User talk:Wimpus~enwiki

Latin term for arachnoid granulation
Hi. I can see that you made a change to arachnoid granulation. Where you changed the Latin term Granulationes arachnoidalesto Granulationes arachnoideae. What is your source? Because I would say that the singular form is granulatio arachnoidea and the plural form is Granulationes arachnoideae (which you changed it from). I am not a 100 % sure, but depending on your source there may be something about it. You wrote according to TA; this may be right but TA is a simplified version of the more correct latin (in lack of a better term) NA. Anyway. Thank you so much for looking into the Latin terms, I thought I was the only one who gave a danm about it. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear JakobSteenberg. The TA is actually the successor of the NA. However I doubt whether the TA is some kind of simplified version of the NA. I have the TA and TH in folio, although both are accessible online on the site of the FIPAT as scans of the book. I have not checked yet whether they have used the same print as my 1998 (TA) and 2008. (TH) edition or some updated version or a preprint of the latter. The TE on this site, which have not appeared in folio yet, is some kind of preprint, subject to corrections before appearing as book. So, I use the hardcover editions of the TA and the TH.


 * I do not have access to the last edition of the NA of 1988. There was some kind of 'misunderstanding' between the nomenclature committee and the IFAA (or its predecessor). It was not officially aproved by the IFAA when the 1988 NA appeared. Maybe this edition exhibits excellent scholarship regarding striving for Latinitas. But, I can not verify this. Hower, I do not expect that this edition deviates ifrom its predecessors with respect to Latinitas. In case you could mention some examples of this 1988 NA, that trump the TA in this respect, I would be interested to know.


 * The word arachnoidea is actually derived from Greek arachnoeides, cobweb-like. In case you want to latinize this, the actually form would be arachnoides (with ei->i). The form with -ideus/-idea/-ideum is some kind of coinage from the 18th century (or something like that). Arachoidea (I mean the actual membrane)  or arachnoides (according to the INA) could be seen of some kind of substantivation of the adjective that accompanies a possible noun like tunica, membrana or meninx. So in case you want to construct a new adjective of the substabtivated adjective arachnoides, you could perform the magical trick of adding -alis. However, this creates a so-called hybrid (nomen hybridum), a word consisting of Greek and Latin elements. But, arachnoidea, is actually also Greek with a Latin ending -eus/-ea/-eum. The latter is also common in some Greeks adjectives, but adjectives with -alis in Greek are nearly impossible,


 * I am not aware of any attested adjectives derived from substantivated adjectives ending on -eides. Triepel discusses this issue in his book from the early 20th century on anatomic nomenclature and reports that anatomists from Greece from that era are using -eidikos, which could be latinized like -idicus (and not as -idalis or -ideus). He also mentioned that forms like -idalis or -ideus should be seen as adjectives that refer to words ending on -ides. In that case,  arachnoidea would refer to arachoides. So actually, the arachnoidea (the membrane) actually contains an unneccessary second ending.


 * In 1936 the INA appeared with some input from Triepel with some corrections. Actually, the granulationes arachnoideae are referred as granula meningica. I do not have the original print of the INA, but an useful book from Kopsch from 1941 which presents in alphabetic order the list of the BNA with in the second column the equivalent names of the INA. Some of the obvious errors of the BNA were corrected, while others still remained.


 * The PNA of 1956, which unfortunately is not in my possession, used the BNA as point of departure, reintroduced previously corrected mistakes. With th PNA and succeeding editions eliminating the diphthongs ae and oe and eliminating the -i in chorioides, the -e in thyreoides, to make it more easy for he English, French, Italian, Spanish et cetera anatomists as the classical latin deviated to much from there own language considering the orthography and imposed pronunciation difficulties. I have in folio, the NA from 1966 and 1977, but these editions differ considering what is actually verboten. In the NA from 1966, only esophagus is permitted, while in the 1977 issue, the preferred spelling is esophagus, but they allow thealternative spelling oesophagus. In the TA by he way, only oesophagus is allowed. So, that puts some doubts on wheher the NA is more adhering to Latinitas than TA.


