Thanks
I know articles on Wikipedia do not belong to anyone, but I do have a personal attachment to the Progeroid syndrome article. So I want to personally thank you for taking your time out to copy-edit it and correct any mistakes I made. I want to let you know I appreciate it! Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 17:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Your post today
Hi Iztwoz!
Many thanks for your kind message and comment on my page.
Pleased to see how well you have settled in. Cheers! –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 11:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
For your tireless work with the Guild of Copyeditors, I award you this barnstar. Your selfless copyediting is an invaluable resource to the community. Neelix (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you so much
I appreciate your help on Lower limbs venous ultrasonography. Doc Elisa ✉ 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your help is priceless and I have no words to say how much I'm grateful. Doc Elisa ✉ 21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hyper-debit is the situation were there is an augmentation of the debit in one vein. An exemple of hyper-debit is the presence of an arterio-venous fistula. Another example is in a situation of deep venous thrombosis: the superficial venous system is called to drain much more blood than usually - veins can be enlarged but valves can be intact. Eye image or eye sign is the same thing. We can use "eye sign" as it is on papers. Thank you again Doc Elisa ✉ 20:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
Thanks for helping my students with their article Beautiful Store. They told me they are very grateful for your assistance! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC) |
Allow Me
Apologies if I caused any edit conflicts during your copy edit. I had forgotten about my outstanding request for the copy edit, since the article had already undergone the Good article nomination process. (I work on so many articles at once, I forgot!) I am so glad to have you working on the article, and I will wait until you have finished to see all of your edits and ask any questions I may have. I did remove "very" (which you added) from the lead, referring to the reception, and I also removed the comma before "Public Art Collection" since the source did not include the punctuation (and the lead became inconsistent with the infobox). Let me know your thoughts! Thanks for your contributions to the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you'll let me know when you are finished, I will be sure to add the GOCE template to the article's talk page. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Thank you for working on the Allow Me article! Another Believer (Talk) 19:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of Lower limbs venous ultrasonography
The article Lower limbs venous ultrasonography you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lower limbs venous ultrasonography for comments about the article. Well done! SpinningSpark 17:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at AfC Unipolar brush cell was accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Nefarious: Merchant of Souls
Hi Iztwoz,
Thank you again for copyediting the Nefarious: Merchant of Souls article. I have submitted the article for a featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.
Neelix (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Iztwoz,
- Thank you very much for contributing to the Nefarious: Merchant of Souls FAC. The article has been featured and I have nominated it to go up on the main page here.
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Thanks for your recent edits to Anatomy articles, they're really helping to improve their overall quality and readability. Keep up the good work! LT910001 (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC) |
GA
Thanks for your many, many copyedits and alterations to Cervix. I have completed the history section, made some final changes, and nominated Cervix for GA. Wish us luck! --LT910001 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Operculum
Thanks for that. I've read authors using "operculum" for the whole bit of cortex covering the insula, and "parietal operculum", "frontal operculum", etc. for the different bits, and I tried to retain it ... but it's clumsy expression, and I'm quite happy to leave it out. Thanks for all your efforts in anatomy here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
And that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
- please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award | |
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! |
Your GA nomination of Caenorhabditis elegans
The article Caenorhabditis elegans you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Caenorhabditis elegans 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 Narayanese -- Narayanese (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar | |
For your massive amount of high-quality work on anatomy articles! I don't even have time to keep up reading your content! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of Sebaceous gland
The article Sebaceous gland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sebaceous gland 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. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- The instructions say a bot will come by to add the GA icon. I will probably check myself, but let me know if it doesn't show up soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Congratulations on getting this to GA, Iztwoz, it was great to work with you on it! --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For all your work on anatomy-related articles. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC) |
The Golden Doubloon of Anatomy | ||
