http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=dsm-5&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Adsm-5&ajr=1.) BillMoyers (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psoriasis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages IL-22, IL-23 and IL-17 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#1)

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#1)

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

Revamped interface for WP:ANATOMY
New "drives" initiative, allowing users to post small targets (limited in time and scope) that other users can collaborate on.
New article assessment statistics, to see how we are improving month to month. All Start thru GA class articles reevaluated for class and quality. All moustache-related articles have been removed (not a joke).
CFCF has been furiously uploading high-quality Anatomy images from various textbooks
New GA nomination (Suspensory muscle of duodenum)

What's going on

A discussion regarding a change to the manual of style for Anatomical articles
An RfC regarding the use of 'Human' in anatomical titles, which is a matter of some contention.

How can I contribute?

Add small 'drives' of your own!
Contribute on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page
Start adding sources to more Anatomy articles
Start proposing merges, moves, tagging and re-evaluating articles.

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?

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.
Revamping the MEDMOS guidelines for Anatomical articles to make them more appropriate. That discussion is here.
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.
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
Tagging articles for cleanup, to let future editors know to use sources
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.

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mislabeled bones in Carpal Tunnel diagram

Thanks for the new image on the Carpal Tunnel page. I did notice though that the Trapezoid and Trapezium bone labels are inverted. --Spalte (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, hadn't noticed that yet. I have requested for someone to adapt the image at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. --WS (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected in the image now. --WS (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Rosetta Barnstar
	Thanks for adding translations and being involved with the project.[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anatomy quarterly newsletter

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

New guidelines released for Anatomy articles
2 new Featured Images (Facial muscles, Gastric mucosa)
3 new GAs: Recurrent laryngeal nerve, Stapes, and Foramen spinosum
Template for greeting users released
Popular pages enabled for Anatomy, at last!
All articles under our scope have been assessed
A new Anatomy-themed barnstar has been created

What's going on

An ongoing discussion about how to simplify anatomical terminology
Five GA nominations, one featured list nomination.
Our series on Anatomical terminology has expanded to include muscle and bone. Links to these articles have been included on the infoboxes for all muscles and bones.
We're well on our way to meeting our goals, with 480 of 500 articles to C-class, an increase of almost 200 articles since we started counting 3 months ago

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?

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: [3]
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

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of LT910001 or remove your name from the mailing list

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

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

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

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

Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu^Talk 12:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

please help translate this message into the local language

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

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

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

August 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

capable of delivering electrical shocks for dangerously fast abnormal ventricular rhythms (see separate knol on Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (ICDs).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protection from Repeated ANI

Hello, in reference to your previous note, could you please look at this issue [[4]]? Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter

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

Several new GAs: Cervix, Cranial nerves, Parathyroid gland, Sebaceous glands, Pudendal nerve
New FL (Anatomical terms of motion)
Finally, an automatically-generated list of articles needing cleanup is available: [5]
A list of recent changes is created, and can also be attached as a template for user pages: {{Recent changes in Anatomy}}
Reached GA goal of 10 articles! -- now increased to 20
We were Featured in the signpost!
An essay about the use of Anatomical terminology, WP:ANATSIMPLIFY is released (see below for more!)

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.

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...
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:
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
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

Pancreatic cancer FAC

Hi, you have commented at this. I think as of now all the points on all the reviews are responded to, and either settled or awaiting a response from the reviewer (mostly the former), so you may want to revisit it. I'm sorry some of you have had to wait a while for this. There has been a lot of activity, both on this page and on the article itself, as well as the holidays. It's been great to see so many people getting involved in this. Many thanks to you and all reviewers and editors! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello, Wouterstomp,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter #4

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter #4

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

A related WikiProject is formed, WikiProject Women's health
Cerebellum, promoted in 2006, receives a long overdue featured article review
Heart and Glomerulus receive a peer review
Our article base explodes from about 10,000 to 12,775, with most new articles being redirects.
Sympathetic nervous system, Autonomic nervous system and Parasympathetic nervous system all receive significant makeover, and cry out for more attention!

What's going on

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?

If you're interested in a topic area, let other editors know by creating a 'drive' in that area
Continue to reword articles in language lay readers can understand
Search Wikimedia commons for high-quality coloured images that can be used to replace some of our older, lower quality images.
Don't forget that anatomy isn't always about gross anatomy! A number of other fields, including articles about embryology and histology ("microanatomy") cry out for attention.

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]

Proposed deletion of Tingling

The article Tingling has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article on the Dingling people already exists. This article sitting at a misspelling is totally unsourced and contains no salvageable material.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Darx9url (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Branchial cleft cyst - new treatment options

Thank you for writing the article on Branchial cleft cysts, it was the first thing I read when my son was diagnosed with a first branchial cleft cyst. We originally scheduled a surgery to remove it, but found out by word of mouth that several doctors in the US now use sclerotherapy to treat it. Other than avoiding the risk of surgery (especially around the facial nerve), there also seems to be no recurrence. It took only 1 single injection of ethanolamine to completely get rid of the cyst.

I wanted to edit the treatment section of your article to reflect these new treatment option, as I was unable to find out about this new treatment despite weeks of looking for information on the internet. However, I am a little overwhelmed by the rules of Wikipedia etc. Can you help me or make the edit yourself? Here are the studies I was going to quote Percutaneous treatment of lymphatic malformations [6], Sclerotherapy of branchial cleft cysts using OK-432[7] and Quantitative volumetric analysis of head and neck venous and lymphatic malformations to assess response to percutaneous sclerotherapy [8].

