User talk:CFCF/Archive 2

Three problems with your edits to New Coke

To be generous, I don't think your English-language skills are what you claim them to be on your userpage, and this might be why we're having these problems. To address why I've reverted this edit:

"wikipedia can not take a blog as undisputable evidence" The cited source for that passage is a book, not a blog. See note 5.

"exact wording is not possible on wikipedia due to copyright issues". I'm not sure if you mean what you think you mean here. If you mean we can't copy long passages word-for-word, well, yes, you're right. But we are allowed to quote text within the conventional limits of fair use.
However, this is irrelevant here as I was removing text you added which was not in the original source, not restoring the original wording. Not at all different from what you did here.

I suggest you take a look at WP:UNDUE. The existence of conspiracy theories or alternate, non-official explanations of an event is something we do take note of, if they are widespread enough and have at least been discussed in reliable sources. However, neither that nor WP:NPOV requires that, in those instances, we must indicate everywhere that the accepted narrative of events is questioned. We can have an article on the 9/11 truth movement without having to say everywhere on Wikipedia that planes were "allegedly" crashed into the Twin Towers. Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling to question my language skills was a low blow, and none of the "misunderstandings" alluded to are to failure in communication, but rather due to the fact that the page is very obviously biased, with one source taken as definitive without any form of criticism. CFCF (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever. I still don't think you understand what you're talking about, but I am alright with your followup edits. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Sobotta (disambiguation)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Sobotta (disambiguation), CFCF!

Wikipedia editor Matty.007 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks good.

To reply, leave a comment on Matty.007's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cancer immunology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages IL-12 and Th1 (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) 11:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shennong ben cao jing

Hello, CFCF, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Shennong ben cao jing, appears to be directly copied from http://english.visitbeijing.com.cn/play/entertainment/n214782079.shtml. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Shennong ben cao jing if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Shennong ben cao jing

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Shennong ben cao jing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://english.visitbeijing.com.cn/play/entertainment/n214782079.shtml. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Oddbodz (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oscarshall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christiania (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) 19:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, CFCF. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 23:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	CFCF, I've been noticing your image edits. Thanks for adding these images and altering the pages, these images are phenomenal and are really helping to improve the look of the encyclopedia. Thanks! LT910001 (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main template

Hi, just to let you know there's a template for adding "main article" links to articles. I converted your edits here to use that template. Just thought you might like to know, cheers Jebus989 ^✰ 15:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so many templates, takes a while to get to know them all. CFCF (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

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.

Capillary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Great veins

Precapillary resistance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lumen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sentinel cell

The article Sentinel cell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

copy and paste recreation of an unneeded disambig page

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herd immunity

Thanks for the context. I didn't realise that the public domain status also extended to all text on government websites, but my edit was as much to trim the caption length as anything. (I also flagged the picture on Commons to say it'd benefit from having the text stripped so that other language Wikipedias can use it - I'll do that myself when I've got ten minutes on a computer with Photoshop, at some point.) --McGeddon (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rectus abdominis muscle 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

File:Rectus abdominis sheath.jpg|Rectus abdominis sheath as visible on human dissection]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed CFCF (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomic images

Why did you remove these images for anatomy pages? Is this related to the proposal about hiding images which you feel the public may find disturbing, and these cadaver dissection images are disturbing?

Example: this [1]. Lesion (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all Lesion, if the images are up to scratch they should definitely be there. See discussion at User talk:Anatomist90. I've left images that add to understanding (mostly those where you can orient yourself in the image properly. That user has been adding massive amount of images of very questionable value to articles where they do not belong. I've simply been cleaning up, but if you feel any of the images are relevant you can put back 1 or 2. Just not 15 like at [2].

Most of the images are of incredibly low quality. Dissection images need to be good enough to contribute to the article they are in. Just having an image where you maybe can find a structure doesn't constitute encyclopedic content.CFCF (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though if you were to argue in that case that images File:Slide1DEEAA.JPG & File:Slide2DEEAA.JPG do constitute as encyclopedic content I could possibly agree with you. But the way the images are added in bulk, it's very hard to actually consider which one of 15-20 should stay. -- CFCF (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read that discussion. I am no anatomist, but I would hesitate before calling these poor quality. Dissection is a very skillful art. I know enough to know that dissections such as these where the nerves are preserved are incredibly skillful. The background has been blanked, and each is thoroughly annotated. Clearly a lot of time and effort has gone into their preparation.

