User talk:CFCF/Archive 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There's a better way to rename or move an article

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Lucida a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Lucida (font). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you.

January 2014

Information icon Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Space nursing. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 12:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion or improvement for nearly two years. The article as it is is not beyond stub level, and there is no reason why it shoud constitute an individual article. CFCF (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Rosetta Barnstar
Thanks for adding translations and being involved with the project.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments

Hi CFCF! Thanks for your many assessments of Anatomy articles. I notice that you're tagging many articles with WPMED and WPANATOMY alike. So that you know, about 5-6 months ago I went through all articles tagged under both WPANATOMY and WPMED, and removed upwards of 900 purely anatomical articles (muscles, nerves, ...) that had been concurrently tagged.

From the WPMED perspective, the reason for removing anatomy articles from WPMED is to make the project leaner: as the Anatomy articles were significantly polluting the assessment and cleanup statistics, and make any effort to cleanup the project (eg the proposed assessment drive; education propositions from universities; uses of any tags in the project) weightier by about 1500 articles.

From the Anatomy perspective, we have a unique group of articles, and if there is some automated process to sift through medical articles (eg applying the disclaimer tag, as proposed) it would also have affected our articles. Additionally, I don't think there is any 'benefit' to having them under WPMED, as when editing discussion will often get routed to WPANATOMY, as WPMED editors are generally more interested in clinical medicine. Statements on clinical medicine are still covered by MEDRS, so there are no worries on that front, although sections of any significant length should probably be moved to the respective clinical articles. \

So! I hope I've made a solid case why most Anatomy articles shouldn't be concurrently tagged =P. If at a later date we are folded back in to WPMED, then an automated process could do much of the tagging.--LT910001 (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I discussed the same matter with Doc James and I'll keep this in mind. The articles I added were those with significant clinical information, but I will keep from adding more in the future. CFCF (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image rights query

This lovely image would look great as the lead image in toothache imo, and would be better than the current image. As the book dates to 1897, can I just upload this to WIkipedia? Lesion (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American law makes any copy of an image in the public domain non-copyrightable. The only requirement is that no "creative" content has been added to the image, i.e. a scan is not copyrighted. On the other hand I can't find the image in the archive.org link they provided. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 13:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to [2] should be enough I think, otherwise ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I will upload. Lesion (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, CFCF. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 11:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping two images

Hi CFCF! I was wondering if you could help me out with two images. I'm preparing two sidebars, to be used on our lists and anatomical terminology articles, and I want to have a thematic picture attached. I've prepared the pictures, but they're very large. I was wondering if you could crop them to a 225x90 or 200x90 or a size that you think is more appropriate, and reupload them as new images? The two sidebars I am preparing are here:

If you have a look you'll see how big the images are! --LT910001 (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more request. If you could do the same, I will convert the cranial nerve navigation box to a sidebar. I think this image is a good fit: . --LT910001 (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the details, but if you don't want the images in a different ratio your best bet is just to limit the size. Especially the svg file, which is optimized so that it can be displayed at many resolutions. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a better suggestion. --LT910001 (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Physiology

Will help out in any way I can, but will wait a few days while you set up the infrastructure and flesh it out, so as not to steal your thunder. The project template is here: Template:WikiProject Physiology and the data used for the 'rater' assessment tool is here: Template:WikiProject_Anatomy/rater-data.js, although I'm not sure where to edit so that 'Physiology' is included in the list of selectable projects. At any rate, if you type it in the rater box you can now assess articles. I wish you all the best in this endeavour, --LT910001 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm looking for it being a long-term project. I'm currently rather busy until next week, but I'll work on it as I find time. Also really want to roll out Cranial nerve soon. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cranial nerve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dogfish (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) 08:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cytologists

I am bringing this matter to your talk page to avoid derailing the main discussion. A translation of the linked document certainly does not support your assertion.

The procedure of cytological aspiration of superficial masses (such as breast masses) is relatively minor, indeed often entrusted to students. I accept that cytologists might be called to undertake this.

The diagnosis of lung cancer from such a procedure is exceedingly rare, if ever. The only suitable cases would be those with superficial lymphadenopathy (cervical or axillary). However the loss of architecture makes the diagnosis of primary lung cancer much more difficult, if not impossible. A core biopsy of such masses is required, and I do not believe that cytologists would be entrusted to do this.