You have been awarded the prestigious Golden Doubloon for your contributions to anatomy articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions! |
For the large amount of work on many anatomy articles, I hereby present you with the golden doubloon of anatomy, an award bestowed on only a few! (so far 2, I think) --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:11, 21 September 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) 13:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Lionel de Jersey Harvard
Thanks for your help! EEng (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
I am astounded at the amount of content that you have created in/for Wikipedia...you are the type of editor/writer that I want to be. Bfpage |leave a message 21:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
Peer review of Heart
Hi Iztwoz, I saw you editing Heart just now, and wanted to mention that a peer review has been requested for it here. I thought you might want to participate in that. Cheers, BakerStMD 15:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
The Medicine Barnstar | ||
Iztwoz, for your ongoing effort and knowledge on Minimally invasive procedure. thank you Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
hi
would you mind looking at the symptoms section of lupus nephritis? (ive been editing all day)thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- [1]thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, re grey matter. The new headings and coherence among them is a good improvement: Thank you! However most of my edits to the grey matter page involve incorrect referencing, double referencing, broken sentences, and causal language not warranted by the data. I removed the "thinking about" sentence: I believe that was intended to refer to a paper which asked people to imagine being poor and showed this reduced their working memory, but without a citation, who knows. It is now deleted. If there's something substantive, let's chat on its talk page? best Tim bates (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Golden Galen barnstar
The Golden Galen barnstar | ||
You have been awarded the prestigious Golden Galen award for your contributions to anatomy articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions! |
Thanks for your many, many contributions to anatomy articles this year! Our suite of anatomy articles has definitely improved over the last 1-2 years. What are your thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you (and me)!
For a short coffee break with a wiki-colleague whilst editing Heart. Thanks for your help on Lung and your many mergers which I've just noticed :). How's it going? Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Citation Barnstar | |
Your work to provide references is an example to all other medical editors. I admire your work. Bfpage |leave a message 02:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC) |
Issues in Cerebellum article
Hi,
I'm editor-in-chief of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, and we're about to consider a snapshot of the Cerebellum article for publication in this journal: Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Cerebellum. This would make it easier for external sources to use and cite this work, and after we've advanced the journal these publications will be searchable in PubMed as well. As you have been one of the most active contributors to this article, we would like to include you in the "author" list, but we want these to be the authors' real names. If you approve, you may edit that article to change your username to your real name, or include it in a reply to me. Otherwise, you will be attributed by a link to the history page of the Wikipedia article. Also, the work has undergone peer review, and I'd appreciate if you could have a look into the peer review comments, and help amending the mentioned issues before publication in the journal: /Cerebellum#Peer review. You may also check at its history to see what corrections have already been made by other authors.
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Great work on the article! The only issue left I find from the peer review is to add some references to the last paragraph in the introduction. After that, I think it's ready for publication. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- The article is now published. Thank you for your help! Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
You do excellent work. Many thanks for all you do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC) |
Publishing Hippocampus in WikiJournal
Hi there,
It seems you have been among the most active contributors to the Hippocampus article as well [2], and therefore, would you like to join the process of having this one as well published in the journal (which have since been renamed to WikiJournal of Medicine)? As with The Cerebellum article, it would be great if we could make it easier for external sources to cite it, and eventually bring it to PubMed.
We would now want all main authors of Wikipedia works to agree with an Agreement for having the article published in the journal (so that any conflicts of interests can be declared). After I've invited the other main authors of the article, it can then undergo peer review, and I'd appreciate if you could then help out in amending any issues raised therein.
Also, would it be all right for you to be the corresponding author of the work in WikiJournal? You can have your email displayed, or have a link to your Email User page.
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC) Editor-in-chief, WikiJournal of Medicine
- Great! Could you also remove the <nowiki> around the ~~~~ to sign? Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Peer review comments
Hi again,
The Hippocampus article has now been peer reviewed, and comments are seen at Wikiversity:Talk:Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/The Hippocampus#Peer review comments. Could you look through them and make amendments?