I will AFG and not assume that these image removals represent you finding an excuse to remove images you feel the public would find disturbing. Until a consensus is found for this view it should not go ahead.

As I understand it, the "anatomy style guidelines" recommend that the infobox have 1-2 images and all other images go into a gallery. It is very common for anatomy pages to have a gallery at the end.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

IMO, 1-6 are all potentially valuable. 7-9 are essentially close ups of 6. I have been working on merging the 4 articles on the different types of lingual papillae into one article. Work in progress, but maybe some of 7-9 could go there. 10 barely shows the tongue, but this does not rule out its use on other pages. Lesion (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lesionDissection is difficult, yes, and the dissection process may have required a very high degree of skill as well as being of high quality, but the images are not in my view of especially high quality. On the other hand they are the best we currently have, and some of them therefor might have value in being used. For the article in question Tongue I would recommend using images 6 & (7 or 8) if needed, but the others don't really add anything, which is why I removed them. The others can still be accessed through the link on the commons, but don't really belong in that encyclopedic entry. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for deleting them (even though some of them certainly could be purged off the commons).

Apart from this I found a few images that might go on wikipedia:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnystiletto/5484310660/ - CC2 no commercial?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/indirectheat/6674879767/ - CC2 no commercial?
http://www.biology.iastate.edu/Courses/212L/New%20Site/28%20DigestResp/pig%20anatomy/LetterTongueEpi.jpg - this image is pretty good, unknown copyright

All these are public domain - pre 1923 (page states copyright, it doesn't hold, the images are just pure scans):

http://www.anatomyatlases.org/atlasofanatomy/plate32/images/32-5_static.jpg - nerves, pre 1923 public domain (P.S. images public domain, text is not)
http://www.google.com/imgres?biw=1235&bih=1297&tbs=imgo:1&tbm=isch&tbnid=RzH5vvFJ5qKoZM:&imgrefurl=http://chestofbooks.com/health/anatomy/Human-Body-Construction/The-Mouth-And-Throat-Part-2.html&docid=h3RWHpeNqKzvSM&imgurl=http://chestofbooks.com/health/anatomy/Human-Body-Construction/images/Fig-138-The-cheek-has-been-split-the-tongue-drawn-forwa.jpg&w=500&h=363&ei=jdSIUqv1PIaK5ATz4YGwDQ&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:38,s:0,i:210&iact=rc&page=2&tbnh=177&tbnw=264&start=28&ndsp=38&tx=144&ty=34 - pre 1923, pretty disturbing, but could be used
http://chestofbooks.com/health/anatomy/Human-Body-Construction/The-Mouth-And-Throat-Part-2.html - all images here
http://chestofbooks.com/health/anatomy/Human-Body-Construction/The-Mouth-And-Throat-Part-3.html - here
http://chestofbooks.com/health/anatomy/Human-Body-Construction/The-Mouth-And-Throat-Part-4.html here
http://chestofbooks.com/health/anatomy/Human-Body-Construction/The-Mouth-And-Throat.html - possibly

-- CFCF (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also the second site doesn't state copyright of the images or text I see now http://chestofbooks.com/health/anatomy/Human-Body-Construction/index.html just states the copyright of the book, which is from 1913. CFCF (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Hi CFCF! Just a quick update: I've merged Human anatomy into Human body, and I feel there is very little content that would need moving for a similar merge from Human physiology (the 'history' section is straight from the Physiology article). I've also put a few short projects which I'm working towards on the 'todo' list and will be working towards those in the next few months (eg the 65 nose articles... a little too many, in my mind!). That said, I'm going on holiday and will be away from the internet and Wikipedia for about a month. If you need any support for anything (mergers etc.) you can reach me on my talk page, but I won't be able to actively contribute for a while. It's been great revitalising WPAnatomy, and I look forward to continuing my contributions when I return. Best, --LT910001 (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently in for a week without very much spare time, but I started the merge at User:CFCF/sandbox/Human body -- CFCF (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For helping revitalise WP:Anatomy. Well done! LT910001 (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dissection