Moreover, I see no reason why cytologists (rather than the referring physician) should be informing patients of the diagnosis of lung cancer. In the case of lung cancer investigation, this is almost always a pulmonologist. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cytological aspiration is done quite often at the university hospital where I am, at least enough that there are dedicated cytologists to perform procedure and analyze the samples. And while smaller aspirations are minor, many biopsies are somewhere in-between where the patient has to go to the cytology clinic.
As for the other two claims, I think we've misunderstood each other and I agree with you, but cytologists do speak to patients here, while lung cancer most likely was a bad example.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I accept that. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lacer (digambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Lacer (digambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PamD 14:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lacer (digambiguation)

The article Lacer (digambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is already a redirect from the correct spelling Lacer (disambiguation) to the dab page at lacerum: this misspelled page is redundant.

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. PamD 14:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't misspelled, rather its an alternate form, though it may be good to merge the pages as they do not have the same content.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the page at Lacer (digambiguation). First, there was nothing on that page that was not already on the lacerum disambiguation page, so there was nothing to merge. Second, the misspelling is "digambiguation". As PamD pointed out, there already is a redirect from the correct spelling at Lacer (disambiguation) to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 15:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bkonrad Oh, missed that typo, but there most assuredly was content that has been lost now, for example the categorization of the pages. I suggest you give access to the content so that it can be merged. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were no categories on the deleted page other than Category:Disambiguation pages. Each and every entry on the page has a corresponding entry on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 15:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The links were categorized after; anatomy and medicine, biology etc. No WP:CATs though. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The page was as far as I can tell an exact duplicate of the page you originally created at Lacer (disambiguation), which is now located at Lacerum. You can attempt to recover whatever you like from the edit history of that page. older ≠ wiser 15:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Cranial nerve

Hello! Your submission of Cranial nerve at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • CFCF, there is a new review of the article, and a bit more work that needs to be done, but it doesn't look particularly onerous. Please stop by when you can. I'm sorry I let this one lapse. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hypoglossal nerve, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bilateral and Posterior fossa (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) 09:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diprosopus

CFCF, WP:WTF redirects to Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! which is summarized as "avoid cryptic language" [in editor-to-editor communications]. There is no jargon in the sentence you are deleting and it doesn't seem to apply to the redirected article in any case. As part of your deletion, you are removing citations and leaving the article marked "need citation". Could you please clarify your intentions with respect to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbi6 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I linked to the wrong policy page. Looking for the proper one. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WTW & WP:N, where what I meant, in case you don't agree with those we can take it up on the talk-page.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll review the wording of the deleted statement and the citations with respect to those pages, and respond on the talk page. Barbi6 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

To give you some sustenance whilst editing cranial nerves. Keep it up! LT910001 (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edits

Hi. I'm the one who added the line in the drug-resistance page. I'm not very familiar with the tags used for changes. I'd given the references for the edit. Is it lack of references that you meant as 'unsourced' edits?

Just wanted to clarify. Thanks in advance.

Regards

MauriceMauricesdevaraj (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomical terms of bone

This article is part of a series on
Anatomical terminology

There is one little red link... hopefully soon to turn blue :D. Am going to roll-out User:LT910001/sandbox/Anatomical terms describing bone soon, with a similar process to last time (ie moving most articles to lists). Would you have time to help in a similar way to last time? (ie rapidly wikifying, proposing merges, etc.) Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can, I might have a little less time these coming days though. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Optic nerve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vision (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, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, CFCF. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 10:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

expansion of plot summary vs. WP: VERIFY for B:TS

User:CFCF, while I can applaud your efforts to protect the plot summary of this article from "vandalism," I feel like the standard that you are expecting for verification of plot details is unreasonable. The citation that you are referring to <7> for undoing my summary edits contains no details of the game plot apart from a 3 sentence blurb, and has more information about development staff. Citations as applicable to plot summaries are more prominently by group consensus or by in-game dialogue extractions, citations I am happy to provide, but am unable to do in a single editing session.Brinlong (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Cranial nerve

CFCF, can you please stop by and let us know your plans for responding to Orlady's comment on what's needed for the nomination to be approved? I realize you also have a good article review ongoing, but it would be helpful to hear from you. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You - Student Projects

