User talk:Tom (LT)/Archive 2

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! LT910001 (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Robin Hood tax
Hi there, and sorry for not following up with you sooner about the Robin Hood tax article and its GA review. I think you made some good points, and I realize the article is going to take more work to get to GA status than I thought when I nominated it a little while back. Also, I reverted your move to Robin Hood tax (organisation) per WP:BRD, and with the idea that the (organisation) was unnecessary disambiguation given the lack of other articles with this title. If you'd perhaps like Robin Hood tax to redirect to an article on a certain type of tax, that could be discussed at WP:RM; personally, I think it's fine for the article to discuss the proposed tax packages as well as the organisations advocating for them. Thanks again for your work on this. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, no worries about your revert. Per WP:BRD I've proposed the move on the article's talk page and will leave it at that. Having reviewed the article I think it would enhance the quality if the title was disambiguated so that the scope of the article was clear, but as you object (and so probably other users too) it seems reasonable to discuss this first. LT910001 (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added my two cents. Was your capitalization intentional though? I'd think Robin Hood tax (UK organisation) was what you meant. --BDD (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for review on Wade's Causeway
Thank you for your patient review of this article. I was getting quite frustrated with the number of people seemingly want to do anything but actually review the article against GA guidelines! It was a godsend to have you review the article fairly and objectively against the GA criteria, and I hope we did a good job of improving the article together. Your time and energy are much appreciated. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, that was indeed a rather strange review process, and I was at times somewhat confused as to what was being reviewed (ie myself or the article!). I do hope we improved the article's quality, it has been very interesting to learn about this structure, and also quite interesting to contemplate the existence of a possibly pre-Roman road-building society, which is quite at odds with the typical portrayal of pre-Roman society. Good luck for your future FA nomination! LT910001 (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Head and neck anatomy
I am struggling to picture any foramina "in the face" ;p which are notable for their own page. There are not many to my knowledge: infra-orbital foramen, mental foramen... unless as I suspect you are talkinga bout foramen ovale, foramen rotundum etc (not really in the face) but yes ofc I will help out. (may not be available) an active anatomy editor and gave me a lot of advice when I tried to write some H&N anatomy articles (fascial spaces of the head and neck and its subpages which I/someone needs to finish at some point).

Gray's is the international standard of excellence for anatomy in my opinion. I believe the 39th ed can be accessed here for free I think 40th is the latest ed now, but anatomy doesn't change as fast as medicine thankfully. Aside from this there are many specialized head and neck anatomy textbooks that are available in medical libraries. I have no such source in pdf, although I have one in dead tree format. Otherwise I could share with you via dropbox.

There is a standard article layout advice in the MEDMOS, and also some here WikiProject Anatomy/Article advice. Give me a shout when you start on an article and I will help out a bit. Lesion ( talk ) 08:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Suspensory muscle of duodenum looks great, kudos. There is an infobox error message at the top of the page but I don't know how to fix it, sorry. Shame there are not more active anatomists here. Agree it is nice to edit anatomy articles after writing about other medical articles. Things are more factual and less controversial often. Lesion  ( talk ) 08:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits . I'm going to try and double the number of GAs on Anatomy articles (... that, is bring it up to a total of 10...). The surprising thing is, there is a surprising amount of controversy on some articles. For example, whether the suspensory ligament is one or two sections (although there seems to be modern consensus it is only 1 of these two); I was thinking of working on genioglossus, and it appears this may or may not (depending on source) be important in respiration. I agree that it's nice to just get along and do some editing, rather than the glacial committee-building that many med articles seem to involve. If you want anything looked over feel free to give me a shout. PS laughed a fair amount at the User 1/2 quote on your talk page. LT910001 (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * =D
 * Genioglossus is certainly in my area of interest. Choosing articles of rigidly defined scope (i.e. one muscle or ligament) probably increases the chance that you will be able to bring it to GA too. Things are a bit up in the air at the moment: moving & travel, finding a new job... but I am sure I will be doing a bit of procrastination and will be able to help out. Lesion  ( talk ) 09:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, take care of yourself, that sounds quite exciting! Feel free to drop me an email . LT910001 (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Article feedback
Thank you for the project status you gave me on my article, Healthcare reform in China. I was wondering if you could offer any feedback or criticism in improving the article, to make it either B-class or GA. Thanks! Deniselee26 (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Have left a message on your talk page. LT910001 (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi, thanks for doing a peer review of Clarence Chesterfield Howerton, I left you a quick question on the review page. Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 18:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