Images of anatomical dissections are not by definition low quality. Not sure why you removed this image in this edit [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they aren't low quality per definition, but many of the images User:Anatomist90 has uploaded are rather hard to justify. You're right in saying that removing that particular image might have been going to far, but I still don't believe it ads to the article in gallery form, but I wont revert it. -- CFCF (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you read my previous comment on this page I suggest a few dissection images that are of higher quality in the Tongue article. -- CFCF (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be re adding a number of the images you have removed. Pictures of dissections often match reality better than the very nice drawings one finds in textbooks, which are much better than reality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jmh649 Very happy to let you do so. It's great seeing as there will then be a review of what images are suitable, so as not to flood or add images that are entirely irrelevant. I will see what I can do as far as supplying better images.CFCF (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We should have one or two images of anatomical dissections IMO on Wikipedia. The rest can be put in a gallery on Wikimedia Commons. We should not have 10 or 20 images on Wikipedia. I hope that will be a fair compromise for all involved. I am in discussion with the editor in question. He has limited English ability which is why he is communicating with me directly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

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.

Anatomical terms of motion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Opposition and Circumduction
Cerebellum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Arbor vitae

~~It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

--Fixed -- CFCF (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of information from Electronic Cigarette

You were asked yesterday why you deleted the information on the addictiveness of nicotine. Your reply was that you couldn't answer. Now you have deleted it again, without explanation. If you have an answer now please supply it. If you don't then restore the information.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluative diversity article

CFCF: Thanks for assessing the evaluative diversity article. I've been trying to move it to C-class--any suggestions about what might be needed? Have I succeeded in adapting it to the MOS? Do you know of any missing content?

Talkback

Hello, CFCF. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 19:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Superior orbital fissure 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

calvarium]] removed. White area in posterior of [[orbital cavity]] is the superior orbital fissure.]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Foramen lacerum 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

File:Base of skull 16.jpg|Foramen lacerum]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For all the great work you are doing. And welcome back after a long time away. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wikipedia is such an excellent resource, but sometimes you get overwhelmed by the amount of work that can be/needs to be done. Always nice to get some recognition. CFCF (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing the wegener's move. It was about time! GPA has been the accepted name for a couple years. Furorimpius (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

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.

Electronic cigarette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bidi

Tubercle (anatomy) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hypophysis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wegener's

The move was reverted because I didn't follow the correct procedures. If you still agree with the move, please comment on the talk page. Furorimpius (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eduard Pernkopf

On 28 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eduard Pernkopf, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that anatomist Eduard Pernkopf, who expelled Jewish faculty from the University of Vienna medical school after the Anschluss, was later given space by a Jewish physician to finish his anatomical atlas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eduard Pernkopf. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Nikkimaria (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	These images are excellent User:CFCF/Sobotta Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Foul Play (game)

The article Foul Play (game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There are no independent reliable sources available to provide evidence of notability. Only press releases and minimal routine coverage can be found.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical cannabis

Thanks for the help; I guess my rant worked :) Do you think these kinds of statements require medical sourcing? I believe our general sourcing guidelines work there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, I'm not so sure about the overall reliability of that article. It makes a whole lot of statements about where the medication is sold that really ought to be medically sourced. The FDA should have info, as well as the NHS. CFCF (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a bit odd to me [4], just for starters. Don't you think SandyGeorgia? CFCF (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[5] as well. CFCF (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see ... yes, those are problems. I have only been able to brush the surface on that suite of articles, so if you're going to wade in, please don't assume that anything there now has been thoroughly vetted by me. (Also, I don't have full journal access, so can generally only access articles that have free full text via PMC or otherwise.) There is tons of work to be done across the entire suite of articles, including rationalizing the structure (repeat info across multiple articles that need merging). I'm just sensitive that folks complain sometimes that we tag things as MEDRS when a normal RS tag would do. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muscle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Locomotion and Posture (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) 09:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding dissection images-- I thought there was no consensus for this?

[6]

Could you please show where there is consensus for this change, and if not please change it back. I understand that there was a discussion about this and most were against doing this, a RfC which you yourself proposed?. Lesion (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question is from over a month ago, and I had missed reverting it. I'll go through any other edits I made then and revert them. CFCF (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have agreed that we would have two or so dissection images with the rest on Commons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where was that consensus please? Lesion (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that clearly defined. Just a bunch of discussion here among other places [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CFCF. You have new messages at Quadell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

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.