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for helping out students in my class. Several of their topics were a part of the medical domain, so I appreciate you explaining to them the reference requirements. I've made sure to point those out to students as well. Also, thank you for doing so in such a courteous way, students can often be nervous about interacting with others on here. If you think anything needs my immediate attention, don't hesitate to let me know! I appreciate the help! Mpetracca (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the impression that there is enormous benefit to be had from student editing, as long as it is done properly. Medical articles are as you say a delicate matter, but I'm glad to help clarify policies etc. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obgyn bootcamp

Hi CFCF! Thanks for reaching out to me regarding the obgyn bootcamp course. Our course starts this week and I am excited to start. Any assistance and advice will be appreciated. Happy Sunday!Celesteroyce (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retinohypothalamic Tract

I appreciate your feedback to my article. I tried to find an image very similar to the one you chose. It is always difficult for me to find pictures that have an acceptable copyright status. Do you have any other suggestions for improvements on this article? Cbruha11 (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cbruha11
I went on a scavenger hunt and after quite a bit I found this:
I accidentaly forgot to give it a new name when I uploaded it to Wikipedia, but it should work nonetheless. I found a few images searching google with: site:plosone.org melatonin


As for the actual article, maybe something more on the molecular mechanism in the SCN, although that might be covered by other articles already?

-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you take other free health files from an open access journal, would you consider posting it also at Commons:Open Access File of the Day/Nominations so that I could promote the file? I am especially looking for files used in at least three places in any language. This file I can easily put in three places, and if you want to get into images, perhaps you might be interested in looking at how to post files in multiple places. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Photoreceptor cell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Resolution (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) 08:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psoriasis Histology Slide

Hi CFCF, I meant to respond to your question about this a while ago but forgot. I have now responded. We can talk here or on the talk page. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pancreas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uncinate process (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) 08:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I've added your name to an ANI complaint about tag teaming on Electronic cigarette.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Physiology Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Physiology! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing physiology articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us see the project through.
  • Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. 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 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 physiology related 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!
  • Lastly, 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!

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages!

Although I know that you created the WikiProject, it must be odd to welcome you. But still, like a fun exercise I am doing it. I have already made a number of contributions in context of the wikiproject and am in the process of inviting the top 100 medical editors of 2013 so that the project becomes happening. DiptanshuTalk 12:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I feel it's only good that someone else thinks the project is a worthy cause. I will personally contribute as much as I can, but I don't really feel I can take a leading role as of now. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP block

It would appear that the "certain service" you use serves to block or disguise the IP address you are using. We routinely block such services from accessing Wikipedia. If you wish to continue to edit Wikipedia, you should access it without using any anonymizing service.—Kww(talk) 13:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what I have been supposedly globally exempt from, so I do not understand your comment at all. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hum. Strang comment Kww. I sometimes use anonymizers as some places in the world the internet is half blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not strange at all, Doc. Webhosts and anonymizing proxies are blocked on sight.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even when editing through an account? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be IP block exemption, CFCF. You don't have it, and I don't see any signs that you ever did.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[3] CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You were granted IP block exemption on meta.wikimedia.org, not en.wikipedia.org. I can't see the OTRS ticket, which means that I can't verify the contents of the request or the reasonableness of granting an exemption on English Wikipedia. If you really need IPBE on English Wikipedia, you should discuss it with Billinghurst.—Kww(talk) 16:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While anonymising services can be blocked, the purpose of a IP block exemption is to allow users to edit through the block. I have granted a local IPBE, which any admin could have put in place. You do have a global exemption (which is granted via meta) which circumvents global measures, however, there apparently is now a local block in place and that needs to be managed locally.  Done — billinghurst sDrewth 11:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, wonderful. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 29 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

Cranial nerves

Hi CFCF, I hope that you're well. I've put a lot of effort into the Cranial nerves article where you and Lesion left off, and would love if you could run your eye over it again. I really would like your nomination to pass GA and so would like to anticipate and prevent problems early if possible. We can discuss more on 'Tranche 3' on the talk page. Looking forward to collaborating again, --LT910001 (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Cranial nerve

