User talk:Taylornate

-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Myfreeimplants
Hello Taylornate. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Myfreeimplants, 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. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comments/suggestions on The EMBRACE Healthcare Reform Plan
Hi Taylornate, Thank you for reviewing and commenting on my submission, The EMBRACE Healthcare Reform Plan. I changed the headings as you suggested. As for your other suggestion, ("Most of your sections don't have any citations. Everything needs to be cited."), I have to explain that the entire article is based on the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM) article that is my first citation. Each section in the Wiki article reflects mostly the content of the article in AIM with some additional information off the group's website (www.hpfhr.org), and some subsequent letters to the editor to the AIM. Is there a way to re-cite the same article over again? I have not been able to find a way without duplicating the listings. Thanks again for helping, --Glancast (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An article that is mainly a summary of some document might not be appropriate for Wikipedia, but I'm pretty new here and I can't find where I think I read that. You might be best off waiting for someone else to reply who has been around longer and better understands these things.--Taylornate (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Moneyer
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Moneyer, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. That was a massive amount of work from other contributors that you casually deleted because ... well, why exactly? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

replied.--Taylornate (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

NPWT
Part of WP:LEAD means including relevant information. I think the one type of wound that NPWT has been found useful for certainly counts, but it was a wordy statement. How's this instead? I think the fact that evidence supports its use for diabetic ulcers but not much else is worth including, did you want to seek a third opinion? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me, thanks.--Taylornate (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it, thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive: word counts
Hi. I spotted your "I'm confused" note on the September drive page, and have put in your counts for you. "word count" is the number of words in articles you edited in this drive. "rollover words" is zero for you this time as you didn't take part in the previous (July) drive.

When you posted asking for a review of your first copyedit, I also took a look at it and, like Dianna, I thought it was outstanding. I hope you decide to stick around. Copyediting medical articles isn't very easy for lay people, and there are dangers in our doing it. The two you've done so far are valuable. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation and feedback! What will I do with the words during the next drive?--Taylornate (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear you want to! Next drive, you start with a total-word count of zero. On the drive page, you'll find the "how to sign up" section will have a link to a document that gives the rollover count for each editor, and yours will be there. You should copy it across to the drive page and then leave it as it is throughout the month, only adding to the word-count. At the end of the month, the coordinators will do the sums. --Stfg (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again!--Taylornate (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

clinical research
thanks for cleanup on phase 3 section Abhijeet Safai 16:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai (talk • contribs)
 * Glad to help!--Taylornate (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorting articles on category pages
First, let me say welcome to Wikipedia!

FYI: Articles can be sorted on category pages by adding a "|" to the category followed by the sort string. When the "|" is followed by a "blank", the article is listed at the top of the category. E.g. Category:Education where four articles have been categorized as:

So my edit of Problem-based learning which you reverted was not a "test edit." My intent is to keep it sorted at the top when I and other editors add pages to the Category:Problem-based learning.

Again, welcome! And I hope that as you learn copy-editing tricks, you will pass them on. &mdash; John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe , Talk to me! 15:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for the explanation!--Taylornate (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 02:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Screwed up the talkback message. Anyway, replied to your message on Fall out Boy -Jer Hit me up 06:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.


 * Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Extension, Lumbricalis, Lateral epicondyle and Interphalangeal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Invite
I invite you to help upgrade death to good article status. here Pass a Method talk  14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation, but while I might pop in from time to time, I won't be able to commit a significant effort to this article.--Taylornate (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your merge
I noticed you merged some parts of the posterior compartment of the forearm (the ECRB and ECRL muscle, the ECU muscle into the new page you created extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand. But it appears you didn't initiate a Template:Merge before doing so. It's pretty standard to have distinct articles for each muscle since they're notable enough to deserve them. I'm concerned that not all of the content may be included in your new article. That's usually why merging is done as a gradual process to make sure nothing is lost.

For the moment I'm going to revert the redirects (as well as others on the talk to restore that content. Please feel free to nominate them for merging. Your overview page is valuable but I think the old pages should link to it, rather than redirect to it. Y12J (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Moved to article talk page.--Taylornate (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep On Humping :-)
Hey Taylornate:

I have (briefly) reviewed (parts of) the ongoing discussion on whether or not to merge the articles on the individual muscles of the hand. While I have not yet reached a decision on how I will "vote", I certainly appreciate the effort you have put in, and wanted to recognize your work. I look forward to checking in on your stuff occasionally. If you ever want another pair of eyes to help copyedit or tweak, please let me know. Keep on humping!

Best regards: Cliff (a/k/a &#34;Uploadvirus&#34;) (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Haha thanks a lot for this. Even if we end up disagreeing, it's really nice to know there's another person who doesn't think I'm completely insane.--Taylornate (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries on that, bro, because I am the ONLY person who is COMPLETELY insane. Besides, I'm probably going to vote for MERGE.
 * Cliff (a/k/a &#34;Uploadvirus&#34;) (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Abductor pollicis longus muscle. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to state for the record that I disagree with this block, and I think my appeal probably did not attract attention because of the short duration. I was scratching and clawing to try to get my opposition to participate in discussion but they explicitly refused and I don't understand what I could have done differently.--Taylornate (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewlees
I don't see any evidence that this user has declared his real-life identity, so per WP:PRIVACY it would be better not to speculate as you did in this SPI. I don't see that it affects the SPI materially: the user and the IP are clearly the same on behavioural grounds alone. Cusop Dingle (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied at Sockpuppet_investigations/Andrewlees.--Taylornate (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Clitoris
Hi, Taylornate. Will you reply to my most recent comment in the above linked discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested
In regard to what you call canvassing, are you referring to replying to these posts by the MedComBot which already bring up the subject on the talk pages? Y12J (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved to User_talk:Y12J. For clarity, please try to keep a thread in one place.--Taylornate (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I continued to respond there, though it's common enough for people to back-and-forth on their own talks so they get announcements. Y12J (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Block
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or submit a request for unblock to the Unblock Ticket Request System. --Arcadian (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC) }
 * Since no reason was given for the block, I have contacted the blocking administrator and asked for clarification. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 16:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Taylornate appears to have been been edit-warring against a number of different editors on a number of articles about muscles for quite some time. For example, on Extensor pollicis longus muscle, I see extensive warring against at least four different editors. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: I must also point out that it does look as if the blocking admin has been involved in the content dispute, being one of the four opponents of Taylornate, and so was possibly not the best person to decide on and take admin action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I could say a number of things about that Zebedee, but I don't think it is necessary. It is an edit war and content dispute that the blocking admin is personally involved in, making it wildly inappropriate for him to block me.--Taylornate (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like my additional comment got lost in the edit conflict, so I've fixed it up -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The most recent edit warring I see was four days ago and the block was placed today. Additionally,, the editor Taylornate was edit warring with was not blocked or even warned for that matter. I'll note that I recently issued blocks for slow moving/long term edit warring only one day after the edit warring had taken place and there was general consensus that such blocks inappropriate, so I doubt that four days after the fact is any more appropriate. I'm having a hard time seeing much justification at all for this one. I'll wait for Arcadian to comment though. Tiptoety  talk 17:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, a number of editors have been edit-warring on those articles for some time, and one of them was the blocking admin, so the block does look inappropriate (though if they carry on with their slow-burn edit-war much further, I'll block all five of them - or however many carry on doing it) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking a little bit closer, upon placing this block Arcadian used rollback to revert Taylornate's edits to his preferred version. Some examples include:, , . Not only does this violate WP:INVOLVED, it also violates the rollback policy. Not to mention, looking over Arcadian's edits I would say he has violated the edit warring policy a number of times as of late. Tiptoety  talk 17:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you denying that you have been edit-warring? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I support Beeblebrox's unblock, above, as the block was done by a clearly involved admin. But please be warned that if this edit-warring on any of those muscle articles should continue, by any of the warring parties, the next block will come from an uninvolved admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please seek dispute resolution via the steps outlined at WP:DR if you cannot get a consensus on the relevant article Talk pages. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Would you look at that. I'm blocked, and then suddenly the pages are protected during my block.  Coincidence?--Taylornate (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest, how did you notice they're protected? Did you try to revert them again? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Protection log is on my watch list.--Taylornate (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. To be even-handed here, I have also warned the other editors who were edit-warring that they will be blocked if they continue too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't understand what I should be doing differently and I'm frustrated. I started an RFC, it has run its course, several people agreed with me, and nobody from my opposition has been able to give a logical policy-based argument.  The timing of the protections speaks to collusion.  I've read DR.  What should I do?--Taylornate (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The validity of the RFC was disputed - I'm not judging who is correct, but you have 4 editors disputing the consensus you think you have and reverting you. So, even if you are right, you must not edit-war to enforce the version that you think is correct. What I suggest is that you start a discussion, neutrally worded and without making any accusations or claims about other editors, asking whether the articles in question should be turned into redirects. Then let the discussion take its course, do not try to judge the outcome or close it yourself, and leave it to an uninvolved admin to judge the consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and on the RFC, if it was *you* who judged the outcome, then that was indeed invalid - you don't get to judge your own RFCs, but must leave it to someone uninvolved -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll start a discussion for you - give me a minute or two. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did close the RFC but I did not judge it. As far as I could tell, my actions fell within the guidelines.  I left the outcome blank and posted a request for closure.  I did post here my opinion on the outcome and I think I'm within my rights to do that.  I'm not sure what you mean when you say the RFC was not neutrally worded.  I gave a perfectly neutral RFC question and then went on to give my own view.  To the best of my knowledge, that is how it is supposed to work.  I'd be happy to continue with the discussion you started, but I don't think it's fair to discard the RFC.--Taylornate (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think the validity of the RFC is debatable (and you should not have closed it yourself), but the discussion in it can still be examined and referred to. So, as a discussion I'm not suggesting discarding it. But having examined it, I really don't see there is a proper consensus for redirecting all those articles - or for not redirecting them. To be honest, I think the whole thing is quite confused, with people frequently talking past each other. I really do think that my simpler question, which is directed at what should be done now rather than debating what has happened in the past, and is specifically aimed at the actions in the edit war, will be a useful step forward. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My concerns are satisfied. Thank you for your willingness to help.  I may or may not find the time to get back into it during the coming week, but I'm pretty sure I'll have time after May 1.--Taylornate (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure - the discussion can take as long as it needs, so no rush. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As I noted in your block log, the only reason the block was overturned was because of the blocking admins willful diregard of the involved admin policy. Please don't take that as a free pass to continue edit warring, there are plenty of uninvolved admins who can re-block you, and given the history in this area longer blocks and/or protections will be the result if this warring behavior continues. There's no conspiracy against you, just a desire to end edit warring. As Boing notes, there are flaws in the previous attempts at resolving this, ot may be time to move up the WP:DR chain if this is not resolved soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand about this not being a free pass. What is the next DR step after RFC?--Taylornate (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion on a simple question to try to resolve the edit war, at Talk:Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand. And having looked over the RFC, I conclude that it was carried out improperly, as it was closed by the editor who started it and not be an uninvolved admin, and the question as posed was not sufficiently neural. So in my opinion those two issues taken together nullify any conclusion that anyone thinks they can draw from it. I hope this new question will help get some way towards resolution of this dispute, but if not, escalation along the WP:DR process will be needed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project
Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share. I found your username from the Highbeam application list.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Med
Hi I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:WikiMed. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders. Hope to see you there! Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

AN/I discussion: Otto Placik, Mhazard9
Note that there is an AN/I discussion on a matter in which you have previously been involved: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Regards, Andreas JN 466 00:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional evidence, Taylornate. Andreas JN 466 17:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Expert Opinion
Thanks for your advice on this subject Taylornate. I'm following up on an area of personal interest but presumed I was following the proper reference protocol by ensuring that every statement was fully supported - as I would do for a post-graduate paper. Trying to ensure that what I'm adding is suitable for the generalist/mainstream reader rather than assuming specialist (ie medical) knowledge so it's good of you to keep me right. Much appreciated.

Zingbit22 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

--MichellineAspic (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Breast implant WP:ALLEGED problem
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Cheers, --Nbauman (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Anatomy merges
Hi Taylornate, thanks for your contributions to our discussion on the WP:MEDMOS talk page. Please don't feel deterred from proposing any anatomy-related merges. In our attempts to revitalise WP:ANATOMY, we have been proposing and conducting quite a few merges (see here for some examples Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy/Open_Tasks, and there appear to be quite a few active contributors to the project in general who can provide their opinions and/or support if necessary. If you need any help or support with the merges, please feel free to post on the anatomy wikiproject's talk page. I'm trying to get the clean-up listing active for WP:ANATOMY as it is for WP:MED (that's the listing of all pages with tags under the project's scope), which will make the merge situation a lot easier, as we will then have a list. Other than that, happy new year! Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2014 (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) 03:24, 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

Fall Out Boy timeline
Hey – I just wanted to discuss the edits that I made to the Fall Out Boy timeline. I've already had a similar discussion on the Green Day talk page about whether session/touring members ought to be included in timelines, and we basically reached a consensus where, because it generally doesn't happen, the timeline should only include proper, full-time members. In regards to my last edit, that wasn't the only thing that I changed, so I'm wondering why you reverted the whole thing, especially as I'm not simply "reverting someone". Anyway, I just wanted to run it by you first, seeing as you seem to have a different point of view. Regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've moved this discussion to Fall Out Boy talk page.

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (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. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
 * Publish an article to the journal. Even a medical student like you can make a submission.
 * 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.
 * 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 06:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 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!