WPMED task force page
It looks like everything is set up. Sorry I couldn't respond to your request earlier. Do you require any further assistance? JFW &#124; T@lk  13:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Only in the form of questions. So now that it's been created, if a med article is tagged with 'society=yes' then will it be automatically categorised and added to the task forces assessment table? LT910001 (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you have it mostly figured out. I found setting up a task for to be difficult and do not really remember how myself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Struthers' ligament
Hi, for some reason you've rated this article as a stub, but it describes the feature, illustrates it, and has 10 citations, so I'd have thought it at least rated a C actually, and it probably meets most of the B-class criteria, come to that. Could you perhaps take another look at it? Thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good morning, I have been conducting a census of top and mid-class anatomy articles so that they can be properly triaged in the future. Didn't take note of the large number of citations. Have moved it back to 'start' class. Kindly, --LT910001 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Lieutenant Governor of NJ
Just to let you know...you just did a big no-no (and something I actually loathe). You violated WP:CITEVAR..."Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus." The article consistently--100%--used manual citations. I generally use Chicago/Turabian except when citing legal sources which C/T defers to the traditional legal citation methods employed by the appropriate courts. Given that, there is no "inconsistency" here. Whether a few needed to be tweaked with periods or order is not a problem that gets fixed by violating WP:CITEVAR. I use manual cites because they offer more control to the editor in working the citations--since many notes don't fit into pigeonholed systems and needed to be addressed individually (something that is the nature of the beast in the humanities and social sciences where citation templates here are burdensome). That move just made it quite difficult for me to continue working the article which is what WP:CITEVAR seeks to avoid. I oppose that switch vehemently and have reverted in accordance with WP:CITEVAR. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've responded to this on the good article review page. Sorry for any inconvenience, --LT910001 (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's o.k. we all make a few rookie mistakes...even after we've been around for a few years. I had to edit my comment a few times because some of my directness sometimes comes off as aggressive and I didn't intend read that way. I admit I'm a hard guy to work with, but I respect your effort and diligence--especially in a second opinion that took two weeks--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your barnstar, ! It was great to work with you and I feel we both learned about the GA process through this review. Also, I know an unhealthy amount about about the LG of NJ now...! All the best on your Wiki-travels, --LT910001 (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
I requested Good Article Reassessment because I see the article becoming no longer stable. Nevertheless, I figured that Reassessment during dispute is unproductive. Therefore, I created the section "Requesting GAR". --George Ho (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge of Blood Viscosity and Hemorheology
Hi, you merged Hemorheology to Blood viscosity, but we had agreed to merge Blood Viscosity to Hemorheology instead, because rheology is much more general than viscosity. Rheology studies many mechanical properties of materials, including viscosity. Therefore we had agreed to keep blood viscosity as a section in hemorheology. Can you change that? If you have any objection, please contact me or write on the discussion. I will do the change myself in a couple of days if you don't manifest any contrary argument. Best regards --Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Violence against doctors in China
Hello! Your submission of Violence against doctors in China at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry; it looks like I missed your post there just a little while before I added the above here. I had gotten distracted once I went to add the notice here, and didn't check to see whether you'd replied to Orlady in the interim. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Orbitomeatal line
This page has no talk page. Should it be WP:ANAT or WP:MED in your opinion? It utilizes normal anatomy, yet it is likely only relevant to radiology... Lesion ( talk ) 00:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As an anatomical structure, I added to WP:ANAT. Feel free to add to WP:MED, too, if you feel that is needed. --LT910001 (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One is enough... OK I see you have already placed WPANAT tag, thanks. ✅ Lesion  ( talk ) 13:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wirgman Building
LT910001, thank you for selecting the Wirgman Building for GA review! I look forward to working with you throughout this process, and please feel free to keep me posted should you have any questions or need additional information. Thanks again for taking the time from your schedule to conduct this review! -- Caponer (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Re GI disease
"Long time no speak" -- we spoke 2 days ago when I queried orbitomeatal line ;p Hope you enjoyed your travels. I will see what I can do to help out for the above article and/or some of those anatomy suggestions. Just give me a ping when you start on one of those anatomy pages.