Hello! Your submission of Cranial nerve at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • CFCF, if you don't respond within 48 hours (or when you next edit, whichever comes later), I'm going to have to close this. It's been waiting far too long for those required inline sources. Hope you take action by then! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi your writing here was not plagiarised as much as I thought. There are plenty of copies, but they give the link back to Wikipedia OK. But these do not give the credit. Just take the content.
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Society images

Are there any old images you would especially like on Commons from the Royal Society (UK National Academy of Science) library? Can't promise them, but it is certainly worth asking. A lot is digitized and online already. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The catalogue is slightly overwhelming, but I will definitely take a look. Anything from the 20th century, especially with labels is of great use. Is there any deadline? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Science Museum in London also donated many images and would like to someday donate more. Generally what such organizations want is for multiple people to make the request and to get in return some evidence that the content is used. It is worth asking when content is useful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think many of these images would be great to illustrate different aspects of the history of medicine, but that isn't really my field, which is why I'm focusing on 20th century or later books. I've ordered a copy of cross section Anatomy of the human body, 1911] to scan myself. Any images/books with that kind of high quality labels in a decent scan would be perfect. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damn shame I payed far more for a similar book to this one [4]. Mine is water damaged, hope it doesn't compromise the image quality too much, can't affort to buy several of the same book. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the deadline, no, but I am only there until early July, & say in the next 3 weeks would be best. I'm trying to pull togetrher a package of various things. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomical terms of motion

Hi CFCF! I hope that you're well. I need to provide a source for the paragraph here Anatomical_terms_of_motion#Classifications_of_motion and I think you may have created it a few months ago from a public domain source? (My histories may have got mucked up, if so, sorry!) I was wondering if you'd be able to help out? It looks like the article is close to FL promotion. Take care, --LT910001 (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LT910001 Hi, I did my best to add some of what had been lost, but unfortunately one of the sentences I think was appropriated from an unreferenced older article and I tagged it with citation needed. I returned my library books on kinesiology so I can't find a good source for the claim right now, even though it is obviously true. I'll look into it, but it may take a few days before I pass by the library. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cranial nerves

Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Neurology articles

Hi CFCF, I've started a discussion about the scope of taskforce neurology here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Reducing_taskforce_neurology.27s_scope. I've been noticing some neuro articles tagged with four projects (neuro, anatomy/neuroanatomy, physio/neurophysio, med) and think that this is quite labour-intensive. I'm also about to open a discussion about this issue at WT:PHYSIOLOGY. I thought you might be interested. I hope that you're well, --LT910001 (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move request of Melancholia

A discussion is taking place on the title of this article at Talk:Melancholia#Requested_move. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 11:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

Please do not remove a good faith tag, intended to broaden the discussion about the article. In the last couple of days there has been a singular reliance put on one review, which doesn't match weight of the broad scope of reliable secondary sources on the topic. --Kim D. Petersen 15:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for the tag. User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, please stop restoring the tag against consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not needed for the tag, active discussion is. Please read the description at WP:NPOVD. At the moment you are acting as if you WP:OWNed the article, and couldn't give a flying.. for other editors opinions. --Kim D. Petersen 18:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is required.

Here[5] --Kim D. Petersen 22:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parathyroid gland

In the GA review of Cervix, you stated "I'd be willing to offer assistance concerning this if you need any help, just ping me and I'll come running!"

This leads me to believe that you might be willing to look at the article Parathyroid gland which I am in the process of reviewing for GA. In particular, I have no specific medical knowledge and am reviewing the article on the basis of whether it meets the GA criteria rather than whether it is medically/anatomically/physiologically sound. Do you think you could take a look? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input into the article and your comments on the review page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
  • TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
  • TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
  • New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_stalking_and_harassment_by_Snowmanradio

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --LT910001 (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article in the your Hindi Wikipedia userspace sandbox

Hi CFCF, It is a pleasant surprise to see a message from your side on Hindi Wikipedia Embassy concerning the Hindi translation of the article on Epilepsy. At the same time the article needs to be rephrased to be of the quality of the English articles. For example, the Hindi rendering of "chronic" here is "लंबे समय से चलने वाला" or "long lasting" whereas it could simply translated in a more appropriate term "दीर्घकालिक". Unfortunately, there is no article on chronic ailments - so the interlinking idea to a related article will not work as seen in the article. --Muzammil (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Cold (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to CMAS
Small intestine cancer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to FAP

