User talk:Iztwoz/Archive 1

Thanks
I know articles on Wikipedia do not belong to anyone, but I do have a personal attachment to the Progeroid syndrome article. So I want to personally thank you for taking your time out to copy-edit it and correct any mistakes I made. I want to let you know I appreciate it!  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 17:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Your post today
Hi Iztwoz! Many thanks for your kind message and comment on my page. Pleased to see how well you have settled in. Cheers! –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 11:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much
I appreciate your help on Lower limbs venous ultrasonography. Doc Elisa ✉ 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


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


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

Allow Me
Apologies if I caused any edit conflicts during your copy edit. I had forgotten about my outstanding request for the copy edit, since the article had already undergone the Good article nomination process. (I work on so many articles at once, I forgot!) I am so glad to have you working on the article, and I will wait until you have finished to see all of your edits and ask any questions I may have. I did remove "very" (which you added) from the lead, referring to the reception, and I also removed the comma before "Public Art Collection" since the source did not include the punctuation (and the lead became inconsistent with the infobox). Let me know your thoughts! Thanks for your contributions to the article. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you'll let me know when you are finished, I will be sure to add the GOCE template to the article's talk page. Thanks again! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Your submission at AfC Unipolar brush cell was accepted
 Unipolar brush cell, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls
Hi Iztwoz,

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

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


 * Hi Iztwoz,


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


 * Neelix (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Cervix
Hi ! I'm working on getting Cervix up to GA-status, but I'm having a bit of trouble and was wondering if a second pair of eyes could help. I've inherited the Function section and I'm not quite happy with how it looks, but I'm really not sure what to do with it. I was wondering, if you had time, whether you could cast your eyes over that section (and maybe the rest of the article if you had time) and give it a bit of a run-over? I more-or-less think that the formatting is quite strange, but am not sure where to go. I'd be very grateful, editing can get somewhat lonely sometimes! --LT910001 (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

And that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

BMJ
Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to BMJ's library: link to form. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Nikkimaria, Iztwoz (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sebaceous gland
I've never done a GA review before. I tried to do the right thing, and get someone to help, but that isn't going as quickly as I had hoped. I am aware of the general criteria, and haven't formally applied those yet - I decided to review the prose and anything else that jumped out at me. I will address the other issues soon, but I wanted to get started. I want to check refs, and have a request in for JStor access, not sure how long that will take.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sebaceous gland
The article Sebaceous gland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sebaceous gland for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. S Philbrick (Talk)  20:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The instructions say a bot will come by to add the GA icon. I will probably check myself, but let me know if it doesn't show up soon.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on getting this to GA, Iztwoz, it was great to work with you on it! --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Template box
Hello Iztwoz, I hope that you're well. Thanks for running over Bone, it's always nice to have someone to collaborate with. I created this template so that on a few articles, the 'bone' navboxes can be easily managed. You may find it useful (for perusing purposes as well). I've also made a proposal on WT:ANAT about getting rid of the 'GA' numbers which I find distracting and unhelpful. The template box (Human bones) contains, I think, our human bone templates and is useful as a single box for comparative and standardisation purposes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Lionel de Jersey Harvard
Thanks for your help! EEng (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

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

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services



hi
would you mind looking at the symptoms section of lupus nephritis? (ive been editing all day)thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

 * please help translate this message into the local language

Thanks again :) -- Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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


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


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

Help with reference
Hey Iztwoz. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this reference and was wondering if you could have a quick look:. I'm trying to find who gave the name "hypoglossal" to the nerve. From what I can parse, Herophilus was the first to describe the nerve, but didn't give it the name "hypoglossal". Other than that I'm having real trouble isolating that piece of information... --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Publishing Hippocampus in WikiJournal
Hi there,

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

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

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

Best regards,

Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC) Editor-in-chief, WikiJournal of Medicine
 * Great! Could you also remove the  around the ~ to sign? Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! As an update, we are now looking for peer reviewers of the article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer review comments
Hi again,

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

Best regards,

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

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

Thoughts
on this user? Lots of clean up of their edits is needed.