Myself and IanFurst are working on orofacial pain and various sub articles in this topic right now. A bit disheartened that there has not been much interest on psoriasis this month ... although it has improved somewhat. Where are all those dermatologists when you need them? Lesion ( talk ) 03:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Etchmiadzin Cathedral/GA1
Please resume the review. Thank you! -- Ե րևանցի  talk  00:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User:LT910001/4 -- a small proposal for the Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject! template
Hey, LT910001. Considering what has been discussed at WP:MEDMOS at different points with regard to its layouts (about not always strictly following them), including in the most recent discussion there (this time concerning the anatomy layout), I believe that this anatomy template should at least mention that not every anatomy article will be best suited for that exact layout (meaning though it should obviously follow some material presented there, such as having a Structure section if the article is big enough to have one, it does not have to follow that layout exactly). Otherwise, this template completely neglects to acknowledge to editors what WP:MEDMOS acknowledges: "Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition. Do not discourage potential readers by placing a highly technical section near the start of your article." With the aforementioned template, new editors (new to Wikipedia, not just to editing anatomy articles) are especially going to be overzealous in applying the anatomy layout without any regard to the fact that an anatomy article may already have an established layout and that it perhaps works best with that established layout. Therefore, I propose that we add the words "though not every article will be best suited for this standard" (or something like that) on to the "We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article." line.

I would have brought this up on the "Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject! template" talk page, but User:LT910001/4 might one day be deleted, more likely so than your talk page at least, and I want this suggestion to remain documented/easily accessible to all Wikipedians (not just administrators with the power to see deleted talk pages). Also, you don't have to contact me on my talk page or link my username to let me know that you have replied to the above proposal; I'm currently watching your talk page for a response to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I just now saw that you posted the aforementioned template to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy; I'll transport my above proposal there to that template section. Flyer22 (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Never mind about discussing there since when posting there in that section, I'm editing the template. Flyer22 (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I just saw that you requested feedback in this section; I'll move the above proposal there. Flyer22 (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome. I just joined WPMED after your post on my talk page. I figure I edit enough of those types of articles as I come across them anyway... Icehcky8 (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , you're welcome! Feel free to contact me or any other interested users if you'd like to collaborate on improving articles. At the moment, I'm working on anatomy articles under WP:ANATOMY, and if you're interested in systems at all (nervous system, respiratory system) those articles need a lot of attention :D. Additionally, if you're ever bored and looking for something to do, you can review a good article or two. It's not only interesting to chose one or two articles that you're interested in, but makes a big difference, and anyone can do it. The list of articles awaiting review is here: WP:GAN and it's great experience to learn how to write good articles yourself. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stapes
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stapes 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 Wilhelmina Will -- 06:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Zoltán of Hungary
Thank for your assistance in promoting the article to GA status. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thoracic/spinal vertebrae
"Merge from"/"merge to" is not the correct process for what you're trying to propose here. That process is for merging an article into another complete article, but spinal vertebrae is a redirect, not an article, and thus cannot be a "merge" target.

If you're proposing that the article currently at thoracic vertebrae be renamed so that "spinal vertebrae" is its new title, then you need to follow the requested moves process instead of the "proposed merge" process — and if you want thoracic vertebrae to be integrated with the text of another article, then vertebral column is the article that needs to be proposed as the merge target, since that's where "spinal vertebrae" redirects to. I'm not sure which of those two results you're actually seeking to achieve — but since a "merge" target has to be a complete article into which the text of the other article will get interleaved, it isn't even possible to merge an article into a redirect. So either way, you need to repair your nomination to correctly request whatever it is that you actually want.

It's also important to be aware that placing a maintenance template above the #REDIRECT code on a redirect causes it to stop acting as a redirect, and start functioning as an uncategorized page instead — but pages in mainspace are not allowed to be left uncategorized, so that change of page function has to be corrected immediately. So I apologize if I misunderstood what you were trying to accomplish, but what you did wasn't the correct way to accomplish it. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC) ： Ok, sorry, I am not yet fully acquainted with the vastness of Wikipedia's may Byzantine procedures, I reverted as that was not the intended target, but as you say a merge is not even the correct procedure. At any rate, happy new year! --LT910001 (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