The second article specifically mentions a branchial cleft cyst. The "Quantitative volumetric analysis..." was done by Dr. Huy Do, my son's doctor and while it doesn't mention branchial cleft cysts specifically (they are too rare, I guess) I can prove to you that it worked on my son's first branchial cleft cyst. Is it ok to quote all of them or which ones? Do they have to mention branchial cleft cysts to be able to stand as a reference? The various doctors (including Dr. Murakami, a colleague of Dr. Shiels at the Nationwide Children's Hospital, second article) I talked to didn't seem to think that the type of cyst made much a difference - the reason branchial cleft cysts are not mentioned is that they come along so rarely.

Also, I noticed the request for photos on the talk page. I have photos of my son's cysts as well as an MRI of it. Would you want me to upload these or email them to you?

It looks like from your talk page that you are very busy, so if you don't have time to help, I'll make the edit myself, just wanted to check with you first because my main goal is not becoming an editor but to have this new information posted so that other parents/patients are able to find out that there's another option than surgery. Thanks for any help you can give me. --Turtletrip (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Athelia (disease)

The article Athelia (disease) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rathfelder (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, happy holidays to you too! --WS (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, happy holidays to you too! --WS (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hot articles

I was wondering if you could look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine the first two edit numbers are very incorrect on the hot articles list, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, no idea where that comes from. I have left a message at User talk:Kaldari who operates the bot updating those numbers. --WS (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor News #1—2016

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Among experienced editors, the visual editor's table editing is one of the most popular features.

If you select the top of a column or the end of a row, you can quickly insert and remove columns and rows.

Now, you can also rearrange columns and rows. Click "Move before" or "Move after" to swap the column or row with its neighbor.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has fixed many bugs. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for Japanese, Korean, Arabic, Indic, and Han scripts, and improving the single edit tab interface.

Recent changes

You can switch from the wikitext editor to the visual editor after you start editing. This function is available to nearly all editors at most wikis except the Wiktionaries and Wikisources.

Many local feedback pages for the visual editor have been redirected to mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.

You can now re-arrange columns and rows in tables, as well as copying a row, column or any other selection of cells and pasting it in a new location.

The formula editor has two options: you can choose "Quick edit" to see and change only the LaTeX code, or "Edit" to use the full tool. The full tool offers immediate preview and an extensive list of symbols.

Future changes

The single edit tab project will combine the "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs into a single "Edit" tab. This is similar to the system already used on the mobile website. (T102398) Initially, the "Edit" tab will open whichever editing environment you used last time. Your last editing choice will be stored as an account preference for logged-in editors, and as a cookie for logged-out users. Logged-in editors will have these options in the Editing tab of Special:Preferences:

Remember my last editor,
Always give me the visual editor if possible,
Always give me the source editor, and
Show me both editor tabs. (This is the state for people using the visual editor now.)

The visual editor uses the same search engine as Special:Search to find links and files. This search will get better at detecting typos and spelling mistakes soon. These improvements to search will appear in the visual editor as well.

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at most "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next few months. The developers would like to know how well the visual editor works in your language. They particularly want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect the following languages: Japanese, Korean, Urdu, Persian, Arabic, Tamil, Marathi, Malayalam, Hindi, Bengali, Assamese, Thai, Aramaic and others.

Let's work together

Please try out the newest version of the single edit tab on test2.wikipedia.org. You may need to restore the default preferences (at the bottom of test2wiki:Special:Preferences) to see the initial prompt for options. Were you able to find a preference setting that will work for your own editing? Did you see the large preferences dialog box when you started editing an article there?
Can you read and type in Korean, Arabic, Japanese, Indic, or Han scripts? Language engineer David Chan needs help from people who often type in these languages. Please see the instructions at mw:VisualEditor/IME Testing#What to test if you can help. Report your results on wiki (Korean – Japanese – all languages).
Learn how to improve the "automagical" citoid referencing system in the visual editor, by creating Zotero translators for popular sources in your language! Join the Tech Talk about "Automated citations in Wikipedia: Citoid and the technology behind it" with Sebastian Karcher on 29 February 2016.

If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thanks!

– Whatamidoing (WMF) 17:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want one Edit tab, or two? It's your choice

How to switch between editing environments

Click the [[ ]] to switch to the wikitext editor.

Click the pencil icon to switch to the visual editor.

The editing interface will be changed soon. When that happens, editors who currently see two editing tabs – "Edit" and "Edit source" – will start seeing one edit tab instead. The single edit tab has been popular at other Wikipedias. When this is deployed here, you may be offered the opportunity to choose your preferred appearance and behavior the next time you click the Edit button. You will also be able to change your settings in the Editing section of Special:Preferences.

You can choose one or two edit tabs. If you chose one edit tab, then you can switch between the two editing environments by clicking the buttons in the toolbar (shown in the screenshots). See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Switching between the visual and wikitext editors for more information and screenshots.

There is more information about this interface change at mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. If you have questions, suggestions, or problems to report, then please leave a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #2—2016

Editing News #2—2016 Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

It's quick and easy to insert a references list.

Place the cursor where you want to display the references list (usually at the bottom of the page). Open the "Insert" menu and click the "References list" icon (three books).

If you are using several groups of references, which is relatively rare, you will have the opportunity to specify the group. If you do that, then only the references that belong to the specified group will be displayed in this list of references.

Finally, click "Insert" in the dialog to insert the References list. This list will change as you add more footnotes to the page.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has fixed many bugs. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for Arabic and Indic scripts, and adapting the visual editor to the needs of the Wikivoyages and Wikisources.