This editor is using the same textbook. Not sure if it is a class. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer review coordinator needed for WikiJournal of Medicine
Hi!

We have a second peer reviewer for the Hippocampus article who should have the review in by next week.

What I mainly came to inform you about now, however, is that we have a growing number of potential upcoming articles for WikiJournal of Medicine, which in itself is good. However, together with a requirement for at least two independent peer reviews for each work, we have fallen a bit behind in article processing. Both the malaria protein article and the gastrointestinal bleeding case study were submitted about two months ago, and still have no completed peer review.

As you have signed up as associate editors, I would like you to help out as "peer review coordinator" of any of these articles. I have described what it means to be a peer review coordinator at: WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editors.

Also, I strongly recommend that you add the page WikiJournal of Medicine/Editors to your watchlist, as well as add yourself to the public email list (unless you haven't already done so) to keep yourself updated about editorial tasks.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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


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


 * Great work on amending the article! I've now synchronized the article in Wikiversity with the Wikipedia article so that it reflects recent edits. Could you add the sources in the image captions (such as for the one saying "Source: brainmaps.org") at the page in Wikiversity? Also, we decided to recommend adding "Image 1:", "Image 2:" etc in image captions to allow for easier referencing.
 * I will then ask the peer reviewer if he thinks the article is ready for editorial board decision. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Both the peer reviewer and I find the article to be ready for editorial board decision. Nevertheless, some additional suggestions have been presented by the reviewer: Talk:Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/The Hippocampus. Also, as mentioned in my last message there should be a source description for each image in the the article in Wikiversity. So, just let me know when you think the article is ready. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me know if you think the article is not ready, otherwise I will bring it to the editorial board for publication decision shortly. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can now announce that the article is published in WikiJournal of Medicine! It's been a great improvement of the Wikipedia article. The entry on the main page at WikiJournal of Medicine has some of the abstract included. Let me know if you prefer a different image or format. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Bronchus
Hi Iztwoz! I just came across Bronchus, and the first sentence seems to have a weird term, "wright main bronchus". I'd edit it myself, but since you are so much more experienced with anatomy articles and already have worked on Bronchus, I was wondering if you could take a look, in case it actually is correct. Right now, it starts with "A wright main bronchus, also known as a main or primary bronchus, is an airway in the respiratory tract that conducts air into the lungs." Is the term "wright main bronchus" correct? --Peltirasia (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for fixing it, Iztwoz! --Peltirasia (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Your revert on Stomach
Iztwoz wrote "Structure intro refers to humans and mammals so using human in subsections unnec. Also missing info is in section Other animals". -- Please check your arguments. The article is, per heading, about "vertebrates, echinoderms, insects (mid-gut), and molluscs". The sections I labeled "human ..." contain partly information generic to mammals, but in many cases the scope is restricted to humans. They are not about molluscs or insects. I believe we need clear labeling, whether in headings or in the actual text, about which organism the information is about. "Other animals" section at present is limited to vertebrates. We need the information about the invertebrates. And I believe we need to label the images as to which organism they refer to. --Vigilius (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Vigilius this is the usual formatting for anatomy articles with the main focus on the human and a section for other animals. Anybody can add material to the Other animals section - the fact that not many (hardly any) do, either shows a lack of interest or lack of available information - so please add material. There are several high standard articles on individual species and those pages can be viewed for info to add - equine anatomy, bird anatomy, frog anatomy, cattle for example. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC).


 * I am fine with formatting choices or headings, but it needs to be expressed - whatever way you like - what is general about ANY stomach, what is specific to mammals, and what is about humans. As it is, it does not state what you say. There is no indication in the article, that this is primarily about humans, the lead says it is about stomach in general. It is super confusing and no-one can sort out the information. I tried to do this in the article --Vigilius (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Vigilius


 * I've made a few changes - you say there is no indication of being primarily about humans - isn't the infobox enough? --Iztwoz (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, much clearer tom now. No, infobox shows no indication that this is about humans. It uses an image of a human stomach, but everything else looks general. Echinodermata have nerves, an anatomy, etc. After this discussion, I assume that some information in the infobox is indeed not applicable to all animals that have a stomach, right? that is another problem then... :-) --Vigilius (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iztwoz,

I am not understanding why my addition to the C.elegans page would be reverted? An important part is missing explaining the ease of use using C.elegans for research purposes. Do you want me to add aditional refs to support my claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basmill (talk • contribs) 07:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iztwoz,

CGC supplies all the genomic strains required by the C.elegans community to perform research, while LabTIE actually made a breakthrough discovery in supplying a new food type. If these additions are not wanted (which in our research world is important) than remove this line and leave the rest. Plus, if you are not into C.elegans your self why delete the previous lines that state the ease maintenance and use of c.elegans as it is clearly missing in the text now.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basmill (talk • contribs) 07:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Basmill can you please take this to the talk page as I suggested yesterday. Your edits were of an instructional promotional nature - not of interest to a general reader - your info would be readily available to those people who want to buy the worms for research. imo. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Iztwoz,

My apologies, i thought this is the talk page. How to send you a personal message or a message on the talk page, so we can discuss this further. With kind regards, Bas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basmill (talk • contribs) 07:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Optic disc, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Blind spot and HRT. 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) 10:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Autpatrol
Hello, when you've created 2 more articles, could you please nominate yourself at. Your articles are too good to go through New Page Patrol every time, especially as it has a big backlog. Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Human brain at GAN
Hi, I see you are working hard on this article. Tom (LT) has put it up for GA and I'm reviewing it. Since Tom is currently busy, you're very welcome to pop in to the GAN and sort any of the comments as you like. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Chiswick Chap - sorry I didn't think anybody was reviewing it at the moment - I knew that it was up for review. I shall visit the talk page. Thank you --Iztwoz (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, I see you're now starting to squash up the refs leaving no space anywhere ... text|param=...|nextbit ... this is quite unnecessary, and makes editing and checking more difficult. I suggest a global space before the | (and if you wish, after it also) is easier and tidier. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Chiswick Chap - thanks - later --Iztwoz (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Chiswick ChapHave just had a quick look and not sure what you mean as the refs I've added and changed using PMID etc have formatted them as they are without spaces ? --Iztwoz (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The ideal format is like |isbn=0199920222 |year=2015 |page=157, spaced before the bar. It's not a show-stopper, and is easily fixed globally. Nor is having accessdates for books, which is not necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Chiswick Chap i just wondered what the distinction was as when entering refs using PMID or Doi they don't use the spacing. Not a worry though. i never use access dates for books - and am not even sure when to use them at other times as sometimes they get removed. cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ideally space every parameter (as a global replace would do). Many thanks Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand why you are continuing to make edits to the article that are not mandated in GAN review comments. If editors are continuing to change the article's content, that represents instability, which is a reason for failing a GA candidate. Explanation? Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your objection is a long time coming - as far as I know I haven't been adding any new material just basic ce and links - I had already previously mentioned on talk page that i didn't think page was ready. I'm happy to bow out. --Iztwoz (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Gosh. I thought you were working on my comments and occasionally noticing a tweak or two on the side; but it was becoming clear you were doing something beyond that as no comments have been fixed for a while now. There's certainly no objection to fixing links and such, and most of the copyediting has been entirely beneficial, so to that extent the article was not 'ready'; I assume from where you've got to in the text that you've nearly finished anyway, so you might as well complete the job. As you can see from my remaining open comments on the GA1 page, I am now mainly concerned about the Society and Culture coverage which does not adequately cover 'the main points' as required. If you can help with those, that would be much appreciated. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, we're nearly there now. Could you fix the "pages needed" items and the dead link? And maybe also the cognition thing (it doesn't need much, just wikilinking and mentioning really, to tie the functional material together)? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Chiswick Chap - the dead link was fixed some time ago and am just about to add cognition; will also look at other page needed - think I did one. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@ Do you think that Executive function would be better changed to Cognition heading as more appropriate for function section ---Iztwoz (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, a lot less obscure, certainly. Done that. I think we're about there, will check it over now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Stay off this page
Cruithne9 STAY OFF THIS PAGE --Iztwoz As writ to you yesterday I do not read a word you say on any talk page. I am not interested in your opinions on anything - so why do you keep posting on this page when I have made it clear that I have not the slightest interest in what you have to say - which seems to be an increasing amount day by day. I am very sorry that you have such a large ego that I must have bruised along the way - one can only hope that you will someday recover from your injuries and rejoin the human race. --Iztwoz (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding information on human organs and tissue types (Wiki Anatomy pages)
Thanks for feed-back and the welcome. New here and trying to understand how I best can contribute. I think the knowledge-based information that is present in the Human Protein Atlas (and a large number of associated scientific publications in peer reviewed journals) regarding normal human organs and tissues would be a basic and very important piece of information to the basic description of the wiki sections that deal with organs/tissue types. A few sentences with the basis for differences between different organs, tissue and cell types should be of high interest. I am trying to find the right format and content length for this. The given references (to both published papers and external webpages) are of highest quality and trustworthy so that part should be absolute adequate. I can now see that all my additions to pages, e.g. prostate, adrenal gland, stomach, brain etc. I argue that these are important basic facts and should be present in wiki descriptive texts together with given references. How should I proceed? Need your input to do this in best way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Marking copyright violations for redaction
Hey Iztwoz. I assume you saw my message to the above user at the Teahouse (I pinged you to the post). It would be great if the next time you come across copy-pasted non-free content you were to mark the history for redaction. We try not to leave copyright violation accessible in any way, even if the infringing content is no longer on display in the live article. This is done using copyvio-revdel. I've tried to make the instructions in this template's documentation very clear. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Fuhghettaboutit - no I didn't get a ping to the post. But thanks for the info - usually another editor takes this on - I didn't know that content not on display was still a violation but now that I know, I have taken it on board. All best --Iztwoz (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

After 4 years I'm back
Hi I'm glad to know that you are always here. Thank you for your help. Cheers Doc Elisa ✉ 20:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iztwoz, trying to contribute but finding it difficult to discuss format and ways to do this. Yesterday I tried to adhere to suggestions, and made a test try on testicle, put in a new subheading, wrote comprehensive sentences and added references. Today I find it all gone, this time someone named IdreamofJeanie had deleted all without comment? Yesterday also tried to have a discussion regarding copyright violations with someone named Fuhghettaboutit. Interpreted a warm welcome from you and someone named Tom (LT), when first trying to add information to wiki pages relating to human anatomy and histology. Please advice me on how to proceed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs) 08:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
@Iztwoz (talk) Thanks for looking over - carefully from the looks of your edits - my 25 edits on Glomerulus, and reducing the image. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent kidney article edits.
@Iztwoz (talkI am here to introduce myself and talk about recent edits at the Kidney article. But I see from the above I have already con nected with you. I turned to the Kidney article after doing a bunch of edits at Nephron - lots of overlap. I reviewed the "View history" section, and find that I made 37 edits here over the past couple of days, and you started shortly after I did as a new editor at this site. You have 18 edits, most of them reverting or modifying my edits - which is fine: that what WP is all about. You may have been notified or noticed yourself that I "Thanked" you for 7 of your edits. The thanks means more than that when I do it: it means I agree with the edit.

That leaves the 10 I didn't thank you for. I prefer my version to your version; you prefer yours to mine - it's a difference of opinion. What I propose we do rather than discussing these differences at Talk is that I will revert your edit and explain why I prefer mine to yours. If you buy my reasoning, my edit stays. If you don't, you revert to your version and I won't touch it again - instead we can take those to the Talk page. I have resolved differences with other editors this way and it has worked quite well: alot easier than doing it at Talk. Would you like to give it a try? I hope so. I'll start with the easy ones, and leave the tough ones til the end. I'll do one now, and if you don't want to do it this way, revert it and type reason for reversion: STOP! Regards IiKkEe (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If I may,, I seem to have ' talk page on my watchlist. What you propose here is a WP:OWN arrangement by two editors. If you have differences of opinion about the content, please discuss on the talk page as is the widely held convention on this website. That allows other editors (such as myself) to contribute too, and prevents a confusing mess of reverts that makes it hard to isolate the issue being discussed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Addit: also this will be in violation of the WP:3RR as I have pointed out on your talk page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - Firstly - my editing history on the kidney page pre-dates your's. Secondly I make edits from what I see on a page not from looking at who made which edit. I had mistakenly thought that you were a very young new editor - so I shall not repeat what other editors have been trying to bring to your attention over the past years. As Tom writ WP:OWN and I intend to carry on with my usual editing practices, which seem to be in line with other editors, with any major points of difference being taken to the talk pages. All best --Iztwoz (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Iztwoz I apologize. My intent is to be pleasant and co-operative, and with your feedback, it's clear I violated my intent. I like it when I know someone is reviewing my edits. In the future, I will take straight to the Talk page any editing differences of opinion we may have. Regards, and thanks for your "All best". IiKkEe (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC) And

Microorganism GAN
Hi Iztwoz, I'm putting the article up for GA as it's now in a decent state, well-structured and certainly covers the main points. Shall I add your name as co-nominator? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Chiswick Chap yes you can, but don't feel obliged to. I am still making changes - shall I continue or leave it as it is. --Iztwoz (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll do it, and feel free to continue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's under review already ... some of my articles have been languishing there for months. I'll start dealing with some of the review items now, feel free to do any of them that take your fancy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thymus
Could do with some attention. Will be expanding it and fixing it up over the next few weeks. Could you spare a hand? Based on the content and how difficult it is to read I am thinking this may be a two person job --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiki.J.Med. associate editor list
Hello,

In order to be compliant with SCOPUS guidelines, WikiJournal of Medicine is resetting our associate editor list. This is so that there is a record of applications for all editors involved in the project. To re-apply, simply click the button below and fill out the template. There is no need to have information in all sections. If you wish to remain anonymous, insert your username in the name section and email to confirm your identity privately.

Thank you for your understanding as we reorganise! T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 14:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

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

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message
== Reason for deleting content on Coccyx, Fibula, Patella, Scaphoid bone, Ulna, Vastus medialis, Arteriole, Coelom, Peritoneum, Epicanthic fold, Presacral fascia, and Venule ==

I deleted content from these pages because they had unsupported parameters that show up here. (for some reason I couldn't get it to link internally. Anyway...) I was simply trying to remove these articles from the category by deleting the 'synonyms' and 'pronunciation' parameters, which I didn't realize appeared on the page. I thought they were invisible because of their unsupported categorization.

Potatornado (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Potatornado - I think I realised that your aim was to help and it was simpler to just revert them and bring them to your notice. I wasn't aware of the Category for removal. Some of the pronunciation ones did not appear on the infobox and I think they just hadn't been formatted properly. The inclusion of the pronunciation is fairly new -it used to be in the lead. All best --Iztwoz (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Why did you make this edit?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitamin&oldid=825306879

it seems that you purposefully added a typo to a page. This seems out of character. DPS2004 (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * hello DPS2004 i removed a typo - an extraneous indefinite article - inadvertently created by another's edit. i don't know what you think i did? --Iztwoz (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like you changed internally to intermally. Intermally is not a word. DPS2004 (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * hello again -DPS2004 i made one edit yesterday on that page which was timed at 17.33 which removed an 'a'; the next editor at 23.57 changed pre-existing intermally to internally-???--Iztwoz (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is where "intermally" made its appearance. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bill --Iztwoz (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OHHHHHHHH. Sorry for the misunderstanding! I find the differences page to be quite confusing. DPS2004 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sex organ
I undid your edits to Sex organ as they seemed to be very muddled. Surely you didn't mean to say "The secondary sex organs are known as the primary sex characteristics"? Maybe take a moment to rethink what you were trying to do and how to explain it in a way that people will understand and then, if you still want to, have another try editing the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Have restored my edit and answered on talk page. --Iztwoz (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Vaginal tumors
Thanks for thanks for taking a look at the VT article. The sources included cysts as tumours, it wasn't my mistake or point of view. I don't know what else to tell you. I also thought that cysts were not tumours until I read the sources. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  06:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Barbara (WVS) - have answered on the talk page.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vulva
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vulva you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vulva
The article Vulva you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Vulva for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Ketogenic diet
I've raised a query on an addition you made to the article. Can you help out on the talk page, thanks. -- Colin°Talk 14:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alcoholic Korsakoff syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PET ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Alcoholic_Korsakoff_syndrome check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Alcoholic_Korsakoff_syndrome?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Piping with apostrophes
I noticed that you changed back Dmitri Ivanovsky's to Dmitri Ivanovsky's and was wondering if the 's is clickable to you? At least in my browser the 's appears as non-link text that can't be clicked, so I assumed the pipe trick simply doesn't work with apostrophes. JustOneMore (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello JustOneMore - I hadn't noticed that the 's does not link assumed that it was like other edits using a plural or extra. Does it matter as it reads the same? --Iztwoz (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. Well it's not that it matters that much, but I presume since currently Wikipedia blends characters following a wikilink into the link that this is the preferred behavior and the fact that it doesn't work with apostrophes is likely due to a technical issue. JustOneMore (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Septin
Hi, you uprated the article on Septins from "start" to "C" in the MCB infobox. Could you give hints what would be missing to make it B grade? Thanks. Gormfull (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Gormfull - It may well merit a B grade, it was just a quick and obvious change from start status. If you think it needs changing you can do this - if you are asking about what criteria are used to grade they on WP:MOS somewhere. But I shall take another look. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Article reverts

 * Hello, You have reverted a couple of edits on images and one Medial eminence of floor of fourth ventricle ends up with a grossly enlarged image on a stub article. While you might be alright with an image that screams "look at me first" that is not the intent of images. Pointing out
 * I do not care to get into some edit issue with you but if you intend to revert more edits, just on some reversion principle, I will have no choice but to seek dispute resolution. I would much rather improve articles than waste the time in battles. Articles that I have started working on generally are lower class and many just sitting there. I have been adding references to severely under sourced articles (many with just one general reference) so please do not revert just because you are in some article protection mode. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Otr500 as I tried to point out by referring you to the featured article Cerebellum - the larger info boxes are standard in Anatomy articles. As you are having a problem with this could you address it at the Project Anatomy page please. I shall hold off reverting yet more. --Iztwoz (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Greeting: I make edits for improvements and not necessarily for a project "standards" (Not that there is anything wrong with project standards) that sometimes, such as the above mentioned Medial eminence of floor of fourth ventricle, does (to me) look bloated and over-sized in perspective with the article, if you would care to take a look at it. Also, I would have to look to see if there is a project standard pixel size as some images by default look bigger or smaller than one above or below it. You may know more about that.
 * To me the images on the article Cerebellum do not seem out of place or distracting likely because of the article size. It is a nice article but the exceptions (may be for a reason) would be the image "Abbreviations and representations", and "A mouse Purkinje cell injected with fluorescent dye" that are in the middle of the page leaving large blank surrounding spaces, but that is just my observation.


 * You have replied and seem agreeable so I would ask that you examine any on the list I worked on. "If" you deem the image does not distract from the article in it's original size, then revert per this discussion over just reverting, for a "project normal". You may find some could be somewhat smaller but not so much the size I picked. "IF" I have questions concerning one or more I will simply, if you don't mind, approach you with any concerns.
 * An example I consider progress is the excess images, that you reverted, apparently looked at, and agreed there were too many. This is a "BIG" improvement over the large gallery that was on the article, and on many other articles, so I would ask you look at those also when you get the time. Relevant images enhance an article and too many take away. NOTE: Considering your comments above I will likely defer to your judgement as I am just looking to improve articles not take away or battle. Please accept my thanks for your assistance.
 * PS, concerning the article "Cerebellum", I will be adding comments on the talk page concerning the long list (10) of "External links" that is an area I work in. Sometimes things just "creep in" and certain things go unnoticed so please weigh in if you will. Otr500 (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Have replied on your talk page--Iztwoz (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Nuchal plane

 * I ask another editor that may be inactive so I thought I would inquire of you.
 * If you have the time I was wondering if you could give some clarification, or point me somewhere for such clarification, on the area referred to as the Nuchal plane? I note that the upper defining boundary of the Nuchal plane is the Highest nuchal lines but became confused as to the lower boundary and any divisions or sections. Apparently the lower section lies above the ridge of the condyloid canal. Figure 48 of the Bones, ligaments, joints, and muscles shows apparent upper and lower divisions (above and below the Inferior nuchal line) separated by the medium nuchal line. Thank you for any assistance you may provide, Otr500 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Otr500 have had a quick look at the Cunningham book (google) and it seems that both highest and upper lines are included hence misleading "highest nuchal lines" I'll change it and if you find differently please edit accordingly. thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am going to look at it later because "figure 49" is confusing to me and I haven't yet found anything for a definitive lower boundary. Otr500 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hookworms
Do you think Hookworm species should be at Hookworm? — usernamekiran (talk)  18:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Kiran - I just couldn't get past the redirect - Thanks for doing this. --Iztwoz (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sepsis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronic lung disease ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sepsis check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sepsis?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Opinion needed
Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of heads of state of Angola? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Opinion needed, again
Hello again. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of German presidents? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
  "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,  I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version) Ozzie10aaaa (talk) is wishing you a  Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove. Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ozzie and Merry Xmas. --Iztwoz (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brodmann areas 44 and 45
Hello Iztwoz,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Brodmann areas 44 and 45 for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Brodmann area 45.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sinusoid (blood vessel)
Hi Iztwoz, hope that you're well! Was doing my (increasingly infrequent) trawl of recent changes when I saw this merge into capillary. In my mind they constitute a fairly and independently notable part of the microanatomy of certain organs like the placenta and the liver. I do note the article gets quite a few page views (looks like 50 - 100 a day ). I am inclined to think this warrants its own individual article unlike say 'fenestrated' capillaries. What would your thoughts be? --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Replying on talk page Tom.--Iztwoz (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

potential mix-up of cerebral and cerebellar
Hi Iztwoz,

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

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

May 2019
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Doc James - how is it that you can revert info by erroneously stating that the source was too old at 2002 - the source used was 2019 ? Your next revert said the info (MeSH 2019) was no longer true?? If trying to improve the article is no longer wanted what is anybody doing here?--Iztwoz (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Membership renewal


You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2020.

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

issue on Lung
Hi Iztwoz, can you have a look at the system-generated error message on lung in the Microanatomy section? It appears to be related to your edit on 16 August 2019. Thanks and best wishes. Ran0t0 (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Ran0t0 - sorted.--Iztwoz (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)