User talk:Tom (LT)/Archive 7

Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018

 

The 100 Skins of the Onion
Open Citations Month, with its eminently guessable hashtag, is upon us. We should be utterly grateful that in the past 12 months, so much data on which papers cite which other papers has been made open, and that Wikidata is playing its part in hosting it as "cites" statements. At the time of writing, there are 15.3M Wikidata items that can do that.

Pulling back to look at open access papers in the large, though, there is is less reason for celebration. Access in theory does not yet equate to practical access. A recent LSE IMPACT blogpost puts that issue down to "heterogeneity". A useful euphemism to save us from thinking that the whole concept doesn't fall into the realm of the oxymoron.

Some home truths: aggregation is not content management, if it falls short on reusability. The PDF file format is wedded to how humans read documents, not how machines ingest them. The salami-slicer is our friend in the current downloading of open access papers, but for a better metaphor, think about skinning an onion, laboriously, 100 times with diminishing returns. There are of the order of 100 major publisher sites hosting open access papers, and the predominant offer there is still a PDF. From the discoverability angle, Wikidata's bibliographic resources combined with the SPARQL query are superior in principle, by far, to existing keyword searches run over papers. Open access content should be managed into consistent HTML, something that is currently strenuous. The good news, such as it is, would be that much of it is already in XML. The organisational problem of removing further skins from the onion, with sensible prioritisation, is certainly not insuperable. The CORE group (the bloggers in the LSE posting) has some answers, but actually not all that is needed for the text and data mining purposes they highlight. The long tail, or in other words the onion heart when it has become fiddly beyond patience to skin, does call for a pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart.

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Crossref as a new source of citation data: A comparison with Web of Science and Scopus, CWTS blogpost 17 January 2018, Nees Jan van Eck, Ludo Waltman, Vincent Larivière, Cassidy Sugimoto
 * Citations with identifiers in Wikipedia, figshare dataset
 * Making women more visible online—with Wikidata tools!, Wikimedia blogpost 29 March 2018 by Sandra Fauconnier
 * Village pump discussion, Turn on mapframe? We’re ready if you are reaches conclusions
 * The Power of the Wikimedia Movement beyond Wikimedia, Forbes 28 March 2018, Michael Bernick
 * Tracing stolen bitcoin, blogpost 26 March 2018 by Ross J. Anderson
 * }

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

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

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious two years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Naming
Hello Tom (aka Precious one)! Is there a preferred choice of naming to use - i've always thought it was TA but is this the case - particularly for Neuroanatomy articles. Braininfo which is used a lot on the pages uses NeuroNames so things can get a little mixed. The page posterolateral tract (TA) is Dorsolateral fasciculus on Braininfo (NeuroNames) (and FMA). Can you give some guidance here. Seems more helpful to follow Braininfo info, isn't it? --Iztwoz (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hah, thank you for using my proper title (for once)! There seems to be a lot of variation in the way neuro structures are called and I have less experience about which terms are used in general to make a useful statement about which source best reflects that :(. In general factors to consider are:
 * Consistent titles with similar structures (e.g. tracts of the spinal cord can probably all be lumped together under 'x tract')
 * Commonality of use of names (e.g. n gram)
 * English where there's a choice between two fairly similar options (which seems to be the case here)
 * I think this area may require a little bit more nuance than gross anatomy where we can be guided more easily by TA. Let me know if there's anywhere I can help out. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Interstitial cell
I closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Interstitial cell. I also moved Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Interstitial cell to Articles for deletion/Interstitial cell. I believe what you intended to nominate is now nominated in the correct manner and at the correct venue. Best regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 09:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @ many thanks --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your Bot Request
Hi Tom (LT),

I am a programmer and new to Wikipedia. I saw your bot request and wanted to start working on it. I am not sure I have enough experience to operate the bot, but I definitely have enough experience to program it. Once it's programmed maybe we can find a willing operator.

Before I get started, I need to figure out what the message that gets sent to a subscriber should look like. I have created a basic demo of something that might work, but I would like some feedback. You can see it here.

Look forward to helping out.

Kadane (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I made some progress tonight. The code is finished. We just have to figure out what the message will look like that editors will receive. The template is located at User:Kadane/PRV/SampleMessageTemplate. I'll leave an example below for both Engineering and technology and Language and literature.

Example:

Kadane (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's great! One question - how will you work out which topic someone wants to get messages about? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The bot will know based off of the section heading the person places the PRV tag under on WP:PRV. If they want multiple update they will have to put PRV under each section they want to subscribe to. Kadane (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * just want to express my thanks again for picking this request up. Much appreciated! --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to help Kadane (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Status query
Hello Tom, can you give a look to the Liver page. It was classed as B and an editor recently reclassed it as a C. I changed it back and shortly afterwards the same editor changed it back again. I think it's a B class what do you think? --Iztwoz (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @ thanks for your edits around WP and to the vital articles project. We notice you've set the class of liver to C. Both Iztwoz and I are highly active in the anatomy Wikiproject and have rated thousands of articles - you can check our contributions log to verify this. Liver meets our B class criteria from an anatomy perspective - it is suitably comprehensive, written, has a suitable number of images, is adequately verified; better than C class but worse than a GA, a standard we would consider B class. As far as the grand scheme of things go this isn't that important, but just to let you know I have changed it back to "B". --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PS the WikiProject is WP:ANAT - please join us if it's something you're interested in! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @ this does make me wonder though... I wonder how much effort it would take to bring this to GA... --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably not a lot. If you wanted to go with this I'll help where I can (and when I can) - time is a bit limited for me these days. Best--Iztwoz (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Mass Message to WP:PRV
Hey ,