 * There are tens of examples from the NA and the TA that could be mentioned that are actually deviating from what the Romans would have composed themselves. But, in case you could explain the rationale of some choices like arachnoidales, thyroidea, meningealis, oesophagealis, which seems to contain double endings and Greek and Latin elements side by side or the constant metamorphosis of neuron, neuronum, with an unstable genitive,neuroni, neuonis, or azygos as indeclinabile in some versions of the NA while others contain the Greek genitive azygou, be my guest, because I am exited to find out. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Wimpus. Thank you for your reply. I can see that you spend a lot more time on the subject than I did. I have not changed your edit on the article and will not do so. I just wanted to check since I could remember the term granulationes arachnoidales from an anatomy textbook, so I looked it up again and could confirm that my memory was not betraying me. But I will take our word over that of my old anatomy professor, who wrote the book.
 * By the way in case you are not already doing so: After you corrrected a Latin term, could I get you to make a redirect from that term to the article plus inserting on the redirect page? I am working on makeing it easier for people who use Latin terms instead of the english terms in their daily life to access the information on Wikipedia and any help is deeply appreciated. Again, thank you for taking the time to reply and looking into the Latin term in the anatomy articles. JakobSteenberg (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jakob. thank you for your reply. I am going to figure out how to create a redirect with inserting the part you mentioned. I do however have a few questions concerning which Latin nomenclature to use. I use the current TA and TH, but normally I reinstate the eliminated diphthong, as was used in the the versions predating the PNA, like the BNA and the INA. The diphthong already returned in oesophagus, taenia, caeruleus, caecum, but is still absent in the TA in aqueductus, pre-, peroneus, adhesio. In the TH adherens became adhaerens (actually from the same verb as adhesio inTA, but in TH with ae, while TA with e) and praeter- contained the diphthong ae. The preprint of TE contains aquaeductus with almost every compound with prae containing the diphthong ae. It seems that is the diphthong is slowly returning, but with numerous exceptions. And in some cases previous forms were 'more correct', like corpus mamillare, now corpus mammillare. In this instance I prefer the NA-term and correct the TA-term when necessary. A few textbooks/atlases (like Feneis and my german edition of Sobotta) resist in few cases to use the terms of NA or TA when Latinitas is in danger. Feneis, uses sulcus praecentralis instead of sulcus precentralis. Although one could argue, that praecentralis is still not correct as it is actually a nomen hybridum, and when constructed in Greek in would be something like prokrentros, latinized as procentros with the Greek ending (as eccentros as Greek loanword in Latin exists) or as procentrus, I think it would be too progressive to execute such a reform right now. Small corrections like e->ae as Feneis and the new TE approves this usage is permissible. However, we should use in the redirect the official spelling of the TA (like sulcus precentralis) additionally (with sulcus praecentralis in the article itself). In a few imstances different spellings are used im the index of the TA than in the actual main text/list of the TA. The index of the TA contains some faulty genitives, e.g. systemae (correct systematis), ganglionis (correct ganglii). Do we have to incorporate these mistakes? I like to hear your opinion about also these issues of reinstating diphthongs, selecting NA terms in case the corection of the TA was obviously incorrect, making addtional redirects for the incorrect forms with incorrect declensions of the TA. Thank you very much in advance, with kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To be quite blunt with you. I have no where near the the knowledge of Latin as a language required to truly give you any good respond... but here goes :D In pretty much all cases I would go with TA (my first comment about the TA was a mistake. I thought the term covered the use of mixed English Latin like greater trochanter instead of trochanter major. A clear misstake on my part). I am not much for the diphthong, but this is because I do not come across them very often. In my opticts the most correct are the one people would use and these include what is used in Sobotta since so many copies is in circulation (no matter who wrong they might be). In an ideal world all different spellings of the word should be made into redirects, but getting all TA terms would be a major step forward... In short go TA. Then if you really feel strongly about there is always the option to make a short etymology section in the article.
 * Quick guide to making redirects: Bill Clinton is the name of the main article. If I wanted to make a redirect from William Clinton, I would type it into the searchbar. Then it would come up with the suggestion Bill Clinton in blue and in red above You may create the page "William Clinton", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. Click the red William Clinton and you get a blank screen. Here you type #redirectBill Clinton and press save. That simple. Now when people search for William Clinton they get the page Bill Clinton.
 * When you justed saved the page you can click on the talk page and write (if Bill Clinton was a body part) then the redirect will be grouped together with redirect to anatomy articles. A list can be found here. There is only 11 at the moment, but it was just incoporated in this month, but I made a couple of thousands allready that will soon be found on the list as well. If you have any questions about the process, please just ask.
 * By the way my german edition of Sobotta? Bist du Deutsch? (If you are please still reply in english, since my German is worse than my English) JakobSteenberg (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jakob, I'm dutch, not German. So, if yo are fluent in Dutch, be my guest. I have three editions of the Sobotta atlas. English, German and Dutch. In the preface, the author of the German edition questions some of the choices of the NA. The diphthong in a lot of words is reinstated in this edition of the eighties. My dutch edition postdating the introduction of the TA in 1998, follows the TA in eliminating diphthongs in prae-compounds. I do not know whether this was a decision of the Dutch translators or a decision made by the authors of the then current German edition of the Sobotta. My German Feneis is from the seventies clearly objects to following the elimination of the diphthonhgs. In a recent edition of the Feneis on google books, praecentralis is still written as praecentralis. And the TE is now writing praeoptica. Maybe, the new TA would also write praecentralis, but you can expect anything, considering all those spelling reforms in the NA from the last 100 years. In that case, I select the form that is more adhering to Latinitas and that is actually used by some textbooks.With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In addition. We could expand the heading 'Latin' and include a preferred spelling as first spelling (in that case I would vote for 'sulcus praecentralis'). And additionally the official spellings of TA, NA, INA, BNA, in case those would differ amoung eachother. So sulcus praecentralis, TA: sulcus precentralis, INA: sulcus praecentralis. (BNA: also sulcus praecentralis, NA (1st,2nd,3rd,4th,5th,6th edition) probably all 'sulcus precentralis' (I can only check the 3rd and 4th edition). But this would impose a lot of extra work for this project. So, I like to hear your opinion. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that would be the best solution (to include all spellings). However I think these should be contained to the infobox, so if there are a couple of different spellings we do not take up the article space. I would still like to see one Latin term in the text in the form of (or sulcus precentralis) in the start. I would say this should be the TA term (since we must presume that most readers are English and Americans and the Latin term is in there optics the TA standards, or so I think).
 * Just for the sake of the argument and lets look away from all possible practical limitations and talk ideal world; Now there are five different spellings under Latin in the infobox. Would you like the reader to be able to differentiate between which are TA, NA and so on? Should it look something like this:


 * Sulcus precentralis (TA, NA), sulcus praecentralis (BNA)?
 * Or what is you thoughts on this?
 * JakobSteenberg (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jakob. I will respond to each suggestion separately.


 * I think that would be the best solution (to include all spellings). However I think these should be contained to the infobox, so if there are a couple of different spellings we do not take up the article space.


 * 1. That would be nice, but there are serveral issues to be solved.
 * a. I do not have all editions of the NA.
 * I have:
 * 1. BNA: As pdf via archive.org and as part of Kopsch (1941).
 * 2. INA: Only as part of Kopsch (1941). so there could be small discrepancies.
 * 3. NA-3rd: As printed edition
 * 4. NA-4th: As printed edition
 * 5. TA: As printed edition. Also available on the site of the FIPAT. Preface is different from my printed edition.
 * What are your sources for the NA and TA?


 * b. The NA/TA does not alway contain the full expression in the main text as shown here
 * (TA, 1998, p. 127)
 * Corpus callosum
 * Rostrum
 * Genu
 * Truncus
 * Splenium


 * If you want to say genu of the corpus callosum in Latin, a little knowdledge about Latin declensions is necassary. The TA only shows the parts of the full expression in the nominative. No information is given in the main text that the genitive of the corpus callosum is corporis callosi. For some users, it could be difficult to construct the full expressions. The TA does contain an index with the full expressions. So you can find genu corporis callosi and the difficult task to construct the full expression yourselve is avoided. Marečková (2003, p.204) however states:


 * An especially careful revision is required in the case of the Latin alphabetic index, where frequently, unlike the main body (and obviously for the sake of easier orientation), terms are given including also the respective factual expressions of superior rank which are in the genitive form. This is the actual place where grammatical mistakes may be detected which, because of their clumsy character, produce the impression of a considerable pressure for time in compiling and revising this section. Their number is excessively high for a work of the type given.


 * Marečková (2003) indicates that the Index of the TA, which could help the reader to find the full expression, contains grammatical mistakes.


 * My Dorland's medical dictionary (2000) corrects some of these obvious mistakes. In some instances the index of the TA gives an expression that is not necessarily a grammatical mistake, like 'lobus anterior hypophysis'. Dorland's (2000) gives 'lobus anterior hypophyseos' and indicates that this expression is from the TA. I can not find this expression in the TA. It could be a correction made by the editors from Dorland's (2000). But in Latin several loanwords from Greek can have genitives that more or less the same as the original Greek genitive or are more or less regular (as other Latin genitives). For the Greek loanword basis two genitives exist in classical Latin. The first is baseos, with a Greek genitive, and the second genitive is basis, that is more regular in Latin. This Greek genitive (-eos) in Greek loanwords (i-stem, nominative: -is) in Latin is not uncommon. The regular Latin genitive -is is however not in every instance incorrect. The genitive hypophyseos was actually used before in the BNA in the expression fossa hypophyseos, which is now expressed with the 'ugly' adjective 'hypophysialis' in the TA as fossa hypophysialis. In case we know that the choice for a regular Latin genitive for a Greek loanword is deliberate and and not an obvious mistake, we should choose the expression from the TA-index.


 * c.Some expressions from the NA/TA have official alternatives, e.g. adenohypophysis and lobus anterior hypophysis. I think we should use mention both in the infobox. For readibility both expressions should be places on separate lines. The width of the infobox is not always sufficient for such long expressions like pars opercularis gyri frontalis inferioris. Can we widen that infobox in such an instance?


 * d. Some official alternatives consists of only adding a genitive, e.g. Recessus lateralis (ventriculi quarti) (NA-4th). This implies two forms: Recessus lateralis and Recessus lateralis ventriculi quarti. In that case, do we have to state both form, like NA4: Recessus lateralis, Recessus lateralis ventriculi quarti? Or did we already decided to use the full expresion in the first place?