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thyroid
Thanks for your help and for expanding it, especially the history section. I've done a fair bit of work and will take a break for a week or so from editing it. If you are around and have time would you mind having a look / cleanup? With much appreciation...! --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Second peer review of the hippocampus
The issue of peer review coordinators is solved for the moment. Also, as part of the journal's new standard of having at least 2 external peer reviews for every publication, we have now received a second peer review of The Hippocampus: Wikiversity:Talk:Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/The Hippocampus#Comments from 2nd peer reviewer
I hope you can amend these comments when you have the time. Let me know if you would prefer to have a co-author for the article to help in any amendments, and we could find one. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- As you noticed, many of the comments in the second peer reviewer were of a rather editorial nature, as they relate to the guidelines that can just as well be applied to other articles as well. I therefore found it appropriate to give an "ediorial response" to some of them: Wikiversity:Talk:Draft:WikiJournal_of_Medicine/The_Hippocampus#Editorial_response. Yet, I think the remaining points are for the author. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Great work on amending the article! I've now synchronized the article in Wikiversity with the Wikipedia article so that it reflects recent edits. Could you add the sources in the image captions (such as for the one saying "Source: brainmaps.org") at the page in Wikiversity? Also, we decided to recommend adding "Image 1:", "Image 2:" etc in image captions to allow for easier referencing.
- I will then ask the peer reviewer if he thinks the article is ready for editorial board decision. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi again. Both the peer reviewer and I find the article to be ready for editorial board decision. Nevertheless, some additional suggestions have been presented by the reviewer: [[Talk:Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/The Hippocampus#Response to update]]. Also, as mentioned in my last message there should be a source description for each image in the the article in Wikiversity. So, just let me know when you think the article is ready. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, let me know if you think the article is not ready, otherwise I will bring it to the editorial board for publication decision shortly. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- I can now announce that the article is published in WikiJournal of Medicine! It's been a great improvement of the Wikipedia article. The entry on the main page at Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Medicine has some of the abstract included. Let me know if you prefer a different image or format. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, let me know if you think the article is not ready, otherwise I will bring it to the editorial board for publication decision shortly. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi again. Both the peer reviewer and I find the article to be ready for editorial board decision. Nevertheless, some additional suggestions have been presented by the reviewer: [[Talk:Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/The Hippocampus#Response to update]]. Also, as mentioned in my last message there should be a source description for each image in the the article in Wikiversity. So, just let me know when you think the article is ready. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You deserve this
The Bio-star | ||
I'm awarding you this for cleaning up and expanding the striatum article, fixing the significant omission of material on the ventral striatum in that article, and for taking the initiative to merge ventral striatum into the striatum article. I know that was a lot of work, so thanks for doing it! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
- please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2016 Cure Award | |
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Your understanding of MEDRS
"What is biomedical information? Biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health. Generally speaking, such information should be supported by a reputable biomedical source, such as review articles, higher-level medical textbooks, and professional reference works." Meditation making your cortex thicker, based on a primary source? Think, dude. Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello Abductive (reasoning) Firstly the article is not in the medical category; secondly the information referred to is not even in the Clinical significance section; thirdly the Oxford journals ref is completely acceptable imo. Seems to me that it's just something you don't agree with. As regards your other ref to some material you removed as it was poorly expressed - somebody has gone to the trouble of adding material with refs - because it could possibly have been better explained is no cause for removal - if you can express it better - do that. Or take it to the talk page. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Brainy Barnstar
For sterling work on Human brain | |
Thank you very much for helping to get this to GA, despite not being the nominator! You can definitely claim GA credit for this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC) |
After 4 years I'm back