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expand templates

Can you please put these on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved a bunch to the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recent work on "Sex differences in human psychology"

Hi, CFCF, I'm glad to see you working on articles I have long had on my watchlist. As noted in talk page discussion, in English the standard technical usage is to refer to "sex differences" rather than "sexual differences" in research publications and textbooks on what the article you recently renamed is about. I heartily agree with sourcing that article and many related articles carefully through applying the WP:MEDRS content guidelines. Have you seen the source lists I keep in Wikipedia user space? I would love to hear your suggestions for more reliable secondary sources on the topics most of interest to both of us. Keep up the good work. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WeijiBaikeBianji, I accept the term sex differences is more common, as opposed to sexual differences (pubmed gives med 17700 vs 800 articles). The real reason for the move was because I disagree with the need for human in the title of the article. I've moved it again to simply Sex differences in psychology, which I don't feel should be very controversial. After all nearly all psychology is human oriented, and we've had similar discussions at WP:MED & WP:ANAT concerning the need to use human in the title of everything. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for sources there are a number of newer psychological reviews that I feel should be used, as well as a few popular press articles and books that we should stay clear of. I'll bring it up on the discussion page. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 05:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sex differences in psychology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trait (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) 08:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomical terms of muscle

Hi CFCF! As an experiment, I created this: User:LT910001/sandbox/Anatomical terms describing muscle. This really doesn't look that bad, and I am considering moving it to mainspace. Would be grateful if you could give a short checkover and/or add or edit any relevant information, before I make the move. As with anatomical terminology, I think it's much better to have all the information in one article, rather than in a disparate set of several articles that are inherently quite limited in scope. Kindly, --LT910001 (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At first I just saw the name of the article in your sandbox, but then I saw the link to anatomical terms of muscle which is good. I think this would be a brilliant idea. The article would of course need to be expanded and have images added, and I can unfortunately not help yet (very busy). As soon as I have time (after January 11) I'll get cracking. CFCF (talk) 07:58, 3 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
What's going on
How can I contribute?
  • Reword anatomical jargon: jargon is widespread and not helpful to lay readers.
  • Contribute on our talk page
  • Continue to add sources, content, and improve anatomical articles!
  • Replace images with better images from Wikipedia commons, or if there are too many images, remove some low-quality ones
Quarterly focus - Where to edit?
One of our two new featured images! (Also featured on the Signpost)

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

An editor might edit:

  • By importance. A user can use our assessment table to view articles by their importance and class. The vital articles project provides a list of designated 'Vital articles' for Wikipedia.
  • By popularity. One way to edit is to edit the most popular pages -- the majority of these need help, and editing is sure to bring benefit to many users.
  • By need. There is always cleanup that needs to be done, whether commenting on mergers, adding infoboxes or adding images. A cleanup list of all tagged articles is now available here: [6]
  • By interest. A series of inter-project categories has been developed to help facilitate inter-Wiki and inter-professional collaboration. These categories sort our articles into organs, system, gross anatomy, neuroanatomy, and several other categories. This should offer a buffet of articles for any interested editors! See here for more details.
  • By topic. Wikipedia's anatomical categories may provide impetus, as may editing a suite of related-articles, using a parent article such as ear for direction. A collection of series are slowly being rolled-out, including one for epithelia and for articles about the gastrointestinal wall, which also act as groups of topics. Templates, as documented on our main page, provide a similar categorisation.
  • By demand. Discussions relating to Anatomy are frequent occurrences on the talk pages for WPMED and WP:ANATOMY. Such topics almost always cry out for more editing.
  • By recent changes. One way to choose a destination for editing is to check the recent changes, revert vandalism, integrate/source edits, or generally collaborate in improving articles that are receiving contributions from other editors. This can be found in the here.
  • By chance. A user is always welcome to improve articles that they randomly 'bump into' by Wiki-surfing or by having bumped for other reasons into a particular article or topic that needs improvement

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

plant layout

plant layout
dude it was my department ... why i will make mistakes in it... y u deleted my edit.. i am new to wiki... so may i know why u deleted? Yourchaitu (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


i cant understand what u said.. can u tell me clearly please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourchaitu (talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BioOne logo.gif
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BioOne logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 I don't see why, but the image is not displayed at BioOne -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:CFCF/Archive_3"