 * e. Some expressions are mentioned in books or dictionaries as TA or TA-alternative. Some of these forms can not be found in the main text or the index of the TA, e.g. pars lumbaris (Dorland's, 2000). This seems like a mix-up with English lumbar part. However lumbalis does not exist in classical Latin while the substantivated adjective lumbare is attested in classical Latin. We have to state clearly whether a certain form can be found in the printed edition of the NA/TA or not. In case we would include those forms as official expressions from the TA, we would mislabel these expressions. I would be very careful, to use other sources and label them as NA or TA.


 * f. Some expressions of the NA/TA contain obvious errors. Some examples are in the index. Others are in the main text, e.g. Neurofibrae associationes (NA4) or Neurofibrae projectiones (NA4). Associationes and projectiones are actually nouns (nominative plural) and not adjectives (nominative plural). Usage of the genitive singular, associationis and projectionis (nerve fibers of association, nerve fibers of projection) would have been more appropriate. The TA uses the correct genitive singular in fibrae associationis telencephali. I would like to correct these obvious mistakes. We could use a note to explain this grammatical mistake.


 * g. We have to establish some kind of system of abbreviation for each edition of the NA. BNA, INA, BR (Birmingham Revision) or NA-BR, NA1 or NA-1, NA2 or NA-2, NA3 or NA-3, NA4 or NA-4, NA5 or NA-5, NA6 or NA-6, TA. The NA-1 is actually not the first edition of the Nomina Anatomica. The BNA, Basiliensia Nomina Anatomica, was first printed in 1895, while the Parisiensia Nomina Anatomica (PNA) was printed around 1956. Each successive edition of the PNA was numbered second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth edition. They start counting from the PNA onwards. This numbering system could be misleading. The PNA is considered in this numbering system as NA1. In some dictionaries tne abbreviation PNA is used. Normally, this is used to refer to the Parisiensia Nomina Anatomica. I am not sure, but I think that in some dictionaries, the successive editions of the PNA, like the NA-2, the NA-3 are also abbreviated as PNA. That seems incorrect. Is there any way to explain this system in the infobox, as note, or possibly by linking to the Terminologia Anatomica entry on wikipedia.


 * h. In case a spelling is the same for NA-2 and NA-3, should we list both, or do we only mention NA-2 or NA-3? And what determines our choice? The newest, the oldest (in that case, TA will be conspiciously absent).


 * i. Do we include the NH/TH and the NE/TE?
 * I have;
 * 1. NH (1977): Printed edition
 * 2. NE (1977): Printed edition
 * 3. TH (2008): Printed editiom. Also on site FIPAT. Preface page seems different. TE also on site FIPAT, but is actually some sort of preprint.


 * j. Do we include the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria and its derivatives?
 * The NAV en the NEV are available on pdf on the internet. However, it is clear to users that some names animal-only?


 * k. Are there any other sources to include?


 * I would still like to see one Latin term in the text in the form of (or sulcus precentralis) in the start. I would say this should be the TA term (since we must presume that most readers are English and Americans and the Latin term is in there optics the TA standards, or so I think).


 * 1. Ooh, no, not loosing the diphthong. Actually I am very sentimental about this. But hey, you are talking about the ideal world. But I try to react rationally.


 * a. It seems like a good idea to put the Latin expression between brackets in the main texts. It could offend some users, I suppose. But it is worth a try.


 * b. It seems logical that most English or American readers would think TA when talking about Latin nomenclature. As you would already know, I have a few objections to the current nomenclature considering the partial diphthong elimination, the elision of the -i in chorioides, the elision of the -e, in thyreoides, the neglicence of the -t, part of the -mat-stem, in plasmaticus (TH: plasmicus (multiple) and plasmaticus(1 x)). The Danish wikipedia actuslly uses 'Glandula thyreoidea'. In Greek, the word thuroeides (without e) means 'door-like' and 'thureoeides' (with e) means 'shield-like'. So the whole concept of this gland is being altered by the elision of the -e.


 * I wondered however when seeing the entry Frontallap on the Danish wikipeida whether such expressions like præcentral gyrus, superiore frontale gyrus, middel frontale gyrus, inferiore frontale gyrus are actually 'permitted' in Dansk or whether these are corruptions and originated by translating English nomenclature? In the entry Anatomi I see a more clear cut dichtomous nomenclature of pure Dansk names as hjernebarken alongside cortex cerebri, which seems right to me, while the entry Frontallap uses cerebrale cortex instead.


 * In the Netherlands we used to a certain extent a Dutch and Latin nomenclature side by side with comparably hersenschors alongside cortex cerebri, but due to the influence of English publications and all kind of (neuro)scientists reading only English articles and with a background in which a formal training in anatomy is not part of the curriculum, all kind of English expressions were rendered in Dutch by changing only the ending of each word, without even knowing that popular anatomy atlases in the Netherlands used Latin nomenclature. So we ended up with cerebrale cortex, precentrale gyrus, superieure temporale gyrus. Although cerebrale cortex is widespread, medical dictionaries do not use those Dunglish expressions like precentrale gyrus and superieure temporale gyrus, while they can be spotted in many Dutch psychology and neuroscience textbooks.