Hi I'm glad to know that you are always here. Thank you for your help. Cheers Doc Elisa ✉ 20:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Half Barnstar | ||
For your work with User:Chiswick Chap on improving the Microorganism article! pwnzor.ak (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) |
Microorganism GAN
Hi Iztwoz, I'm putting the article up for GA as it's now in a decent state, well-structured and certainly covers the main points. Shall I add your name as co-nominator? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Chiswick Chap yes you can, but don't feel obliged to. I am still making changes - shall I continue or leave it as it is. --Iztwoz (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'll do it, and feel free to continue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, it's under review already ... some of my articles have been languishing there for months. I'll start dealing with some of the review items now, feel free to do any of them that take your fancy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'll do it, and feel free to continue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Thymus
Could do with some attention. Will be expanding it and fixing it up over the next few weeks. Could you spare a hand? Based on the content and how difficult it is to read I am thinking this may be a two person job --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
Editor of the Week | ||
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your high-quality contributions. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Tom (LT) submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
- I nominate User Iztwoz as Editor of the Week. Iztwoz truly deserves this prize. They are one of the leading anatomy editors, highly active editing medical and anatomy articles with a stellar history of high-quality contributions to a huge number of articles. I have always found Iztwoz to have a level head, and to be willing to talk and discuss any issues at hand, even with difficult and problematic editors. Iztwoz is committed to quality work and has made a huge impact in the anatomy space. I am sure even a cursory look and their activity and large number of edits will demonstrate their suitability.
WikiProject Anatomy |
Iztwoz |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning October 15, 2017 |
Highly active medical and anatomy editor. Level headed, willing to discuss issues. Able to collaborate with difficult and problematic editors. |
Recognized for |
their Committment to quality work in Anatomy mainspace |
Notable work(s) |
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy |
Submit a nomination |
Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Vulva
The article Vulva you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vulva 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 SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar | |
For your work on bringing Vulva to good article status. Well done!! Tom (LT) (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC) |
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
- please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award | |
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Raising Thiamin to GA?
I noticed you have been a frequent contributor to the Thiamin article recently. Is your intent to raise it to GA? I did so for Vitamin C, and am in process of editing the Vitamin E article with same intent. All of the vitamin articles get many visitors per day, and in my opinion needs improvement. At present, only Vitamin C is GA; the rest are B-class or C-class. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello David notMD - no it wasn't an intention to take it to GA but will carry on with edits as and when; I think it would be really helpful were you to further the pages. All best --Iztwoz (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Septin
Hi, you uprated the article on Septins from "start" to "C" in the MCB infobox. Could you give hints what would be missing to make it B grade? Thanks. Gormfull (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Gormfull - It may well merit a B grade, it was just a quick and obvious change from start status. If you think it needs changing you can do this - if you are asking about what criteria are used to grade they on WP:MOS somewhere. But I shall take another look. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Thank you Iztwoz, I added some information in the lipid raft page too regarding the cell unroofing topic. For my understandings, The draft pace can be moved to the public by an expert user, can't you make it for me? The Xiao Li (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
The 2018 Cure Award | |
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Sinusoid (blood vessel)
Hi Iztwoz, hope that you're well! Was doing my (increasingly infrequent) trawl of recent changes when I saw this merge into capillary. In my mind they constitute a fairly and independently notable part of the microanatomy of certain organs like the placenta and the liver. I do note the article gets quite a few page views (looks like 50 - 100 a day [3]). I am inclined to think this warrants its own individual article unlike say 'fenestrated' capillaries. What would your thoughts be? --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
potential mix-up of cerebral and cerebellar
Hi Iztwoz,
thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I only just now figured out my "cerebral"-to-"cerebellar" correction missed the incorrect links you have just corrected. Now I fully agree with the article, thanks for the nice work!