I saw you made a mass message for WP:PRV. I want to help keep the BRFA moving towards approval. I have generated a mailing list that follows the correct formatting at User:Kadane/PRV/Mailing_List. If you want you can move it to your user space so you can make the request. I move back to college on Tuesday and will be back to my regular schedule on Monday the 20th. I am hoping by then we will have enough people sign up to get a trial run approved. Let me know your thoughts. Kadane (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Was that the entire list of contributors ?!! that's a bit sad, it looked like about 115 or so entries. You may have seen me surreptitiously planning a message or two in the background here (User:Tom_(LT)/Peer_review_mass_message), also quietly debuting a WikiProject here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Peer review). I am still touching up the links and wording and so forth and will send out a message by this Wednesday. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is indeed the entire list of contributors. There are 123 total PRV tags on the WP:PRV page, but only 88 of them are unique. Here is a better overview of the subscribers and their sections User:Kadane/PRV/Jsondump/Pretty. This bot, the Wikiproject, and your advertising efforts should help bolster numbers going forward. In the mean time, you may want to change your subscription status from annually to monthly during the trial period so that I have enough people to message for the BRFA.


 * I have been keeping an eye on your contributions, it's looking good. Wednesday sounds great as far as the timeline goes. Will you do me a favor and correct the spelling of my name on your message so that anyone can contact me if they have questions? Best Kadane (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, mass message sent. We'll see who responds... --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sexual Differentiation
Thanks for the co-operation in the article of sexual differentiation. I think we improved it. Cheers. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we did too. Unfortunately I don't have that much time for WP these days but it was nice to work with you. Please feel free to contact me, or us at WP:ANAT if there's any other articles you have thoughts on. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I 'll have that in mind! Is there another wikiproject focused on human embryology? Or is embryology within Anatomy's scope?Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @ WikiProject Anatomy covers human embryology. A list of all articles and redirects within the project's scope relating to embryology is here: Category:Anatomy_articles_about_embryology. You can also have a look at our most viewed 500 articles for those that relate to embryology here (WP:ANAT500). Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Your valued opiniion
Hello Tom - have been back on the rib cage and rib pages and suggested a merge of rib to rib cage. In the past (!) I merged some pages to rib cage such as Head of rib, Neck of rib. I don't know why I merged to rib cage and not to rib. Any thoughts please.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @. I remember seeing you make those mergers. I think it is simpler to have a division between rib cage (the whole structure) vs rib (anatomy of the single rib), so I think head, neck and what not should be redirected to rib. We use a similar structure for vertebral column / vertebra. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you - makes more sense.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

NO WAY!
Stop the presses... I actually convinced someone on Wikipedia!!! this has NEVER happened before. :-p All jokes aside, I want you to know I appreciate our dialogues. :-) -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @ thank you for your message! One of our strengths here is to bring different points of view together with the same goal, which at the end of the day is to create a good encyclopaedia. So thanks for changing my mind :). I hope as I scratch your back you can scratch mine by apppreciating that (although we can't change it) "settlement" is not the greatest name for that template taking into account all the way it's used :P. I must say it is quite nice to have a level discussion about something here! --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yea not sure why "settlement" was the decided name, but oh well! Keep doing what you're doing my friend. Don't hesitate to ping me if I can ever be of service. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Mind updating your comment on this tfd to support (assuming that is in fact what you meant with your last comment). -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox settlement wrappers
You have been involved in previous similar discussions. A new batch of wrappers has been proposed for replacement: Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 28 77.191.81.0 (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Soliciting volunteers again? What would your mother think?
"Thanks for pointing this out, FLIP1970. Unfortunately we don't have that many anatomy editors to attend to your feedback right now. On the other hand, it seems like you have a good idea about what needs to be do so... how about attempting it yourself! (Wikipedia is made up of volunteers after all!) You have an account and I'd love to lend a hand if you give it a go. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)"

Hmmm… maybe. Standard caution on wishes, etc.

Still trying to figure out how WP Talk works as a messaging mechanism. Maybe a BBS is the approximate model?

I am a retired systems engineer so perhaps not the most general of reader or writer. In many contexts, including marketing and sales, I have developed content to explain specialist or technical content to those having lives where the specialty is not the pole of their existence. In such an effort I have biases toward techniques I have found effective: hierarchical descent from general to detail, reader/listener’s mental model construction then journey, mindfulness of learning styles and goal(s) of the content (tutorial, inform, persuade, entertain, debate, reference, etc.). I have reviewed the “Heart_development” section “Endocardial tubes” for possible re-write. In addition to the references already given, I have searched and reviewed what embryology references might be available with emphasis on discernible academic affiliation to indicate some hope of authority. Challenges:


 * Intended readership? - I have reviewed the style guides Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Technical_language, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles and its #Anatomy sub-section. Most of the Heart_development article could be assessed as WP style-guides-challenged, seemingly lightly paraphrased from medical texts and journal articles heavy on tasty medical Latin. Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable gives the WP institutional policy on ‘grades’ of readers. What is Team Anatomy’s target reader grade?  Target scoring on readabilityofwikipedia.com or readabilityscore.com ? Many obvious common English substitutions for medical Latin would move the needle toward more general readership without loss of rigor. Acceptable? Desirable? Is it possible that some of the medical Latin terms in the existing content were used not because there is no common English substitute phrase but because the terms have available hyperlink targets in other WP articles (see text corpus)? As just demonstrated, there are style ways to do both but see below on length.


 * Visual learners hosed – The core of the article is the textual description of a complex, Galilean manifold of tissue change, tissue field mechanical re-modeling and signaling. There is no hope for visual learners here. Possibly because CC-licensed, 3D illustrations are not available? Most of what 3D I have found are lifts from Langman’s. My preferred technique is to start with a picture or diagram, annotate it then write to it. Covers both visual and textual learners.