 * c. I wonder whether this is really necessary. If we would use some kind of Latin main heading for each NA/TA expression, we could make some corrections with respect to Latinitas, but taking the TA as point of departure. In most cases this form will be similar to the form of the INA or BNA or even to the new TE (as it restores the diphthong in prae-). The real version of the TA can be spotted in the infobox. We could add some kind of note, comparable to the note of Feneis to choose not to eliminate the diphthong or comparable to the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria (2012, p.xii.) that gives the user the option to use the diphthong by stating: The spelling of the N.A. was adopted, but where this differs from classical Latin, the linguistically correct spelling is given in brackets [ ]. This applies mainly to the diphthongs ae and oe. In this case the spelling with the diphthong is preferred and the other forms are ubiquitous in the infobox. I like to hear your opinion about these matters. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC).

Answer January 23th.
Wow, thats a long answer. I shall try to respond the best I can. My answer is broken up into to bits as your respond.

'''I think that would be the best solution (to include all spellings). However I think these should be contained to the infobox, so if there are a couple of different spellings we do not take up the article space.'''

A: Which sources you (and I) have avaible are not a problem long term. At sometime a person in Denver, Rome or Hong Kong with the missing information will come along. So this should not be a limitation to (at least) start implimenting changes. I have not official sources on the bookshelf other than atlases, anatomy textbooks in Danish and English and a medical dictionary (nothing official).

B: You lost me there, sorry. Maybe the respond you where looking for can be found somewhere below.

C: Yes, I think both should be mentioned. While the width of the infobox is fixed (can be expanded, but this is not recommended and unpopulare) the length is flexible. You can write as much as you would like and the length gives after, so that the Latin-section could be 137 lines long. No problem here. It may look a bit clumpsy that the linebreak is in the middle of a term, but this is a small cost. A break can be inserted between terms, so there is only one term at each line by inserting  (just like hitting enter in Word), but a balance has to made so the infobox does not get three times as long that the article.

D: What I do is; write Recessus lateralis ventriculi quarti in the infobox and make a redirect from it. Then I make a redirect from Recessus lateralis, now if this term alone could refer to severeal things a Disambig page should be made instead (if possible on the English term; lateral recess). Let me give an example: If you type in meatus nasi it will redirect you to nasal meatus, where you can choose which of the three articles you would like. See also Facies diaphragmatica as an example.

E: Whether it would be prudent to include such a term in the infobox I can not say. I am no where near familiar enough with the subject to make such a decission. But I would still make a redirect from the term. This would not be stating something there might be false and e.g. often occuring misspellings are welcomed as redirect according to Wikipedia guidelines.

F: See E.

G: Such a function does not exist, or at least I have no knowledge of a way to do this. A way to do so could surely be made, but it would might take a lot of programming and such large/fundemental changes should be debated with a lot of persons before being implimented.

H, J and K: I will try to make a general answer in the very bottom of my respond.

'I would still like to see one Latin term in the text in the form of (or sulcus precentralis)'' in the start. I would say this should be the TA term (since we must presume that most readers are English and Americans and the Latin term is in there optics the TA standards, or so I think).'''

A: It is already there in many articles, but whether this have been debated before I am unsure.

B: About Glandula thyreoidea, interesting! The examples you mention found on the Danish Wikipedia is all corruptions from proparly good meaning people who translated articles from the English Wikipedia, but no single health professional would ever use these terms and they are by no way accepted. We do have common terms for many things and in the clinic there tends to be a mixture of certain Danish and Latin words, but this is only really a sign of that med. school was long ago.

Next step
Once again, I would like to state that my knowledge of Latin is limited. I merly memorised as much as humanly possible (at least for me) before anatomy exams. What I have been doing on Wikipedia is mainly just making redirects from the Latin terms in the books I use to the English terms, so that the information would be more accesable to me and those using the same terms.

If you feel strongly enough about what we discussed and would like to proced there are two options the way I see it: 1: Correct what Latin terms you find. I am not entirely sure, but I suspect that most Latin terms in the infoboxes, are from the public domain edition of Gray's Anatomy (This could be the 100+ year version due to copyrights issues and a lot of things in the nameing could have changed). You have an extenden knowledge of Latin; if you believe some term would be more correct, change it (or even better just add it to the list, you could put it first if you like to. The way I see it, if a wrongfully term is stated somewhere "importent" enough it is a synonym). If somebody disagree they will change it or comment on it and it can be debated. That was the practical solution.

2: Kind of and ideal world scenario, but worth some thought: Sit down and think very hardly on what you think would be the best solution of the problem with all the different terms and nomaclature lists. Do not care if it is practical (at first) and how many man-hours it would require. If you come up with an answer through it out to the Wikipedia community and it can be worked on in collaboration. But there need to be an idea to start with that can be debated... a good one.