FelixTheStudent (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
<ref> issue on Lung
Hi Iztwoz, can you have a look at the system-generated error message on lung in the Microanatomy section? It appears to be related to your edit on 16 August 2019. Thanks and best wishes. Ran0t0 (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar | |
For having introduced step-wise and significant improvements to the Cell biology article. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC) |
Rhombencephalosynapsis
Thank you for your kind words. This is uncommon on WP. Much appreciated. Virion123 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Peace Dove
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 11:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Tom (LT) (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Substance use disorder
It is in the DSM5, infact it covers more than 100 pages (481 to 489). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks but in that case the page Substance use disorder needs changing. It is described as a medical condition and later "In the DSM-5, substance abuse and substance dependence have been merged into the category of substance use disorders". Also it doesn't make much sense to refer to the use of cannabis for example as a mental illness, which use is often referred to in the case of schizophrenia.? --Iztwoz (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
- please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2019 Cure Award | |
In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Skull
Hi Iztwoz, hope that you're well. I was looking at skull and saw you merged it with human skull a couple of years ago. It seems like there's about a 60 / 40 split of human / nonhuman information and I was contemplating resplitting it to the two articles as it's getting pretty long, but didn't want to reinvent the wheel. I couldn't find the relevant discussion and was wondering if you recalled where it might be + what your thoughts would be about a split? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Tom (LT) - you supported this proposal in February 2016 see its talk page. The merging of human specifics with other animals had already raised a fair bit of discussion - my own view was a preference for Human.... and keeping the Other animals section but there had been a few outcries that the articles were humancentric hence the reorganisation of several other human-specific pages. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. Sorry for the delayed response. I do remember the set of discussions. Sometimes I restumble upon an article after some time and things look a bit different - looks like Skull has expanded somewhat. Do you think it's worth rediscussing a split from skull Skull? I feel as if the nonhuman elements have increased and it's quite long, so there would be a reargument for splitting. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Tom (LT) have just had another look at the page - first thought was that it is not a long page at all - less than 40K. Next thought was that it seems strangely skewed and am of the opinion for it to follow the guidelines suggested on its talk page (similar to how other pages cover things, with the Other animals section - even at the risk of upsetting somebody's applecart! At the moment it has a section with the strange heading of ...in vertebrates, that excludes humans. Also best to continue on talk page. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Pneumocytes
Hello. I saw you reverted my edit of type I/II pneumocytes to type I/II cells on the grounds that it is mentioned in the text. However, I believe that the term type I/II pneumocytes is a more accurate description as it includes the prefix pneumo- which refers to the lung. Also I wanted to bring to your attention this very nice illustration (Media:Cross_section_of_an_alveolus_and_capillaries_showing_diffusion_of_gases.svg) which includes that term. Finally, I find the term type I/II cells such a vague term (it can refer to any organ) that can be confusing to a person that is not a pulmonologist. kupirijo (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hello kupirijo - the simpler use of terms is always preferable; also they ought not to present any confusion: a Google search for Type I cells only comes up with the alveolar type and registers 443 million hits; a search for Type II cells only comes up with alveolar cells and registers 375 million hits. The term pneumocyte is made very clear on the page. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Neck
Those neck lines aren't due to mature age but clearly to excess body fat. Lopkiol (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Human nose
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Human nose 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) 00:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks Ajpolino
Medical image usage
Images having the purpose of showing a given anatomical feature of what is considered the normal human body should not be taken from individuals presenting with unhealthy characteristics, such as excess body fat. Lopkiol (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Can I suggest that you take your issue up with the person who added the image? Thank you--Iztwoz (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Human nose
The article Human nose you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Human nose 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) 17:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks Ajpolino for reviewing this and for your helpful comments. Keep well, best --Iztwoz (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Quarter Million Award
The Quarter Million Award | |
For your contributions to bring Human nose (estimated annual readership: 300,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