Face (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Zygomaticus

Median nerve (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Brachium

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Human penis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Insisting on having a large number of self-uploaded Commons images in the article without any attempt at consensus is unhelpful.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Neuraxis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|Caption=Comparison of human (bipedal and dog (quadripedal) neuraxi.
uses different [[anatomical terminology]], due to its [[embryology|embryonic]] origin of neuraxis.]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An image for toothache, orofacial pain, and other similar

Hi CFCF, I am going to have a go at this article. Do we have a nice picture of the Trigeminal divisions or a detailed diagram of the nervous supply to the dentition or something? Many thanks if you can find anything. Lesion (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, might not respond before tomorrow. CFCF (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Lesion (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scheme of the Distribution of the Trigeminal Nerve
Scheme of the Distribution of the Trigeminal Nerve
Scheme of the Distribution of the Trigeminal Nerve
Scheme of the Distribution of the Trigeminal Nerve
Scheme of the Distribution of the Trigeminal Nerve
Scheme of the Distribution of the Trigeminal Nerve
Diagram of Sensory Nerves of Face, front view

Found these which I uploaded, most likely I have more. They are relatively detailed, but I don't really like that first image. Also, I've ordered this book from e-bay so I might get better scans than these. CFCF (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 656a and 656b look perfect for toothache. What do you think? Lesion (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I found a few more in depth images among others http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009853139;view=1up;seq=242 - http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009853139;view=1up;seq=246 - http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009853139;view=1up;seq=296 ; get back to me if that is worth uploadingCFCF (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure those last three are suitable... they are a bit over detailed? For now I have taken 656a and b for toothache. Please feel free to replace/add images on any of these articles. Orofacial pain might better benefit from a dermatome diagram of H&N, but I a not sure. Lesion (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lesion Wonderful, I'm not sure I have any other images than the ones already present on Trigeminal nerve, but I will keep a look-out in case I find anything more suitable. CFCF (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this revert..

Please explain: I'm talking about this one[8]. Please do explain how

Meier, Ellen; Tackett, Alayna P.; Wagener, Theodore L. (2013), "Effectiveness of Electronic Aids for Smoking Cessation" (PDF), Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, 7 (6): 464–472, doi:10.1007/s12170-013-0343-8, PMID 24319519

isn't a secondary source. Considering that User talk:Jmh649 accepts it as a secondary source for the text[9] ... I find your revert quite strange. Especially in the light that you are now at the limit WP:3RR ([10][11][12])on the article, and that you've apparently just continued the WP:EDITWAR that almost got you blocked for 3RR once before[13].... Where is your WP:TALK discussion about your reverts? --Kim D. Petersen 19:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

To keep you going! LT910001 (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I'm on so much of that stuff that my hands are shaking now. I have a serious coffee problem ;). CFCF (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Well, maybe that wasn't such a great idea then :D. Actually, I meant to send you something else, but it must have gotten lost in the ether. I was wondering what we ought to do with the content on Anatomical terminology and the two child pages, as there seems to be a significant duplication of content, and I'm quite unsure as to what to do. I feel one way would be to transpose the explanation of the terms lateral/medial on the anatomical terminology page to the anatomical terms of motion page, and then retain the remaining terms of motion as a list in the same format as the terms of location. Also (2) the section on actions of muscles and membranes is very long, I would like to truncate and/or move to the anatomical terms of motion, these sections relate more to function rather than specific terminology. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How were you to know? On a serious note, do you mean medial/lateral should be explained on the motion page, are you sure you don't mean location? Of course there are medial motions, but I'm not sure that anatomical terms of motion the most relevant article for those terms, and I don't think I'm ready to take on the location page - there is so much non-human anatomy there.

On the other hand the focus on joints in anatomical terminology could be moved, but the concepts at least broadly of antagonist and agonist much fall under terminology? And the pennation is relevant in my eyes as well, but also that could be shortened.

Human_anatomical_terms#Other_special_motions could also probably be shortened.

The membrane section could also be moved so that only the image and a very short explanation of serous membranes remains. I'll take a look tonight.CFCF (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More anatomies

Any interest in taking on [Bourgery's] magnum opus too? I have a gorgeous reprint with modern 5-language caption translations at home. There's also an online version of the full thing at http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/bourgery1831ga which seems to have the French full text (without the plates) from the atlas (just the plates). Also has some nice material on the contemporary surgical instruments. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a book of both significant anatomical value as well as historical value. I think that it would be a wonderful addition to Wikipedia, and I actually hadn't heard of it before. ~~Unfortunately the scans from Heidelberg leave quite a bit to be desired and are only really good at the lowest zoom.~~ There are additional sources here http://gallica.bnf.fr/Search?ArianeWireIndex=index&p=1&lang=EN&q=Trait%C3%A9+complet+de+l%27anatomie+de+l%27homme&x=0&y=0 , but as that search gives me 1400+ hits I don't know which are best yet. That source has Poirier's as well as Testut's anatomy, two late 19th century books which I started ever so lightly on (the latter of which I am hoping intently as a present for the holidays). How is the quality of your reprint, and where was it from? CFCF (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a bit more that book is amazing, and single pages sell for upwards 70$ on ebay. Might try to pick one up for my wall. Anyway, uploading it has already climbed high on my to-do list. Unfortunately I do not have all that much time before the start of January as I am moving, but after that work can begin. If you want to help/start it would be great, and we could work together. CFCF (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I picked up the modern 1-volume Taschen facsimile OL 14762034M for an unbelievable $1 at a charity book sale. It's in beautiful condition except for the dust cover. The images are much cleaner than the scans that are presently available on line. They must have worked from the original plates, rather than the paper. I doubt that rises to the level of originality needed to establish a new copyright (I suppose we should check, though). If you can commit to tackle the scan and upload job (on your own schedule), email me a postal address and I'll get it off to you. It's a big job, though, about 700 pages.

A cautionary note: the text translations are (I think) modern, so those page parts will not be PD, nor will the foreword. Accordingly the translations will need to be at least paraphrased. If you've got a medical polyglot to help you with tweaking the French to English and German versions that would be simpler, otherwise you might just use the original French and invoke eventualism for the rest. Alternatively, if we can latch onto a copy of the R. Willis translation we might find that his is the English text in the Taschen facsimile, in which case it too is PD. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#1)

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#1)

Editor: LT910001

Hello WP:ANATOMY user! This is the first of what I hope will be ongoing quarterlies, documenting the current state of WP:ANATOMY, current projects and items of interest, and any relevant news. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage

What's new

Revamped interface for WP:ANATOMY
New "drives" initiative, allowing users to post small targets (limited in time and scope) that other users can collaborate on.
New article assessment statistics, to see how we are improving month to month. All Start thru GA class articles reevaluated for class and quality. All moustache-related articles have been removed (not a joke).
CFCF has been furiously uploading high-quality Anatomy images from various textbooks
New GA nomination (Suspensory muscle of duodenum)

What's going on

A discussion regarding a change to the manual of style for Anatomical articles
An RfC regarding the use of 'Human' in anatomical titles, which is a matter of some contention.

How can I contribute?

Add small 'drives' of your own!
Contribute on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page
Start adding sources to more Anatomy articles
Start proposing merges, moves, tagging and re-evaluating articles.

Quarterly focus - GA nominations

I would like to take some time on this first quarterly to evaluate the state of the project. We have the benefit of having a relatively-small group of articles that are, for the most part, relatively non-controversial. Additionally, for the majority of our articles, it may indeed be possible to create an article that reflects a significant proportion of the published literature. This is quite distinct from other projects.

However, it appears we only have 5 GAs (Anatomy, Brain, Clitoris, Human tooth, and Leonardo da Vinci) and 4 FAs (Immune system, Hippocampus, Cerebellum, and Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom), none of which relate to purely anatomical items, which constitute most of our mass. By 'anatomical items' I mean muscles, nerves, bones, blood vessels, veins, foramina, and so on, that constitute the vast majority of our articles. In fact, we only have one 'system' (Immune system) at FA class, and none at GA class. We indeed only have 70 articles out over 4,000 at B-class. This scarcity is, I believe, for the following reasons: (1) lack of model articles (2) lack of appropriate guidelines, and (3) general sparsity of sourcing on many articles. How may these be addressed?

Nominating good articles. In addition to suspensory muscle of the duodenum I will be working on Mylohyoid muscle, Genioglossus, Foramen spinosum and an as-yet undecided article.
Revamping the MEDMOS guidelines for Anatomical articles to make them more appropriate. That discussion is here.
Using books as sources. Books are readily available in libraries and have the superb quality of being able to aggregate information, which can be used to source thousands of anatomical articles.
Collateralising sourcing. Anatomical sources often refer to several structures in a single source. Therefore an editor on one article could quickly add a source to another two articles in a related topic. This incremental approach will hopefully accrue for future editors
Tagging articles for cleanup, to let future editors know to use sources
Templates, which will soon be available, to post on the wall of new editors thanking them for their edits and encouraging the use of sources.

I hope that we are able to revitalise this project. Wikipedia has the capacity to become an excellent resource for anatomical information. I again welcome feedback on this quarterly or any aspects therein on the talk page for the quarterly, on my talkpage, or on the WP Anatomy talk page here. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk)

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users.

A barnstar for you!

	The Rosetta Barnstar
	For your work on getting medical articles into Swedish. Much appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sobo 1909 260

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:Sobo 1909 260.png, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on this! Thanks for your work in getting it up to par. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! --LT910001 (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orofacial pain

Hello CFCF, I got your email. Did you mean to attach the paper to that email? It was not attached... Thank you, Lesion (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you need to respond so I can get your address to attach it. You can't send through the wiki-mail formular. CFCF (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. I have now replied via email. Thanks, Lesion (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References in Swedish

Greetings, CFCF. I was wondering if you could help me with something. I work in Articles for Creation, where new users submit proposals for articles, and reviewers only accept them if the articles include multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject and confirm its notability. Recently an editor asked for help with this nomination at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help#I need help with Thomas Concrete Group submission - refs are in Swedish. Could you answer her question? I hate to bother you, but I'm afraid I don't know anyone else who can read Swedish. Thanks so much, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're the best, thanks! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Central nervous system, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Balance, Cortex and PET (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) 08:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your work on Central nervous system

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your excellent work providing a much-appreciated major expansion of Central nervous system. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of Material

Hello, I'm Finealt. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Childbirth. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Finealt (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finealt, CFCF was adding a relevant image to the article. You were the one who was removing it. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image of the Stapes

Hi CFCF, I hope you had a wonderful Christmas. I'm preparing Stapes for GA-nomination and have noted this article: [14]. Would you be able to use your splendiferous uploading skills to upload the last and first of those three images? Would be very grateful! --LT910001 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LT910001, I got back from a trip last night but have uploaded the images:

If you wish to have them cropped in any way please ask and I will upload alternate versions. The background may be difficult to remove seeing as the quality of the scan is not optimal (but as before ask and I will try). CFCF (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CFCF! They still have a copyright tag or two, would you be able to have a look? Thanks, --LT910001 (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, there isn't a {{PD-Art|1=PD-old-100}} option in the default upload wizard which is why they were tagged. Apart from this there is a white arrow in the second image, but this should not constitute originality as per my understanding of US law. Looking that up. CFCF (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

：：：：Thanks! I've added them to Stapes#History and will probably add it to the other Ossicles, Ossicles#History and/or Ear as well. --LT910001 (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On my way to a GA review! Would you mind cropping the second image so as to only show the second leaf of paper? --LT910001 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LT910001 I made these:

I didn't want to remove the previous image so I uploaded two new ones. I'm not sure if the removal of the background was done properly, as I also removed the arrow but you will have to judge. Happy new years! CFCF (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks! Happy new year to you too! --LT910001 (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thank you for many good images, Sobotta and others! Was a bee (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	These are very good references! Thank you for sharing. Will refer to the original book too! Romelsalwi (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, but I'm clueless as to which sources you mean. Any of the image sources I've uploaded or the books I've used for my articles? Would be great to know so I can continue improving. Romelsalwi -- CFCF (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)== Result of the edit warring complaint about Electronic cigarette ==[reply]

Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:FergusM1970 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Protection, warnings) which contains a warning for you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]