Here is my take on how an ideal (and no where near practical) solution: Picture the infobox. One to three terms max are stated. If you click on the "down-arrow" next to the word Latin the infobox expands (again, I do not think the infobox should be to massive). Now there are to rows; the left row contaions values such as NA-1, NA-2, NA-3,NA-4, TA, BNA, INA and so on and the right row contains the appropriate term. This would however require both programming changes to the infobox (creating the expand-model needed) and a hell of lot of people looking op terms and writing them into Wikipedia. The last taking years even with many collaborators.

If you are thinking somewhere along scenario 2, a greater task, then go after it in an engineering way. Sit down, make drawings and when you have formed an idea throw it out to debate, questioning and improvements. Then when a consencus is made with other volunteers you can start implimenting. These to projects: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy are the place to debate such things and finding people who are willing to put in the time. Me and another user have briefly discussed categorising the redirects accoring to TA, NA and common terms so there is some interest for it.

I hope I an anyway have helped you out. Otherwise write. JakobSteenberg (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jakob. My short response. Can we construct an infobox in the sandbox to experiment with a few options? I like the idea of creating an expand-model.


 * Yes. You can use your own sandbox to experiment as much as you would like and if you would like me or anybody else to see it, just ask them to go to your sandbox or send them the link.
 * The template for the infobox can be found here by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_anatomy . That could give you a head start.
 * Another possibility could be to leave the infobox as it is and instead create a new box at the end of the article. As an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cranium These can be collapsed at start so you would have to push "show" to open it. It would be easier to create, implement and would provide more space and thus be less crowded/clumpsy. Come to think about it, this might be a better idea. I just tried it out in my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JakobSteenberg/sandbox
 * JakobSteenberg (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Raphe versus raphes
Hi -- I see that you have retitled some articles from "raphe" to "raphes". I'm dubious about that change, because "raphe" is far more common in the literature -- in fact I had never seen "raphes" used until your change motivated me to do a search. Could you explain the rationale here, please? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and in the meantime, would you please stop changing all the links until we have a chance to discuss this? Looie496 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Looie496, the official list of anatomic names, the Terminologia Anatomica, writes nucleus raphes obscurus, nucleus raphes pallidus and nucleus raphes magnus. And NOT nucleus raphe obscurus, et cetera. Raphe means seam. But they are nuclei OF the seam, and then you have to use a genitive in Latin, i.e. raphes, instead of thr nominative raphe. Nucleus raphe means nucleus seam, which is actually non-sense, nucleus raphes means nucleus of the seam, corresponding to what is actually refered to. In case you would use raphe nucleus in English, than it is less problematic than nucleus raphe, because, raphe nucleus can be translated as seam nucleus, what is actually fine, but when you write raphe obscurus, without nucleus, then you have a problem, because raphe is of female gender, while obscurus is of male gender, and that is grammatically incorrect. Most neuroscientist are not aware of these inconsistencies. Concerning the authority of the Terminologia anatomica and the fact that an expression as nucleus raphe obscurus is incorrect, I think it is better to change it. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that actual usage should be the determining factor. A search of Google Scholar shows 7270 scientific articles since the year 2000 using the term "nucleus raphe" versus 232 using "nucleus raphes" -- a difference of more than 20 to 1.  If you think it would be useful, we could ask for additional opinions on this issue at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Neuroscience.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we disagree. As actual usage is grammatically incorrect, and the official international committee of anatomists dictates otherwise, retaining the actual incorrect expressions would not do justice to the correct terminology. But I will discuss this issue at Project Neuroscience. Thank you for offering that solution. With kind regard, Wimpus (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll just note that this is not the first time I've seen issues of this sort. The T.A. recommends that nuclei basales be used for what virtually everybody in the field refers to as the basal ganglia, for example.  After we discussed the matter, our consensus was to follow the main stream of usage. Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not quite the same. Basal ganglia is grammatically OK. However, semantically, there is a problem with basal ganglia, as ganglia, when used as aggregrate of nerve cells, are called nuclei within the central nervous system and ganglia outside the central nervous system. The current issue is more or less about grammar and that is actually easily solved by addinng an -s. In case some neuroscientists want to use fancy Latin expressions, it is unneccessary to make such mistakes. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Article names
Article names are based on common English usage, not on Latin grammar. If you want to move articles, please discuss it first. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Deatr Kafziel, these article names are actually not written in English, but in Latin. So Latin grammar applies here. Just like Nevus sebaceous. Nevus is an American spelling of Latin naevus. It is fine to eliminate diphthongs when you use a foreign word within your own language, but when the word is used within the original Latin expression, it is quite odd, that you use American orthography for something that isn't English at all, considering that is a full expression in a different language. Moreover using 'sebaceous' seems like a mistake, because that is actually a English adjective, as can be noticed by looking at the ending -ous. It is not that common to use an adjective after a noun. So, naevus sebaceus is actually the original form, but someone changed it by dropping the diphthongs and thought it would be nice to replace the Latin adjective by an English adjective. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. Wikipedia is written in English. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter???? In that case you can alter all the binary nomenclature, so Dracaena reflexa, becomes Dracena reflexa, Peperomia rotundifolia becomes Peperomia rotundifolious, Canis familiaris becomes Canis familiar. That seems a little bit absurd, isn't it. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem absurd to me at all, honestly. I don't see how it matters in the slightest. What this looks like to me is a thinly-veiled MOS:ENGVAR issue. Anyway, as far as I can see, common usage is roughly 3-4 times more common than what may be the correct Latin usage. At any rate, you can request page moves and make all these arguments at the link I provided above. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you move any more pages, you will be blocked from editing. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 16:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you be more polite? You behave very aggressively. I am not used to people that use those kind of tactics. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was polite at the beginning. I was willing to discuss it. But if you insist on being disruptive, I will stop you. Discuss instead of moving pages, not in addition. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 16:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems not polite, as you didn't asked me about the rationale of moving the pages and stated Article names are based on common English usage, not on Latin grammar. which might be different in certain cases. Moreover, if someones uses a superscript as Complaint Department: Please take a number, I can not take such a person serious, as such a sentence is almost overtly aggressive. With kinds regards, Wimpus (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 16:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, you did not performed the reverting process properly. Sometimes the title is revetted back and not the text with inconsistent results. But currently that is not my problem. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's quite a lot of clean up after you did all that. Which is why mass moves likes this are so disruptive. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 16:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Kafziel, could you please remove the superscript Complaint Department: Please take a number. I consider it offensive. Maybe I am mistaken and could you explain why it would be not offensive, but otherwise I could Requests for comment/User names. Thanks in advance, with kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you consider it offensive, why did you intentionally include it here and here? To offend others? Considering the nature of most communications on my page (including yours), I'd say it's quite appropriate. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 17:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Not Latin
As you've been told repeatedly, these are not (solely) Latin terms. We are using the English terms, which in some cases just happen to be spelled the same as some Latin terms. We do not use the Latin declensions when writing English sentences.

You are, of course, free to view this as a sign of the further deterioration of civilization, but I ask you again to please stop introducing these errors into English sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirects from Latin terms
Hi Wimpus.

I have come across a couple of your edits where you corrected Latin terms in infoboxes e.g preputium clitoridis to praeputium clitoridis in the article clitoral hood. When you make such corrections could I get you to make redirects from the new/corrected Latin term? I recently ran through more or less all anatomy articles and made redirects from the Latin terms, so when I search for os femoris I am redirected to femur. So if you could make the redirects as you correct the terms in the article, then I (or somebody else) do not have to go through all the anatomy articles again in e.g. five years time to make sure that we have all these redirects.

Could I get you to make such redirects? You do not have to do anything about the redirects from the old terms, just leave them be, as they likely are spelling or grammar mistakes that people tend to make...I think I made redirects from your last couple of edits, so it is just prospective we are talking about.

Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jakob, thanks for reminding me. You are absolutely right. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As you might have noticed, I have included in some cases alternative spellings or common typos. With kind regarfs, Wimpus (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Super! Keep up the good work. JakobSteenberg (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No thanks. I muust thank you for all the work. With kind regarda, Wimpus (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of these "corrections" violate WP:MOSMED on the terms we're using (which are not "proper academic Latin", but the accepted terms in English sources). You need to find out how the terms are used in English sources, and keep those terms, even if your Latin teacher would say that they are "misspelled" according to Latin.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox clearly mentions Latin not English. So, why would we use some form of Latin that is actually not Latin and not English. The standard English form can be used as heading. So solitary nucleus or nucleus of the solitary tract as English title and nucleus tractus solitarii as Latin form. Please, be aware that they are official lists with Latin nomenclature and even English textbooks with Latin nomenclature. Most of them use the Terminologia Anatomica or slight variations, considering corrections of typos or retaining the diphthongs in case the Terminologia Anatomica had eliminated them (for no good reason). With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Moreover, you changed the rules and regulations of WP:MOSMED last night. But is awfully complicated to get behind the rationale of such form as nucleus tractus solitarius. You can only claim that 1800 hits on pubmed for nucleus tractus solitarius outweigh the 1100 hits on pubmed that spelled it correctly as nucleus tractus solitarii. But you can't find nucleus tractus solitarius in the Terminologia Anatomica as it spelled nucleus tractus solitarii. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment on nucleus tractus solitarii was Nouns are not declined this way in English. But what are the grammatical rules for these words? Can you explain (without refering to hits on Google or Pubmed, while the latter gives enough hits for nucleus tractus solitarii) what grammar rule in English states that solitarius is spelled/declined this way and not otherwise? In that case, we can not write magnum opus (different endings for magnum and opus) or pseudotumor cerebri (use of genitive that is verboten in English). So please explain why we should use solitarius instead of solitarii in nucleus tractus solitarii. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: Redirects
That is great! The more of these we make the greater the chance that people find the information they are looking for and maybe just as important; they find a article where they want to and/or feel they can contribute. If you want to add one more thing to do onto a already long to-do-list; when you make these redirect (and again I can not thank you enough) you could also make a redirect from a shorten term:
 * I just made a redirect from the term Lamina praetrachealis fasciae cervicalis to Pretracheal fascia, but I also made one from Lamina praetrachealis... There are a lot of Latin terms where the last name is somewhat redundant in every day use.
 * Some time ago, I made redirects from meatus nasi superior, medius and inferior and decided to redirect meatus nasi to a disambiguation page I created; nasal meatus. I similar page, annulus, exist for some of the changes you are making a the moment.

Just thought I was worth to mention... By the way, the alphabetically order on the category: That is not something I can take credit for. When you add the Wikiproject Anatomy-tag on the talk page they are automatically added to the list. So luckily that is not something we have do manually. Keep up the good work. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry
Hello there, Im sorry that I Posted A CSD on one of the pages that you created,I removed it. If you make a page please redirect them straight away than there will be no more confusion ;) Redalert2fan (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Readalert2fan, I made a mistake by copying the wrong content from my word file. As part of creating anatomic redirects, I create in a word file multiple alternative names and copy those one to create new redirect pages. However, sometimes I make a mistake. I try to do my best to it right straight away. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Lets agree that we both made a mistake here, and that happens sometimes. Best regards, Redalert2fan (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * As an afternote, please include page numbers in your citations, so that any other users (if they wanted to) could access the relevant information. Keep up the (interesting) work! --LT910001 (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear LT910001, thank you for your kind remarks. In scientific publications it is not common to refer to single pages in the references. Only when quotes are used, page numbers are mentioned. But I'll may be mistaken and biased to the conventions of those fields of scientific research I am familiar with. I'll fear, that using page numbers will increase the number of single references in the reference list. I have revised the references to a quote in anulus fibrosus disci intervertebralis. I like to know whether this suits the conventions. Thank you very much for your response, with kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your very interesting edits! We do provide page numbers, because otherwise it makes things much more difficult to verify. As you get more familiar with editing you'll notice that there are different styles of citations, some which may be more useful if you're worried about using too many citations. One such was is to use the rp tag: which'll appear as this:  next to a source. --LT910001 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thyroid cartilage, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Roman and Pubis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Joint (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to French, Italian, Spanish and Suture


 * Buccinator muscle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Roman


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


 * Iris dilator muscle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Roman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sacrum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=605759798 your edit] to Locus coeruleus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * derived from caelum, hence the spelling with -ae, like caeluleus- caeruleus. Caelum in classical Latin could refer to the sky, ''

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=606014640 your edit] to Cruciate ligament may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * its 'English' equivalent to decussate. In Latin, number ten decem is written as X. The term ''

Reference Errors on 27 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Cruciate ligament page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=606014640 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F606014640%7CCruciate ligament%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cruciate ligament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Request
Hello Wimpus! Thanks for your high-quality uploads, they're very interesting to read -- one that particularly caught my eye was at Sacrum. Would I be able to get you to extend your list by one item? It'd be very interesting to read what you upload on Scapula, if you have the time in the next few weeks. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, one more! Not sure if this is in your purview, but Human_heart section is fascinating, spans several different linguistic traditions, and could do with some touching up. --LT910001 (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear LT910001, thank you for your kind words. I think I could add something on scapula. Scapulae actually referred to the back and not to the shoulder blades in Roman antiquity. Editing the society and culture section of human heart is quite difficult as I can only read a limited number of European languages and not Chinese, Hebrew or Sanskrit in their original alphabet. So, I can not check these languages and Sanskrit only when something is mentioned about the roots of the words in a Latin or Greek dictionary. But I will try to add and revise something. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=606935554 your edit] to Scapula may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * expressions can be translated as broad (Latin: latum ) bone Latin: os of the back  Latin: scapularum . A similar expression in ancient Greek can be seen in

Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Medial knee injuries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pes anserinus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Anatomical_terminology
Hi, I hope you're well. I just created Anatomical_terminology from a merge, and I think it could do with some expanding. With your edits to previous articles being both well-referenced, readable and comprehensive, do you think you'd have time for this small section? The article is amongst our most viewed and, in my view, not having a history section is a significant omission, as the history of terms plays a very large role in the sets of terminology we use today. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Cerebellum
I have nominated Cerebellum for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No POV pushing
Hello Wimpus, please stop doing edits like these ( The spelling brachium is less correct). You are not supposed to introduce on Wikipedia an alternative nomenclature which in your opinion should replace the one used in reliable sources like Terminologia anatomica. Regards. The Wiki ghost (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Wimpus. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Wimpus~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)