Thanks for your work on this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Reverted move of Habit cough
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of Habit cough has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". Such consensus is particularly required before moving a title with incoming links in order to create a disambiguation page at that title. If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion to form the appropriate consensus. Again, please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. -- intgr [talk] 10:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Please be more specific
Please do not believe that a tag explains the pedantic detail you want a citation for, especially because the tag is at the end of a sentence that may or may not require citation for a number of things. And, please, don't go about reverts so happilly. The citation you "removed" did support a fact stated in the sentence, i.e. that "cleavage" is a word in regular usage. For both use the talk page and discuss, don't make another editor read minds. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I hope I haven't lost you
The Special Barnstar | ||
For a cool head (despite our previous disagreements) and help with Cleavage (breasts). The sceince is still weak, but I haven't given up on the hope of help from you, Tom (LT) and Dr. Vogel, the science minded people I know. May be you can take another look at the article and how it is shaping up. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC) |
Intermammary cleft
I thought there should be a different image in the box. No use having the same image twice, and hence tried out a inside-outside view. Shall I look for another alternative? I didn't look too closely yet. BTW, I tried expanding the anatomy and lead. Did you take a look at it? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
DNA virus
I tried to explain on the talk page of Baltimore classification what I was doing, but I don't get why you undid my redirect. Velayinosu (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Velayinosu - I reverted because such a merge for a long-standing , well-viewed page needs prior possibility for discussion see WP:MERGE - my one revert would suggest that it could be a controversial move and therefore needs the merge tags added so that other editors can arrive at a consensus. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough
I am not edit warring. Since you said it in a question I assume you didn’t know what it was. I will leave the placement of it alone now.Jhenderson 777 11:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Another barnstar for you!
The Psychology Barnstar | ||
For your erudite, steadfast contributions to Schizophrenia. You not only bring accurate, well-written information to the beautifully curious masses, you're also a role model for scores of editors around the world. Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 02:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
Membership renewal of Wiki Project Med Foundation
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 2022.
Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk), 2021.01
Mikhail Lebedev
We urgently need a Wikipedia article on the famous neuorscientist, Mikhail Lebedev. Can you please finish the article on Mikhail Lebedev this weekend? It needs to be nominated as a good or featured article within 30 days. I Already started. Please see Draft:Mikhail Lebedev (neuorscientist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 01:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your edits. I'll be stepping away from the article for now FYI so that won't be a further complication at this time. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Pathogenic bacteria
Hi, it's good to be working with you on this article. I thought you might be interested in this essay on the use of "however"; User:John/however. Best regards. --Graham Beards (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Graham Beards, I am happy to use 'However' as a British Englisher; however if you are not happy with the usage I shall practice restraint. Howsoever, and notwithstanding I shall address any issues on talk page. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
On editing the Pacinian corpuscle page on Wikipedia
Dear Iztwoz,
I saw that you have undone my edits on the Pacinian corpuscle (PC) page on Wikipedia and I understand your concern and taken proper care of that in my modified edit. To clarify my intended edits, there were multiple misleading information on this page which must be corrected. My intention is not to promote my thesis. I want Wikipedia to present correct information clearly for the benefit of students.
The mistakes or misleading information which were there earlier on that page:
1) Discovery of the PC is not including name of Vater who 100 years before Pacini observed and reported it. If you do not believe, please look at Section-3.1 of my thesis for the full history with further references. 2) PC was referred as a cell which is completely wrong. It is a system involving multiple type of cells. 3) They are found not only in glabrous skin but also in hirsute skin. They are even found even out side the skin. Please look at Table-2.4 of my thesis. 4) Pressure / force is not always static or quasi-static. It could be dynamic leading to vibration or dynamic deformation. 5) Not all PCs respond well to high frequency vibration. Few of them are slow adaptive too. Please look at Section-2.5.5 of my thesis to break the myth that all PCs are rapid adaptive and detects only high frequency vibration.
It is painful seeing many journal papers I receive for reviewing just mention those misleading information present on Wikipedia in their papers. Please help Wikipedia to present correct information so that students would not be misleading by Wikipedia. I have no problem if you find those corrections do not need any reference.
