User talk:Patilsaurabhr

squamous epithelioma
Remember, this is for laypersons and many do not know what a "squamous epithelioma" is. Can you link these terms to another page? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have it linked now. Thanks for notifying. ''
 * P.S. It would be helpful for editors if you include link to the page to be attended.
 * I'm the one who usually complains about not linking to the article.


 * You are doing some great work here! It will be much appreciated by all. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Outbrain
Hello Patilsaurabhr, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Outbrain, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

JDevil
Can you please provide more information for your tag on the JDevil article? Nbcwd (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Nbcwd! You might like to take look at WP:NPOV. You might also benefit from a tutorial for maintaining a neutral point of view in article. If you have any specific question, please ask freely. -Saurabh P. (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The information contained in the article is all verified in reliable sources so I don't understand the "neutral point of view" argument. Everything in the article is verifiable and cited appropriately.  There are no opinions or original research in the article.  I read WP:NPOV before I wrote the article and the article has no biased opinions or unverifiable information in the article.  Show me specifically what is biased in the article so I can change it.  Nbcwd (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your contributions on Wikipedia are very much appreciated. It always helps if the communication environment between users is without any fog of misunderstanding or arrogance.
 * In case of the article JDevil, I have reframed some sentences and made some minor changes to maintain neutral point of view in the article. I have removed the corresponding template indicating disputed POV, but this article still needs to be checked for NPOV by more experienced users.
 * Also, some tips for you:
 * Please review WP:NPOV.
 * Please take a look at WP:PROFA, indicating profane words, if essential, should be quoted from original source and should not be used outside quotations.
 * Please take a look at WP:LINK, indicating links to same article in which it exist should be avoided and link should appear only once in an article.
 * Please take a look at MOS:REF, to avoid multiplicity of citations with same identity.
 * Hope that helps,
 * —— Saurabh P. (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This helps tremendously! Thanks for the clean up.  As I said before, I have reviewed the WP:NPOV many times now and still don't see that what I put was not from a neutral point of view.  I didn't know about the WP:PROFA, thanks for the information!  The WP:LINK and MOS:REF are also quite helpful, thanks!  I was sure there was a way to repeat a citation rather than having to type the whole thing out for every citation but didn't know how to do it.  Appreciate the help Saurabh!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbcwd (talk • contribs) 13:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
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.


 * Chancroid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Prepuce


 * Cleidocranial dysostosis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Lateral


 * Hereditary multiple exostoses (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Palsy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Placenta accreta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Implantation (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) 11:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "RI"
While I agree that Resistance index is a possible meaning of that, it's far from the most common, whereas Rhode Island has long been seen as the WP:PRIMARY meaning of it. Therefore, I undid your change at RI. That's consistent with the start of the resulting Rhode Island page, which states:


 * "RI" and "R.I." redirect here. For other uses, see RI (disambiguation).

So if a reader isn't interested in that meaning, he will know to click to a page that collects are about two dozen other possible meanings to choose. DMacks (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Placenta praevia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parity (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) 11:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pulse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paget's disease (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) 11:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Citing sources and creating sections
Hello, Patilsaurabhr. Thanks for helping out around this site. When you add sources, such as you did here to the Vagina article, will you make sure that you fill the reference out better? For example, the year should be included so that editors know how old the source is. See WP:Citing sources for guidance and styles with regard to citations. However, you should make sure to use the same citation style that the article uses. Per WP:Citing sources, "Each article should use the same citation method throughout; if an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it (this principle is known as WP:CITEVAR). While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed." That stated, if the article has no consistent citation style, then adding your own citation style is fine. And if you aren't good at adding a certain style that uses citation templates (see Citation templates), you can ask for formatting help on the article talk page or at some other appropriate Wikipedia page.

Going back to my comment about letting editors know how old a source is, I see that you are a part of WP:MED (like I am). I'm not sure if you are aware, since, judging by some of your contribution history and your talk page, you don't have a lot of interaction with others on Wikipedia, but WP:MED prefers up-to-date sources; the guideline for that is the Use up-to-date evidence aspect of Identifying reliable sources (medicine). But though anatomy somewhat falls within the WP:MED scope (see, for example, the layouts at Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles), I wouldn't state that sources about the makeup of an organ need to be as recent as "published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years"...not unless discussing health (such as the makeup of an organ having changed due to disease). After all, the makeups of (bodily) organs are generally the same as they have been for many years.

As for creating sections, per Manual of Style/Layout, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." That's why I combined the Supports section you created; it fits fine as part of the General structure section for now. Aspects of that section should of course be broken into their own sections when needed. I also added the word The to the beginning of the sentences in the aforementioned paragraph you created. I'm not sure why you didn't use The. If it's because the text you added is word-for-word from the source, then be aware of Copyright violations.

Anyway, thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * About the reference style I used, the VisualEditor does not yet incorporate auto prompt for reference templates. (Bug Tracked here) Therefore, I created a standard reference from the source editor and copied the parsed output to a text-editor for inserting in the article. I add material to articles as I study them from that book. I have now included the year in reference text.
 * About the paragraphs, I am reading the Manual of style and I will try to follow that from now on.
 * Also, I never copy text from sources. I take notes from the books and rewrite them in my own words. So there is never a problem of Copyright violations. I even create certain vector graphics for articles that require them referencing from the book. Take a look at my uploads.
 * Thanks for the feedback. Have a nice day! &#9733;Saurabh P.   &#124;   &#9742; talk  15:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that problem, and some other problems, with WP:VisualEditor; for example, see this discussion at WP:MED about it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 35. I've used that editor twice so far, and don't like it. What do you mean by "I have now included the year in reference text."? You haven't edited the article again yet; I still don't see the year for the source. As for the paragraphs, if there isn't already a section that the material can adequately fit in, then of course creating a section for the single sentence or short paragraph is fine. An alternative is to combine the headings along with combining the sections, if the combination is appropriate; for example, the Location and structure heading that is currently a part of the Vagina article, which the "General structure" section is a subsection of.
 * Thanks for the feedback. Have a nice day! &#9733;Saurabh P.   &#124;   &#9742; talk  15:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that problem, and some other problems, with WP:VisualEditor; for example, see this discussion at WP:MED about it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 35. I've used that editor twice so far, and don't like it. What do you mean by "I have now included the year in reference text."? You haven't edited the article again yet; I still don't see the year for the source. As for the paragraphs, if there isn't already a section that the material can adequately fit in, then of course creating a section for the single sentence or short paragraph is fine. An alternative is to combine the headings along with combining the sections, if the combination is appropriate; for example, the Location and structure heading that is currently a part of the Vagina article, which the "General structure" section is a subsection of.
 * Yes, I'm aware of that problem, and some other problems, with WP:VisualEditor; for example, see this discussion at WP:MED about it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 35. I've used that editor twice so far, and don't like it. What do you mean by "I have now included the year in reference text."? You haven't edited the article again yet; I still don't see the year for the source. As for the paragraphs, if there isn't already a section that the material can adequately fit in, then of course creating a section for the single sentence or short paragraph is fine. An alternative is to combine the headings along with combining the sections, if the combination is appropriate; for example, the Location and structure heading that is currently a part of the Vagina article, which the "General structure" section is a subsection of.


 * Thanks for hearing me out and explaining your actions/view on these things. Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having added the year, and for doing the same at any other article you added the reference to (such as at the Uterus article). Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said previously, I am studying from medical texts and editing related articles in free time. So I keep a standard ref line in a text file like "Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. (18th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill 2012. pp. 1–10. ISBN 9780071748896." I then paste the ref text in articles with appropriate page numbers. I simply meant my newer edits will have references with year.


 * For the paragraph thing, I added a new section, because "General structure" seems too big for paragraph. A reader may find it difficult to find the information unless he uses client's search function (like Ctrl+F in browsers). Anyway, I don't mind your edit at all. &#9733;Saurabh P.  &#124;   &#9742; talk  20:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. And, when it comes to editing Wikipedia, significantly fixing up the Vagina article (including taking it to WP:Good article status) is one of the things on my to-do list. I will likely divide the General structure section into specifically-named sections, either somewhat or completely. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18
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.


 * Bartholin's gland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Navicular fossa


 * Environmental toxins and fetal development (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Mercury


 * Pre-eclampsia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to CNS


 * Uterus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Hypogastric plexus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Prenatal development edits
Hi, Patilsaurabhr. Please be careful when editing not to mangle the article as occurred with this edit of Prenatal development, which added lots of duplicated material to the end of the article. I'm sure it was a mistake or perhaps a VisualEditor issue. But regardless, it helps to double check your edits. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Never noticed that. It might be visual-editor bug. It is lacking major basic features and has huge bugs, so I have decided to stop using it for major edits. Thanks. &#9733;Saurabh P.   &#124;   &#9742; talk  16:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

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: BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter
 Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 1, June/July 2014 by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery



This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice. note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
 * WHO's list of Essential Medicines
 * Neglected tropical diseases
 * Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

I've () taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
 * IEG grant

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
 * Wikimania 2014

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
 * Integration progress


 * Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
 * Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
 * Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
 * Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
 * Integration guides

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here

News in short


 * To come
 * Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
 * Proofreading drives


 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Television works about intersex
I have removed the prod tag from Television works about intersex, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Please note that this page is a new WP:SPLIT from intersex and the page title reflects the established category it belongs to, and an established category structure beyond that. I agree that the page is currently brief, but it is an initial split and does not yet (and never has) fully reflected the milieu it describes.

Please note that there is further existing discussion about this page at Talk:Intersex. Raising a deletion request without reference to that dialogue seems preemptive, to say the least. Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Panangipalli Venugopal
Hi Mate, you have added tags to the above article about the neutrality and have removed a couple of images on which I would like to comment as: I have made some corrections related to the styling; thanks for pointing it out. A talk page has been opened, please check it out at your convenience and advise comments. Together, of course with the help of others as well, we can make it a better article.--jojo@nthony (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am the creator of the article and the sole contributor till your edit and I have no connection, whatsoever, with the subject or the institution he represented. The issue of neutrality should not have arisen, I believe, as I had included the controversies related to the subject's career. In fact, a couple of the references pass derogatory remarks about the subject.
 * The deleted images were related to the areas of expertise of the subject and may have helped in dissemination of information, the prime purpose of Wikipedia.

Proposed deletion of MyTagram
FYI, I removed the prod you had placed on MyTagram with the rationale "Foreign language article in english wikipedia". Instead of being tagged for deletion, a newly created article in a foreign language should, if encyclopedic (Google Translate will give you a clue if you can't speak the language in question), be tagged with and listed at Pages needing translation into English. (In this particular case, the article merited speedy deletion under WP:A7 instead) Kolbasz (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Akshay Agrawal
You nominated the BLP page Akshay Agrawal for speedy deletion, which it was, but it has reappeared. I've tagged for notability. Perhaps it's better than the prior version? (Lol!) If not, let me know or just speedy it again. Just letting you know! Regards, 220  of  Borg 01:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of eponymous surgical procedures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Keller. 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) 08:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate
Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
 * Publish an article to the journal.
 * Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
 * Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
 * Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
 * Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
 * Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
 * Join the editorial board.
 * Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
 * Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
 * Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
 * Technical work like template designing for the journal.
 * Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to . If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at.
 * Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

 D ip ta ns hu Talk 14:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!