RLN
Please let me know when you are done with recurrent laryngeal nerve. (A reply here will be fine.) I just got an edit conflict on a very similar edit.Novangelis (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC) ： Sorry,, I have finished. Didn't realise you were about as well. Articles looks like it could be a prospective good article in a week or so! --LT910001 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly, "real life" for me starts getting busy again tomorrow. My goal for tonight is getting all structure and function tightly sourced tonight. After that, I'll be able to contribute to a GA target next weekend.Novangelis (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm done for now. I'll give it another look through when I get the chance, since I'm terrible at proofreading while I edit. Ping me if you need any clarifications on what I've done. For now, dinner and Downton Abbey await me. Thanks for your understanding.Novangelis (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the article is almost ready. I have done some copy-editing, standardised citations to the rp format, and added some headings. Also, I've changed the bold -> italic in parts of the article. I've put the article up for peer review before we nominate it, to get some outside feedback. --LT910001 (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

PR
Yes, I'll take a close look at recurrent laryngeal nerve this weekend and see what I can do. Finetooth (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @. Thank you! --LT910001 (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Finetooth (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Violence against doctors in China
 Harrias  talk 08:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Question for originator of the article: Why this subject? And: Why at that time? I ask because I am writing a monograph of the subject of violence, and am currently preparing for publication an article specifically on the possible connection between recent (CNY 2014) enforcement (in Mainland China) of fireworks/recreational ordnance bans, the seasonal spike in A&E/ER traffic during CNY (because of fireworks-related injuries), and recent efforts to publicize and manage assault and aggravated battery of Chinese hospital employees. Cheers GoggledSchooler (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your question . Unfortunately one of the biases of Wikipedia is that it is quite Western-centric, and apart from the main historical articles about China, there is a dearth of information about modern China, in particular mainland China. There was an article in the Lancet, BMJ and the Economist recently (sourced in said article, although I'm sure you are well aware of them), and I was surprised that there was no corresponding coverage on Wikipedia. Apart from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS), there may be other factors that contribute to this dearth of coverage. One is that Wikipedia has strict notability guidelines (see WP:NOTABILITY). These are more strictly enforced and notability is harder to prove about individuals outside of Western countries. Additionally, information about Chinese sources is not always forthcoming, and may only be available if one is fluent in Mandarin. Thirdly, as there are very few English-language sources available for modern Chinese articles, the level of synthesis and preparation required may be greater than other articles, at least when jotting down a rudimentary first article. Lastly, it is indisputably harder to edit Wiki from mainland China, and there are several copycat services run by Chinese companies (such as 百度知道), which impacts on the number of editors here on Wiki. I would love to read your paper when it is published (or in final draft form), so would be grateful if you could contact me again when it's at that stage. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Question bask asking how do we deal with the BLP banners Hasteur (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Foramen spinosum
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Foramen spinosum 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 Sahara4u -- 03:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Read your ANI post
And raised Sockpuppet investigations/Jwratner1. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What did I do?
Did I do something that counts as vandalism? I only erased request that were randomly put on. As it says it is not for discussion of other pages but only how to improve this page.Allied Rangoons (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not vandalism,, but certainly odd. I am guessing you thought the talk page was too long, and so deleted some content. You deleted two topics and the entire text of the good article review, which definitely relates to improving the page. I reverted your edits, and instead removed the review from the talk page, and implemented a bot that will automatically archive the talk page's contents. I think this is what you wanted to achieve, so I hope that there are no hard feelings. In the future, please remember that talk pages are normally preserved so that their content can be read by future users, and content on them is very rarely deleted, for that reason. --LT910001 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Thanks for letting me know. Allied Rangoons (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stapes
The article Stapes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stapes for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- 13:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My congratulations. Happy to see it. Finetooth (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Stapes
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

LP
Yes would be nice to get this article at GA. A shame none of the more experienced wikipedian-dermatologists (of which I have seen so much "archaeological evidence" to support their existence) seem to be around right now.

Not sure how much more work ... depends upon reviewer I suppose.

If I was reviewing it, I would immediately comment that it is mostly lists... needs some meat. I've been downloading several more head and neck pathology textbooks recently so I have a few more sources. Lesion ( talk ) 09:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Where the trigger is known, the term lichenoid lesion is used instead."


 * I was wondering whether it can be supported by any source? For the time being I will add some definitions of term lichenoid reaction/lesion from textbooks. Lesion  ( talk ) 16:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Recurrent laryngeal nerve
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Recurrent laryngeal nerve 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 Seppi333 -- 02:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
reply No problem. Just finished with adding the caption parameters everywhere. That's about the only contribution I can make to the area. I know a bit about coding and templates, but I know nothing about medicine. I can't help you with that. Cheers, Manifestation 14:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Foramen spinosum
The article Foramen spinosum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Foramen spinosum for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sahara4u -- 23:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Recurrent laryngeal nerve
The article Recurrent laryngeal nerve you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Recurrent laryngeal nerve for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seppi333 -- 01:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Using "What links here" to repair links when merging articles
Hi LT, just noticed this merge from Sept 13. However the dead space DAB still lists dead space (in breathing apparatus) as if i were a stand alone article. I have repaired this now. Usually you can click "what links here" after moving or merging an article to adjust the links from other articles if needed. I'm sure you know this by now anyway, but just making sure. Lesion ( talk ) 13:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Rating of "Cyclovergence"
I noticed you rating of the article "Cyclovergence" and placed a question on the discussion page regarding this. I would like to ask you to reconsider the quality scale rating (I do agree with the low-importance rating). Please look at the reason I gave on the discussion page. I add that I may be not neutral about this because I wrote the article in the first place. Regards, --Chris Howard (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your reasons are quite valid, I have restated the C-class., if you have time, I'd be very grateful if you could contribute some thoughts (any would be valued) on the peer review of this article: Anatomical terms of motion. These are some of WP:ANATOMY's most popular articles and I would like to get it to GA class, so I'd love some input as to whether or not its readable and/or comprehensive, and would be very grateful if you could contribute. --LT910001 (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your speedy reaction.
 * I am not at all a specialist on anatomy and am more involved with mathematical aspects of motion (see for example work by mathematician Hestenes here). That background is not of much help regarding your request on anatomical terms. In any case I'll be glad to read the article and if something strikes me about it then I will contribute to the discussion there. --Chris Howard (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have now read through your article and, contrary to my initial intentions, prefer to give you feedback here on your discussion page rather than there. First of all, I wish to express my respect for picking up such an extensive and nontrivial subject to bring it to GA. I have only a few thoughts as feedback for the moment. One is that the expression "medial and abduction stage" is not necessarily understandable to the general reader: in particular the term "abduction" is not explained, and in fact the link "Abduction" in this article's section "Abduction and adduction" currently redirects to a deleted article and then after a second or so automatically redirects further to a not-so-helpful Wiktionary page. It would be good if this were solved differently (for example, redirecting Abduction to List of abductors of the human body that has a concise definition of the term); similarly for "Adduction" which might preferably redirect to List of adductors of the human body). Secondly, I was wondering whether you would want to include information on anatomical motion of the eyes (see Eye muscles), but of course that is quie an extensive subject on its own. I hope these two rather informal suggestions/thoughts may help you move further. Regards --Chris Howard (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments,, I have copied your comments to the review so that they are in a central location. --LT910001 (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Medicine templates
Very many (belated) thanks for the barnstar, much appreciated. This is just to let you know that I've now completed my work on all the medicine templates, part of the work I've been doing on switching templates over to hlist formatting, or otherwise de-cluttering the hlist tracking category. Most of this work has been fairly easy, as I use an automated script to clean up the templates, but the medicine templates have, in addition, required a lot of manual effort to clean them up a bit. The main reasons are:


 * most of them have one or more subgroups consisting of separate lines, with no obvious indication of the reason for the split. So I have to work out what the reason might be for the split, and what to do about it. The best solution is usually to introduce a new level of subgroups, but not always, and the choice can be quite difficult and time-consuming to make, especially as I'm not a medicine or anatomy specialist.
 * the many bracketed items. These require a decision whether they are an integral adjunct to the previous element (and thus left alone), or whether they can be sub-listed (done by beginning a line with a double asterisk under hlist formatting); this process can be partly automated using regex find/replace, but still requires a manual choice to be made for every instance (usually fairly quick and easy, thankfully).

The same problems also happen on many of the science templates, especially the biochemistry ones.

I have not always been consistent in my choices, and it is quite likely I have not always made the right choice. So as well as a "thank you", this is also a note to request that you, with your specialist knowledge, keep an eye out for any instances where I might have got it wrong. Many thanks,

--NSH002 (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello ! How are your abilities at understanding templates? I can't make head or tail of this: Template:Infobox muscle, I want to add a section using the 'below' parameter that is bold and italic and states  Anatomical terms of bone . --LT910001 (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * (just got back home) Not surprised you're having difficulties, it's still a home-brewed template using slow parser functions and without any below= parm! I see Mr Stradivarius has already set up a sandbox version for you, and I think it's best that you discuss your requirements with him for now. My initial reaction is that this template should be converted to use the standard Infobox, which in principle is a much better solution - it's much better to standardise on a few well-maintained templates: more robust, easier for general editors to code, easier to maintain and (in this case) a lot faster. Normally I might have a go at this, but I'm planning to take a wikibreak of a few weeks in the very near future, and don't want to get too deeply drawn into anything before then. Possibly User:Frietjes might convert it for you, if you ask her nicely. Sorry not to have been of more help. Regards, --NSH002 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks for the star - made my day! Iztwoz (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

List of systems of the human body
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of systems of the human body, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061209082204AAEMrXa.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, bot. For the record, I am rearranging existing content under WP:ANATOMY and the article in question cites the Wikipedia article as its origin. --LT910001 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for thanks
I was taken aback at the thanks for an edit to Anatomical terms of location, but was also appreciative; thank you in turn. In writing this thankyou I also happened to notice the previous section in which you were admonished for, to put it plainly, plagiarism; not long ago I encountered a similar situation in which, while I actually was still working on an article I had just created (Branchipodopsis), a nice authoritative person had it speedily deleted because it seemed "to be copied from another source". He had run it through a comparison tool and it was full of three-word phrases such as "this taxon is" or "endemic genus found" or "transient rock pools" that also occurred in the primary source. The question of how (or why) such phrases were to be avoided in discussion of a genus of high endemicity with its taxonomy currently under study, and whether the only sources in circulation were properly cited or not, seemed to be beyond his conception and he was quite abusive when someone better informed and more helpful reversed the speedy and courteously discussed options for improvement. Some folks are more interested in trashing than creation or improvement. I am working on breathing deeply and thinking peaceful thoughts.

But BTAIM, thanks again for your thanks. JonRichfield (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And hyphenation
Me again with the Anatomical terms of location thing. I was busy with linking terms such as Labiolingual, and found some that articles that hyphenated them as eg labio-lingual. Got any ideas as to what I should do? I am tempted to remove the hyphens in situ, but...? JonRichfield (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , hmm.
 * With regards to hyphenated terms, I try and replace as many as possible when editing, as "Posterolateral" can easily be replaced with "posterior and lateral" (or in the case of some articles, "behind and lateral") with no damage to the actual information. You could mention the hyphenation in a separate section in the article itself.
 * I've formatted links to wiktionary on the Anatomical terminology article and subarticles, that may help give some consistency to the etymology clutter.
 * My grand plan is to get Anatomical terms of motion to GA status, and then use that as a model to rework Anatomical terms of location along the same format, so if you could contribute any sourcing to Anatomical terms of motion I'd be much obliged :D! --LT910001 (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm indeed...
 * OK, right. In the context of a terminology article, to replace say labiolingual with a descriptive phrase would not be appropriate. What I shall do instead it hunt down such cases as I can find, de-hyphenate them and link them kicking and screaming.
 * I hadn't thought of Wiktionary in this connection, more fool me. I must give that more thought in terms of linking, replacement and so on.
 * I'll have a look at Anatomical terms of motion and see whether I can do anything useful. Wish me luck. :) JonRichfield (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:PR
I don't know what recent adjustments you have applied to this page, but on my screen the display is now squeezed into the left-hand side. This doesn't happen anywhere else; it's specific to the peer review page. Can you please investigate, and undo whatever it is that is causing this? Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We seem to be having a bad run at the moment. This is a result of a two-column template on one of the reviews transcluded on the main page, not some avant garde changes spontaneously made by me :D. What is your opinion about moving full transclusion to the 'current' tab only? --LT910001 (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Spoke too soon. A comment in a review broke the formatting; fixed. --LT910001 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Featured picture
Thanks for nominating the stomach picture. That's my first featured picture! Nephron T|C 01:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, ! Such a beautiful image, too. If you have any more images like this, please feel free to ping me or drop by WP:ANATOMY's talk page to let us know, so we can hastily add it to the relevant articles :P. Thanks for providing these images on Wikicommons, by the way... and congrats again! --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Cervix
Hello LT - I would be glad to help where I can…But…I'm trying to get the new page on digestive system up right now - as soon as its there I'll be all yours. Iztwoz (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries,, any help would be more than welcome. If you'd like some contribution to the article you're working on give me a ping. --LT910001 (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi LT - just to say the digestive system page is up - there is room for a lot of improvement. I would really appreciate your comments, pointers. My broadband is a bit hit-and-miss at the moment hence intermittent editing! By the by, thought that ventricular system was looking very good. Iztwoz (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)