I accept my limitation that due to time constraint I can not put hundreds of primary references in Wikipedia to correct these misleading information after putting them in my thesis long back which is freely accessible too. I am not biased to any researcher even to myself.
Anyhow, thanks a lot for concerning about this page and I hope you too have a special interest on this fascinating mechanoreceptor, the Pacinian Corpuscle.
I have already shifted the history of discovery in a separate section.
Thanks.
Merge of Muscle to Skeletal muscle
That was rather WP:BOLD of you. Did you discuss this merge with anybody else before undertaking it? I can understand thinking that "skeletal muscle" might be the primary topic of "muscle". However, vertebrates have muscles that aren't skeletal, and your merge included a section Skeletal_muscle#Invertebrate_muscle_cell_types, that isn't relevant to skeletal muscles at all. Changes in potential primary topics should be discussed via WP:RM, not (unilaterally?) implemented via a merge. Plantdrew (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Plantdrew the merge proposal was posted on Skeletal muscle in June and supported - there had been a number of discussions over the years on various muscle related pages - in short there was a lot of duplication on the pages and the page Muscle on its own served no purpose. The page Muscle tissue is more relevant. It was not an issue of choosing Skeletal muscle as a primary topic but of noting that muscle was a usual aka of skeletal muscle. There is still a fair bit of work called for on the pages and I am intending to carry on with edits in a more focused way in the future - perhaps you could help out? --Iztwoz (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Re: Cardium
Per WP:MALPLACED, do not redirect base page name title to a disambiguated title. BD2412 T 14:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, this was a first attempt at making a disambiguation page.--Iztwoz (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
you are doing an easy job
instead of thinking about how to "correctly" ban racist and pseudoscientific content from wikipedia you just reversed any mention to it? antiracism is our all duty. if you don't have the capacities to do it the "correct" way than at least don't destruct other peoples' investigation by simply denoting it to be wrongly placed or not part of your opinion (i fully understand if you did not read the french part of the image's text but i did and trust me, this IS racist and there is no reason to keep such content on wikipedia, unrevised, unmarked, unread). Lionel Aschka (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
adding information on that racist content is still in use does make it neither more scientific nor less racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel Aschka (talk • contribs) 12:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
i placed a ga reassessement on that article. may it make things more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel Aschka (talk • contribs) 12:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia
Dear fellow editor,
I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.
All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.
Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.
I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).
The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.
Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Recti muscles (eye) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Recti muscles (eye), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please develop the article in draft space before moving it back to main space. First of all it contains little information, and secondly it does not cite any sources. So, it does not qualify to be an article. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Itcouldbepossible had intended to expand on this and had to leave it.--Iztwoz (talk)
Why put some old-fashioned style on the pages of pernicious anemia and vitamin B12 deficiency? (Although I took a long time to develop it)
We can agree on some things, but you don't give a chance to someone who has devoted months of his work to showing people a vitamin B12 deficiency, knowing that I am also affected. Johna188 (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Johna188 - I appreciate that you have spent a lot of time on the page BUT you have already stated that your English isn't that good; you keep adding material that isn't strict to the source used; you added a file showing a girl with fever and added the caption of showing pallor. Some of your edits have been helpful but some of your well meant efforts have also been reverted by others - why do you think that is? Best --Iztwoz (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Greek letter prefix in tocopherol articles