 * If a more general readership style is used it will tend to increase article length compared to a compact jargon style. Textual gymnastics compensation for visual learners will add length as well if suitably licensed illustration is not available. For example, at narrative start on Day 18 the human embryonic disc component could be said to be approximately stingray shaped, which gives an immediate 3D visual of its shape for the general reader. The existing diagram of the embryo shape is a 2D epiblast-normal view and is presented free of implantation geometry context, so it only works if you already know the 3D shape. Conversely, abandon visual learners?


 * In a chronological model, both “Endocardial tubes” and “Heart tube position” contain information which seem as if it should be inter-woven.


 * English or American English spelling preference? For example, ‘fertilisation‘ vs. ‘fertilization’. I use Libre Office for draft work so have access to its tools and extensions for language and style.


 * Clearly, I blather on, like bullet points and occasionally fugue in to oracular pedantic pontification. Pre-pub external edit for length, style and technical is a must.

FLIP1970 (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a great and considered reply I would encourage you to start making some small edits and, as you get more confident, move on to making larger edits. Everyone is a volunteer here and so brings their own perspective about where the needle should lie in terms of language and organisation, although as you note there are some overarching guidelines. In general articles should be written a level below the intended audience, so specialised articles may contain more technical language than general articles. My perspective is here: WP:ANATSIMPLIFY. Often we can write things appropriately and, in my experience, at the same length or more compactly than with technical jargon. Would be happy to work with you to improve a target set of articles or help you as you learn the ropes. This is a very rewarding experience, about 30 million people, or so view our articles every month, some articles receiving more attention than others (WP:ANAT500) --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting page move
Hello Tom - have just posted a comment on the Development of the nervous system in humans, talk page. Wondered about your opinion on this.? Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Troll comment
I want to be very clear, that comment was NOT directed at you. Your comments have not been remotely troll like. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Puke
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Puke. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

ping notification
I think I did something wrong and you might not have gotten pinged with my 03:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC) post at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_28--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

South African municipality
You took part in Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 4 and might be interested in Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 3. 77.13.162.22 (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Sinusoid
Hi Tom - Sinusoid (blood vessel) was merged to capillary as it was one of the types listed there and shown on diagram. The page was tagged for merge in September 2018 and merged without contest this month. It needs further work on - the page before merge had several uncited tags. At the moment it is none too clear but there is the page Liver sinusoid and seems like more could be added re placental - so personally don't feel that it should be moved - at the moment it fits onto page and think a separate sinusoid (blood vessel) page unnecessarily confusing. But that's just my general reader's thoughts. best --Iztwoz (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:List of rivers of Tajikistan
[Template:List of rivers of Tajikistan]] Unused navbox with no parent article (redlink).
 * List of rivers of Tajikistan


 * Tom: Does this template need any other links? Help me out here.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I have no idea. I have no special knowledge of Tajikistan and have never lived there, been there, studied about, or know any Tajikstanians I could ask. If you would like to flesh out this list perhaps you could do some research yourself? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of link language wrapper templates (June 2019)
A discussion has started about wrapper templates of Link language. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. E^pi*i batch (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC) ( is my main account.)

Membership renewal


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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:WikiProject Peer review pages


A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject Peer review pages requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CEN is now open!
To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

Body cavity
Hi Tom - hope all is well, you don't seem to have been around much lately. Just thought I would mention the page body cavity something seems amiss (to me) at first it states that body cavity refers to any fluid-filled space in an animal and goes on to include human body cavities that are not filled with fluid such as the cranial cavity. Am I missing something here? The fluid containing cavities such as the pleural cavity, are not mentioned. All best --Iztwoz (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, unfortunately (from a Wikipedia point of view) I've been on an intense two year training program that is pretty all absorbing. I agree the body cavity page is strange and also that it is weirdly organised. I might post on WP anatomy and we can talk there about it. With regards to the definition - technically the cranial cavity is fluid filled (with cerebrospinal fluid) but frankly the lay definition of a body cavity is, surely, a cavity that is in the body. It just happens that most are fluid filled and therefore some people describe them like that. I have however heard the orbital cavity described as one which is surely an exception and clearly it is not completely filled with fluid anteriorly. Hope everything is going well on your side! --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tom I went ahead and did some editing without noticing that you had already done some - I hope I didn't affect anything you did - I did make it more 'human body' oriented but of course if that's not wanted feel free to change - apologies again for possibly giving you more work.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @ actually these aren't so bad. I linked the set to the relevant non cavity articles (eg "Thorax" to "Thoracic cavity") and left it at that. The cavity articles are in surprisingly good form. --Tom (LT) (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Abdomen
Hello Tom have just made some edits on Abdomen page - is the table really necessary? and should I ask such things here on on article talk page? Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @ no strong feeling here. Tried to neaten some things up and didn't really see the point of the bullet points there; a table is a little easier I think but wouldn't object if it were removed completely. --Tom (LT) (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Unanswered Peer Review Requests
Hello Tom (LT), This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).

''You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing!'' KadaneBot (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

AfC pointers
Thank you for your recommendations on drafts and for your interest in becoming more involved at Articles for Creation.

Participants list
The first hurdle is getting your name on the list of participants. With your experience, you should be a shoe-in and a very welcome addition to our corps, but because AfC has had problems in the past there's a somewhat convoluted process to follow:
 * 1) Read WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants.
 * 2) * The one thing it links to that you probably aren't already familiar with is WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions.
 * 3) Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, click "add request", and sketch out in a sentence or two what you would like to do.

Tools
--Worldbruce (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Thanks @ I appreciate your message and instructions. I've followed them (except for adding request revdel as I don't feel confident using that yet). --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Click Special:Preferences, scroll down to the "Editing" section and ensure the box for "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" is checked. Then scroll to the bottom and click "Save". This will add a "Review" tool to the "More" drop down at the top of the page. It will only be visible when the current page is in the draft or user space. It will only work correctly after your name has been added to the participants list. There have been recent reports of a serious bug when using the tool with Internet Explorer or Microsoft Edge, so I hope you're using another browser. See WP:AFCH for more information about the tool.
 * A vital step in the reviewing instructions is to check for copyright violations. The description in the instructions of how to do this is medieval. In practice reviewers use a tool. If you add the line  to User:Tom (LT)/common.js, you'll get a "Copyvio check" tool in the left-hand panel. Click it as the first step in reviewing every draft. It will run Earwig's Copyvio Detector on the current page.
 * If you encounter a copyright violation, then you may have to mark some revisions for deletion. You don't have to use a tool, but most reviewers find it easier. If you add the line  to User:Tom (LT)/common.js, you'll get a "Request CV revdel" link in the "More" drop down at the top of the page.
 * One way to help reviewers find drafts they want to review is to tag drafts with WikiProject templates. The draft will then appear in the project's article alerts (if that's what drew you to AfC, I'd be interested in hearing it). This can be done manually, but another script makes it quicker. If you add the line  to User:Tom (LT)/common.js, you'll get a "Sort (draft)" link in the "More" drop down at the top of the page.
 * Twinkle is handy for requesting speedy deletion or taking a draft to MfD. It looks like you're already a user

Quadripedal
Hi Tom, I'd changed the image "File:1303 Human Neuroaxis.jpg" on Commons (after a request at the Teahouse) before I realised that it was from your own text book. Apologies for any offence that I might have caused. It was not intended. I'm happy for you to delete my version which has the wrong font. Thank you for all your expert contributions to Wikipedia. Dbfirs 08:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. There must be some mistake as I haven't released any books about anatomy :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my misunderstanding based on "own work". I guess someone uploaded it from OpenStax CNX which has the appropriate licence, but it wasn't you.  Sorry to have bothered you.  My "investigations" were defective.  <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  07:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Epiglottis
The article Epiglottis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Epiglottis for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ManfromButtonwillow -- ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Xander Ligament
Hi Tom. I know almost nothing about editing Wikipedia, so I hope that I am sending this message correctly. I am the guy who made a YouTube video with a joke about renaming a ligament of the human body, that later made it into a published journal article. One of my viewers thought it would be funny to change the Wikipedia page for the median umbilical ligament. You were the one who fixed the page (thank you), and the person from whom I found out about the published article containing the term. I was wondering what the event looked like from your perspective. How did you know to fix the ligament page? How did you find the published article? I have tried contacting the authors of the article a few times and they have not responded. I hope things are going well for you! ARToftness 14:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I too tried to contact them. I think I had a look at recent changes to articles and someone had made a fairly benign change. Out of interest I checked out the article and saw "Xander" and thought - well, that must have interesting history as a word as it doesn't sound like typical eponymous names for anatomical things (which are usually Latinate, Greek, or German)... which led me to discover it. I thought it was pretty interesting how it had come about. I wonder if we explored publishing this as a letter to a medical journal, perhaps Journal of Anatomy? I'll explore this further and send you an email via Wikipedia if you're interested. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your reply. Writing a letter does sound interesting! Please let me know what you discover as you explore that possibility. As an exciting update, I have received an email from the first author of the journal article that used the terminology "Xander Ligament" -- in which the author also expressed his confusion as to where the term came from. Apparently, it wasn't used in several early drafts of the article, and it was not in the version sent out for peer review. He shared with me evidence of this. It must have been added at some point, but he says he does not know when that would have been, or what the source of the term was. The second author of the article no longer works at Mayo, which may explain why our attempts to contact the corresponding author (the second author) did not work. It is good that I tried contacting the first author directly (using a different article to find his email address). Please let me know your thoughts. ARToftness (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Quarter-Million Award for Epiglottis
Thanks for your work on this important article, and for everything else you've done with WikiProject Medicine. I noticed that you have a lot of other GAs, would you like me to check them for million awards? Some of them look like vital articles that would have high readership. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk page Comment
Hi Tom and a Happy New Year, but I would appreciate it if you could restore my talk page I tried the revert button you provided but it does not work. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have managed to do this now. Sorry but - "Once a rebel always a rebel", and zero potential for change. I shall do a bit of clean up on page.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hah! Righteo then. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Request help with new Council for WikiProjects
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

Request help with possible new Council for WikiProjects

Hi. I am trying to create a forum where various WIkiProjects can exchange ideas and information about their best ideas, efforts, methods, and accomplishments. I am the Lead Coordinator at WikiProject History. I tried to create an active exchange at WikiProject Council, but did not get very far when I tried to do so.

I would like to get some interested editors together who might be interested in helping with this idea, either with getting WikiProject Council moving again, or creating a whole new WikiProject to do so.

You can sign up to help at WikiProject Editors Forum/Members. Right now, this page is a redirect to a draft in my user space; we will move it to the project space as soon as we have ten people signed up.

eventually, the goal would be to have a few people from a wide variety of WikiProjects and varioous topical areas, working together at WIkiProject Council, to help us create a forum and an exchange for ideas and information.

Would you be interested in helping with this? Please let me know. If you wish, you can simply comment on my talk page to let me know any comments or thoughts on this. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Idea for new community workspace
Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

You have been very helpful, so I wanted to get your brief input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen. I see a few possible options for making this happen, so I would like to get your input and feedback on this. which of the options below would you prefer? also, please reply to the brief questions below.


 * Would you be interested in an idea of this nature?
 * If so, which option below seems most feasible to you?
 * Create a new page/talk page at the existing WikiProject Council, where members of various WikiProject can gather to offer updates, information and ideas on the latest efforts at each of their own WikiProject, such as WikiProject Council/Town Hall.
 * Create an entirely new WikiProject with an inclusive name such as
 * WIkiProject Town Hall,
 * WikiProject Bulletin Board,
 * WikiProject Water Cooler
 * Create a new collaborative page or forum, but not as a new WIkiProject, i.e. with some name like
 * Town Hall or
 * Water Cooler
 * Create a new sub-page in my own userspace, such as User:Sm8900/Town Hall
 * Create a subpage at an umbrella-type WikiProject that already covers a broad topical area, such as WikiProject History/Town Hall

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I saw your efforts at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council. If you want my two cents, I'd advise as I mentioned before to do things gradually, with consensus, and recognise that a WP is active because of its members (rather than by, say, direction or a lead editor). Additionally, in my experience it's fruitless to reinvent the wheel here on WP, so I'd participate in what we already have rather than try and create something completely new. Therefore I would advise you to stop your mainpage edits to WP council (it doesn't seem to be going very well with the editors there), take stock, and propose creating a task force under the project (such as "Wikiproject Council/Forum" or "/Town hall") with the purpose of having blue-sky discussions in general about Wikiprojects and ideas for revitalisation and crossmingling of ideas etc. My feeling is that it might be better to have a local venue for your enthusiasm to discuss with other editors some ideas about what to do before you start actually doing anything. If there are a few interested editors in your idea, then you can localise all your discussion there. Hope that helps, --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Although as I think about it, it seems like things have calmed down over there. The main discussion page might be a great place to keep having a chat. I do think it's useful that someone keeps bringing up these basic issues, as that kind of energy does stimulate thinking which may eventually result in a solution (taking into account that, unlike mainspace, in Wikiprojects changes occur via consensus rather than boldness) --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pancreas
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pancreas 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 Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pancreas
The article Pancreas you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pancreas for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Angiotensin-converting_enzyme_2
Hello, may I ask if you know the answers to the questions posted at Talk:Angiotensin-converting_enzyme_2? I am not confident of my answer there and would like to seek for your assistance. Thank you!

--Reciprocater (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me; I see others have already responded on the talk page. I've done my best to simplify the lead. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Reciprocater (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Page name
Hi Tom - have just moved page funiculus neuroanatomy to funiculus neurology but think this was a wrong move ? Thank you --Iztwoz (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @ sorry for the delay. Agree that "neuroanatomy" is more appropriate. I'll propose a RM on the talk page for yourself and others to comment.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pancreas
The article Pancreas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pancreas for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom (LT), just a note: if you've got the time/interest, Good_article_nominations is severely backlogged, with nominations languishing for many months (as yours did) before they get a review. By the time reviews come along, nominators have often lost track of sources or are busy in real life. If you've got time to undertake a thorough review and help unclog the process, it'd be much appreciated. That said, if instead you're improving articles, that's probably a good use of your time too. I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yeh I have reviewed quite a few GAs as you can see on my main page. I usually can't commit the amount or regularity of the time to do a good GA review so I stick to gradual editing with some occasional sprints at the moment. When I have time or don't feel like editing I move to the reviewing side of things which is also quite enjoyable. At the moment with things heating up at the moment in the real world I don't think I'm going to have time for either. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your response to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy/Archive_12!

I have made a new post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy. Utfor (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thymus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thymus 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 Cinadon36 -- Cinadon36 (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Tasks for conduction aphasia
Thank you so much. I've completed each task you've asked me to do in the GA review for Conduction aphasia. You should check it out. Kori ( @ ) 01:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thymus
The article Thymus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thymus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cinadon36 -- Cinadon36 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trachea
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trachea 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 Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edits on the article on Defecation
Your recent edits may have left the last paragraph of "Physiology" incomplete. Please take a look. Andreas Carter (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @ could you please be less vague, they all look complete to me. Secondly, WP:SOFIXIT. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trachea
The article Trachea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trachea for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

fyi
PLS SEE Village pump (proposals).-- Moxy 🍁 11:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not clear why this has been posted here, but thank you for the link to that discussion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Manganese, Minnesota
Care to do a peer review? You peer reviewed the article Elcor, Minnesota and helped elevate it to FA status. This one has been sitting out there for a couple months. Thanks! DrGregMN (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Another fascinating read. Thanks for your edits to the article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Antibiotic sensitivity testing
Hi Tom, it would be better to use the Talk Page rather than leave long edit summaries as you did here. A discussion through edit summaries is rarely productive or collegiate. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, completely agree with that. Hopefully we can both improve in our use of edit summaries and the talk page. You have just deleted a quote as 'not necessary' (Special:Diff/966276919/966359760). I provided this quote because you recently deleted the entire statement, despite it already having a source to back it up (Special:Diff/966137544/966137750). This is confusing. Seeing as a running commentary on the article has been provided in your edit summaries, despite my proposal to discuss on the talk page (Special:Diff/966080415/966080495), I have assumed that was your preferred method of communication. All this said, the article is looking much better following our edits. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Prostate
Hi, Tom... what is your preferred method for collaborating on content? I don’t take on GA reviews because ... well, I don’t find the GA process very useful, as one person’s opinion ... but I can help you tune up the prose for your GA review. Different people I have collaborated with use different methods. Have you ever worked with inline (hidden) comments, where reviewers embed hidden comments and questions in the text, so you can resolve them as you have time? Or do you prefer lists on article talk? Or do you prefer that I directly edit the article? Most reviewers are hesitant to edit directly, so as to not mess with your GAN ... But also, leaving long lists on article talk might discourage GA reviewers from taking it on ... let me know how to approach the work, and I will dig in as I have time. It is in pretty good shape already! Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am always trying to rope people into collaborating. If you'd like to edit collaboratively that's great. If you'd like to collaborate by providing some feedback that's good too. If that's the case, I can still personally identify a number of areas in Prostate that need work so I would be more than happy to ping you when it's at a standard I'm happy with and then we can go from there (I don't see much point until then, as you'll likely start by commenting on those areas).
 * With respect to the utility of GA, I am a big fan. The anatomy space has really been quite untended since the mammoth work put in by in 2007. The standards set by GA - that is; statements are verifiable; content is easy to read; article is comprehensive; images are acceptable - they are not difficult to meet but I find them very useful goalposts to get articles to, as anatomy articles often need quite a bit of work to get them there. I feel these standards are useful because they do help improve the reading experience and also the content. Once they hit that standard, I feel articles are also easier to periodically keep an eye on to ensure that they remain there. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With regard to FA, a horrible and public experience that occurred to me earlier in my editing has really turned me off it. At that time I felt as if it was run by a cabal of editors who made a number of, what seemed to me, unrealistic demands in a very time-consuming manner that were not able to be discussed, and then concurrently edited in a stylistic manner, which at the end of the day served to utilise my hard work on the articles, but felt as it was mostly to remove my imprint and push me out of their editing space. It was quite stressful and time-consuming. So I prefer to stick away from that for the moment.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Tom, sorry to take so long to get back to you; it's been one thing after another. I wasn't trying to convince you to head to FAC: I was offering my reasoning for why I would help with the article, but not engage the GAN.  And explaining that I don't want to drop a wall of text on the article talk page if they will be off-putting for the GAN.  I can help with this article simply because I have more knowledge than I'd like to have about the prostate, and can suggest a number of improvements. But only if you want, and only when you're closer to ready!  I just want to know here where to park my notes so they won't interfere with your GAN (your talk, my talk, article talk, or sandbox).  And if you don't want the additional feedback, that's fine, too (because I try to always work to FA standard, and it may be more than you want to take on).  (What was your dreadful FA experience, if you don't mind saying?)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Have responded below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * Thanks, the sources were appreciated.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on some other articles
Hi, reflecting on your earlier offer of collaboration there are two articles which over many years I have decided would be good to get to WP:GA status and ideally one day WP:FA, so collaboration and feedback would be much appreciated. Those articles are Anatomical terms of location and Anatomical terminology. Unlike what I've said above about some articles, I think an eventual WP:FA is likely to contribute significantly and constructively, because the focus on utmost readability, consistency and comprehensiveness is very important. Those articles (and the "anatomical terms of" set) are to me very important articles for the anatomy space. They receive lots of views, and if written and structured well they have the potential to assist their hundreds of thousands of viewers to gain a better understanding of anatomy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I have delayed in getting back to you ... six-hour drive to cabin tomorrow, and then three days when I can catch up, more later, pls ping me if I forget! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Catching up now. OK, unlike prostate, I know next-to-nothing about anatomy, but I can help mentor you through the process and help assure you are well prepared before you approach FAC. Which of the two do you want to take on first?  And how does that relate to your timing on the prostate GAN?  I am struggling to keep up, so want to prioritize.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not too rushed about prostate; usually I wait 6 - 9 months before the GAs are reviewed. Anatomical terms of location would be most helpful. I know it is not yet ready for GA however having edited it for the last 6 years I am really struggling to view it from an external perspective to get a grip on both major and minor issues that it's facing --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am way behind on things I owe people ... would it be OK then to hold off until you are through GA? You can follow some of the comments and edits I am making at two other articles as they work their way up to FAC ... complete blood count and Buruli ulcer ... and then I can engage yours with more focus and time once you are closer to ready. This archived discussion might help, and page numbers are now being requested, even on journal citations (see References at dementia with Lewy bodies).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're quite busy! My quasi-FA experience, from two people I thought were FA regulars, that was here: Special:Permalink/901168385 (now removed from my talk page). I think I also have matured in my editing since then so I may have responded in a different way, but that was a really dis-spiriting experience. Thanks for your help and advice so far. My concrete plan is this: I will wait for both to pass GA; then I'll ping you for your suggested improvements to Prostate, and will do what I can with references post GA for ATOL prior to pinging you about that one. I've posted also on WikiProject Anatomy talk page for some feedback there. See you in 2021 (when I these will probably get reviewed), --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. Yes, I'm still backlogged from the Arb Case, and have struggled to catch up.  For now, I will take these off my to-do list then.  When you are ready for feedback, would you mind posting to my talk page instead of pinging me?  One problem I am having is that I lost track of pings, whereas when something is on my talk page, I don't archive it until it's done.  That is, I can use my talk page as a To Do list, and not have to deal with those dreadful pingie thingies. All the best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Defecation
I do hope you make this into GA, for reasons. HansonJunior (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet you . What made you interested in that page and to think to contact me? Unfortunately I don't have time to bring it to GA myself, however I'm happy to help out if you'd like to try. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Intermammary cleft
Hi Tom can you intervene on this - if you think warranted - the page ought to be just about the anatomic structure which granted is very small but an editor has kept trying to make it relevant to cleavage (breasts) page. I gave up on edits since the person is mindbent on this, but have just noticed that it was redirected to cleavage (breasts) page. I have reverted this but cannot retrieve the talk page - also its likely to get reverted. Alternatively to get this page away from cleavage is there another anatomy page it could fit into. Thank you --Iztwoz (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @ that article really has really changed quite a bit. Thanks for notifying me.
 * In my opinion, Cleavage (breasts) is like dimple, one of those anatomy space articles covered mostly from a social and cultural point of view. I will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red who might be able to help bring a broader group of editors to desensationalise the article.
 * With regard to intermammary cleft, I agree that these are two separate articles with significant cross-over; one is about the anatomical area, and one is about the visible area that only includes part of the visible surface of the anatomical space, so they don't always match up. I've reverted and requested further discussion.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are two discussions you may be interested in - this (a merger discussion) and this (response to you post). Thanks.
 * BTW, looking at the complaints and issues raised, I have removed the non-anatomical stuff from the anatomical article, inclduing content about pathology. A focused article for everyone to develop (though I doubt that this article will ever have enough content to move beyond a start class, right now closer to a stub). Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prostate
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prostate 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 Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ureter
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ureter 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 Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Antibiotic sensitivity testing
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Antibiotic sensitivity testing 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 Larry Hockett -- Larry Hockett (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Antibiotic sensitivity testing
The article Antibiotic sensitivity testing you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Antibiotic sensitivity testing for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Larry Hockett -- Larry Hockett (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prostate
The article Prostate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prostate for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ureter
The article Ureter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ureter for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of patient-reported quality of life surveys for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of patient-reported quality of life surveys is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of patient-reported quality of life surveys until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Epidural administration
Hope all is well. If you have time, and since you recently made some major edits to the page, would you mind taking a look at Epidural administration and seeing if the changes I've made are good? If not, it's totally okay - I plan to keep working on this article over time and hopefully take it to GA eventually. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 07:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @ looks great. I have made some edits for grammar, copyediting, and to highlight some statements that are uncited. I note that a few sentences around the place need sources, and a few sources that are used could be updated to be more reliable (either more recent, or moved from a primary to a secondary source). Overall looks good. Feel free to disagree with my edits and edit on top of them. Let me know if you'd like further input closer to GA. I'm pleased we are able to get it looking so much better as compared with where it was. I wonder if a way to break up the long 'complications' section might be to divide it up into subsections, some ideas I have are something like "Failure to work" (pain control, complete failure - not sure if this section will be too sure), "Systemic effects", and "Local effects" (bruising, bleeding etc. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Antibiotic sensitivity testing
The article Antibiotic sensitivity testing you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Antibiotic sensitivity testing for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Larry Hockett -- Larry Hockett (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Ulcerative colitis GA
Hi Tom, thanks for having a look! Absolutely, I'll go ahead and get that cleaned up shortly with additional citations. Thanks for bringing that to my attention! Rytyho usa (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anatomical terms of location
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anatomical terms of location 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 ArnabSaha -- ArnabSaha (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for advice on article
Hi Tom, thanks for your comments on Draft:Sano Genetics. It would be great to get some more clarity on what kind of news articles would qualify for a Wikipedia article? The note mentioned that the references used only have passing mentions of the topic, but it is the main focus of the feature from the Guardian, and is featured as one of 15 by Business Insider. Do these not qualify? Or do are the publications not considered reliable? I haven't included some industry publication coverage as I didn't think that would qualify so it would be great to get a better idea of what qualifies! Thanks for your help! Clarealev (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not believe these are independent reliable sources per WP:ORG. One is a list of 15 startups to watch, and one relies heavily on information the company provides. You are welcome to make any changes you see fit to the draft and then request a third opinion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Unopened requests for peer review


A tag has been placed on Category:Unopened requests for peer review requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 16:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia peer reviews not in talk namespace


A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia peer reviews not in talk namespace requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 16:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Request on 18:21:29, 6 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Tulkas76
Dear Tom,

Thank you very much for your kind message. I will try to do my best to improve the article.

Best regards,

Tulkas76 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Tulkas76 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Seminal vesicles
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Seminal vesicles 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 Berchanhimez -- Berchanhimez (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Seminal vesicles
The article Seminal vesicles you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Seminal vesicles for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Berchanhimez -- Berchanhimez (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Opera templates
Tom, I asked you two questions three days ago, regarding specific opera templates. I tried to ping you, but perhaps made a mistake. On Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 5, please take a look at Bizet and Pergolesi, unless you just want to read the comments by Voceditenore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda, sorry yes I was thinking sbout my reply and then got distracted. I can only see the one question, yes I can confirm I've viewed the sidebar. I can see that I dont hold the majority opiniom but I can also confirm I find them to be useful, although I am approaching this from my general perspective. Its great to see a number of editors participating. I appreciate your yearly precious gems by the way :). Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One question is about Bizet, the other about a specific opera by Pergolesi. I'd really like to understand what in the sidebar you find useful. I was unable to understand in these seven years since I was restricted for battleground behaviour because I thought the side navboxes are clearly redundant. Did you know that It took me about a year to see that the little "show" button below the composer's image - old Handel for his youthful works - opened something? In a recent DYK review about an opera, I was asked if I had no better image to offer than of the composer. So - just for my enlightenment, can you explain what you find useful (for half of our readers, while the other half doesn't see any of it, which makes it somewhat unfair to start with)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I personally find that they are useful because they contain only a small amount of links and, if I was viewing an article about an opera, operas by the same composer would be one of the first things I'd like to see. From my own perspective, I've found sidebars quite useful when they contains some useful links. The concerns you mention above see to be mostly cosmetic; so I would address these (as I have in the past with sidebar edits) by making the picture smaller and auto showing the links. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. We obviously look differently. When I come to an opera article, I want to know about that opera, not be taken elsewhere. That's my main concern. The topic "opera" is - for all composer navboxes I know and made - the top topic, and clearly separated from others, see Georges Bizet, therefore the "scope" argument that Nikkimaria brought up, and that Voceditenore has refuted now, is of minimal concern if any. Did you know why the five Bizet operas had a side navbox and no infobox, as all of Bizet's masterworks? Because of respect for one certain user who created them and hated infoboxes, only, that user hasn't edited in years. I thought we could drop the consideration of one person's interest now, in the interest of the many users who - like myself - want to know about the opera first, not other operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps make a short note in the deletion discussions that you answered here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I really enjoy working with lots of different volunteers on this website, as it's usually the case there are many points of view which often leads to a better outcome than a single voice, even if I don't necessarily agree. Because many discussions are subjective there will be times when we disagree and I also don't see a problem there, and I try to treat each topic on its merits rather than based on the involvement or past involvement of editors. I don't however have anything else to say on this matter, and am happy if you want to add that you have discussed this with me on my talk page on those discussions.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, - I didn't want to do that without your consent. I agree with every word you said in this response, especially "each topic on its merit", but that is exactly the reason why I wanted a response specifically for the case of Livietta e Tracollo which, when you commented "useful", looked like this. You didn't answer, so I don't know if you looked, and still not what might have been useful, but I no longer care. Thanks to Voceditenore, that article is at peace, and the topic will be, I am sure. Seven years of perceived war, in which I was perceived as the key aggressor, were seven years too many. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Before I could add that we talked, the discussions were closed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Vitamin K: GA review
Copyright check in August: at that time, three sites (m,blog, Youngevity Wiki, Mays3.weebly) showed >95% probability of match. Very likely these were copies of Wikipedia rather than the other way around, as they all appeared to have content that was in the July 2015 version of the Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting this underway. I intend to start by addressing the citations needed and excess citations, and then continue with the other items. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, great to hear. Would you mind putting further comments about the review on the review page? :) That way it's nice and centralised for everyone. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. David notMD (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

At the review, added reply that all Citations needed have been addressed. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

At the review, I believe I have addressed all of the Readability comments. David notMD (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

List of insect-borne diseases
Not sure if this was something in your wheelhouse or just felt it was a decent list to make, but thought I'd let you know that the conversion from template to list is done. Feel free to hack and slash in whatever manner you feel fit. Primefac (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will have a look --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Article milestone
Tom, as part of ratcheting up the new FAC PR template, I have also been trying to clean up article milestones. GimmeBot used to incorporate all talk page templates into Template:Article history, but he was chased off by a sock and a prima donna, and no bot has done it all since. I am trying to understand why this did not convert to the Template:Old peer review ... I had to go find it manually. Bst, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is weird. User:Writ Keeper developed the script (for which I remain ever-grateful, although it is not always 100% reliable) and I tend to bring up those sorts of thing with them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Bold edits to templates
I'm not too familiar with the template space so I thought I would ask for your advice before I potentially do something stupid. Are bold moves of navboxes allowed? I've been looking at Myeloid blood tests again and feel more strongly than ever that it should be moved to Clinical hematology blood tests - and I get the impression you and I are the only editors who care deeply about these things, so I don't think it would be controversial. But I've noticed that you tend to open TfDs in situations where I would be tempted to just make a bold edit, so I thought perhaps there might be a policy/guideline/unwritten rule against doing that... Spicy (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think that sounds like a great move and you can do it boldly, certainly there's no need to go via TfD. I have also been making some bold edits in the background :).
 * In general I propose template stuff there (via Twinkle, which is amazing if you don't have it) if it's likely to be controversial, if it's going to be difficult to undo (eg moving lots of links), or if it's a good central place to discus something (eg if I plan to do a partial merge and split and so TfD is the best central place). I don't think your planned move satisfies any of those criteria. Also very happy to be pinged if you need more opinions or help with template stuff. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit of Template:Old peer review
@ I notice your sandbox of this template has a function that would be immensely beneficial to the bot you suggested and that I am operating. The function is that the existence of a valid reviewedname removes the broken link category. I am wondering if it is possible to add that functionality to Template:Old peer review and Template:oldpeerreview

BJackJS talk 22:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @ have you had a chance to review the existing template Old peer review and its recently updated documentation? I have already implemented that parameter :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * @ There is a problem in that because the parameter that I specify is reviewed name, not reviewed link. The template only removed it from the category if there's a reviewedlink from what I understand. My bot operates on the reviewedname parameter. BJackJS  talk 17:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The two parameters are "reviewedname" which your bot checks for, and "archivelink" which is used when the peer review template is used for some old reviews (like WP:Scientific peer review etc.). Let's continue discussion at Template talk:Old peer review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

New peer review process
Hi Tom: I'm from the WP:BIRDS project, and have volunteered to try out your new process. A couple of suggestions. 1) You might explain somewhere in your directions box that the N in ArchiveN is to be replaced with the number from the template the Peer Review setup creates. It took me a few minutes to figure out why I kept getting a red link. 2) The listing on our project's peer review page looks a bit of a mess. Is there any way to make the listing bold-headed, instead of just including it in three === marks ===? Also, is this going to put all of the peer review's verbiage on that page too? We really just need a listing of the article's awaiting peer review there, not all of the comments too. MeegsC (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi - is the current formatting any better? I also updated the instructions - let me know what you think. Really great to hear from you for feedback - I've had quite a few "thank yous" but no specific feedback, so I appreciate you taking the time to give me some. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom: Yep, both of those are nice improvements. Thanks! One more question: in the instructions, you suggest adding "November 2020" (for example) to the archived peer review, but you've added it to the active review request in our example. Does that make any difference? MeegsC (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - it doesn't make a difference. Actually I'm not sure if it's worth putting or not. My exposure to most reviews suggest they remain untended for years (I've seen some more than a decade) so I'm inclined to suggest that the Date is put there too. What do you think about that? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea to me; maybe it would goose some editors to respond. It would be great if the date got added automatically when the request was created, rather than somebody having to remember to do it. And maybe add another showing the date it’s archived? MeegsC (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anatomical terms of location
The article Anatomical terms of location you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anatomical terms of location for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ArnabSaha -- ArnabSaha (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)