There is an explicit naming convention for this at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Prefixes_in_titles. These articles should not be at the page with the Greek letter spelled out. In fact, I am slowly working on bring articles for chemicals into compliance with this naming convention. The technical request should not have been granted. I can formally object, but I hope we can just figure things out here before more pages are moved. When considering moves, you should check the move history of the page to see why the page is at its current title, and past moves will tell you the move is not uncontroversial and should not be taken to technical requests, instead a normal RM should be started. The fact that you could not move the page over the redirect yourself is also a clue that it's not an uncontroversial request. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Mdewman6 was about to ask you about this re your recent edit - I'll look at your edits for know-how! --Iztwoz (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, this was the consensus reached by WP:WikiProject Chemicals. I have no objection to having the Greek letter spelled out in the lead (and these are certainly redirects as well), but the first bolded title should be the page title, as is normally the case. I'll go ahead an fix the moves later today. You're certainly an experienced editor, but I request you do a bit more checking before asking for or executing moves. A previous page move indicates clearly that "Someone (the previous mover) could reasonably object to the move" and therefore cannot be a technical request. Another good way to investigate past moves is to look at the redirects and see if any are R from moves (such as the one preventing you moving the page yourself). IMO, WP:RM/TR gets heavily overused and most requests there should really be normal WP:RMs, as there is little opportunity to object before pages are moved, and page movers there don't give the request enough scrutiny. Thanks, Mdewman6 (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Mdewman6 have just checked out your link - in the past I've tried to make page names readable in respect of the general reader. For example I did try to find a general guideline as to the use of β in titles such as beta sheets, beta blockers and so on, and read one on not using symbols in page names so have changed quite a few - would you know if these ones need to be changed back, or is it just a Chemistry guideline.? Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the biological/medical topics are a bit more nebulous. There is a better argument there for spelling out the Greek letter in some of those cases, I think, but I'm not sure. For example, I am not sure if we should use the Greek letters for enzyme articles that use chemical compound names in their names where the article for the compound uses the letter. So for now, I'm just worried about the chemical articles, and am not sure what should be done about other scientific topics with analogous issues. The underlying principle is based around WP:COMMONNAME, such that the article title should reflect the way the most commonly used name is written. However, if the article title does use the spelled-out version, the name of the Greek letter should be lowercase and italicized (using a {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template at the top of the page), with the first letter after the Greek letter part capitalized (also per WP:CHEMPREFIX). Mdewman6 (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Mdewman6 have just checked out your link - in the past I've tried to make page names readable in respect of the general reader. For example I did try to find a general guideline as to the use of β in titles such as beta sheets, beta blockers and so on, and read one on not using symbols in page names so have changed quite a few - would you know if these ones need to be changed back, or is it just a Chemistry guideline.? Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, this was the consensus reached by WP:WikiProject Chemicals. I have no objection to having the Greek letter spelled out in the lead (and these are certainly redirects as well), but the first bolded title should be the page title, as is normally the case. I'll go ahead an fix the moves later today. You're certainly an experienced editor, but I request you do a bit more checking before asking for or executing moves. A previous page move indicates clearly that "Someone (the previous mover) could reasonably object to the move" and therefore cannot be a technical request. Another good way to investigate past moves is to look at the redirects and see if any are R from moves (such as the one preventing you moving the page yourself). IMO, WP:RM/TR gets heavily overused and most requests there should really be normal WP:RMs, as there is little opportunity to object before pages are moved, and page movers there don't give the request enough scrutiny. Thanks, Mdewman6 (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also, if you were referring to WP:TSC in regards to not use symbols, Greek letters aren't "symbols" in this sense. Use of Greek letters falls under the first criterion, use of characters not on English keyboards, where it says to make sure redirects from easily typed versions exist, which I am ensuring is the case for all of the chemical articles that use Greek letters. So, the recommendation to avoid symbols is not a justification to not have Greek letters as the article title. It should depend on whether the Greek letter itself is most commonly used to write the name in reliable sources, or whether the name of Greek letter is spelled out instead. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response Mdewman6 I would disagree that Greek letters are not symbols in the sense being discussed, they are commonly referred to as such: Mu (letter)#Mathematics "...any Greek letter or other symbol..". WP:ENGLISH needs to be seen in addition to WP:TSC. Also came across a redirect ΛCDM. Obviously I'll respect your position though I really don't hold with it! To my mind any page name ought to be readable by any English speaking person - I can see no reason why unsearchable letters are preferred. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?
Hi Iztwoz, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |