User talk:Bush6984

Welcome!

Hello, Bush6984, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as List of DuoLingo Language Offerings, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jarkeld (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of DuoLingo Language Offerings

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 List of DuoLingo Language Offerings, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Jarkeld (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pancake Sentences

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 Pancake Sentences requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. EBY (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 17:27, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anastomosis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Palmar arch and Trauma. 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) 12:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to disambiguation page for the palmar arches was deliberate, because I wanted to show that there are two, and not link only one. Link to trauma has been corrected to Trauma (medicine) which redirects to injury. Bush6984 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

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.

Allen's test

added a link pointing to Saphenous vein

European Gaming League

added a link pointing to Gaming

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

link to Saphenous vein was deliberate- there are two saphenous veins (great and lesser/small) so to direct to only one would be misleading

link to gaming was changed to Video game gulture

Bush6984 (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Face of the Giant Panda Sign

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Bush6984, thanks for creating Face of the Giant Panda Sign!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. .

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Job!

Hey, USER:Bush6984 You are doing a really amazing job here at Wikipedia and I really enjoy your articles! Keep of the good work. ReeseGrace 13:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReeseGrace (talk • contribs) [reply]

Thanks for visiting my talk page

I am just stopping by to encourage you in your editing. Some editors can be quite terse in their communications with newer editors, so don't let rudeness get you down. It looks like you are a very fast learner! Right now I am struggling with the formatting of tables-even after 13,000 edits, there is so much that I don't know. Editors tend to specialize in certain areas. Some like to fix spelling mistakes (how do they find these??) Some use semi-automated programs called 'bots' to fix problems, monitor new edits and new editors. So keep in touch...you are doing great and the encyclopedia needs editors like you. Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 20:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I finally have come for a visit

You've created some nice articles! You are doing a great job as a newer editor. Keep up the good work

Bfpage |leave a message 22:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! It means a lot to have support despite being relatively new to everything. Bush6984 (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! Great Buckeye Wiknic 2016

Hello there! You are invited to attend the Great Buckeye Wiknic in Columbus, Ohio on Sunday, July 10th from 1:00 to 5:00 PM! Join us for a day in the park for food and socializing with others from the Wikimedia movement. We'll be meeting up at Fred Beekman Park, a park on Ohio State University's campus.

If you're interested, please take a look at our events page for more information, including parking info, food options, and available activities. If you plan on attending, please add your name to the attendees list. We look forward to seeing you!

If you have any questions, feel free to leave one on my talk page. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: If you would like to stop receiving notifications regarding Wikimedia events around Ohio, you may remove your username from this list.)

I wish I could have made it, and would love to attend things like this in the future if possible. I had a prior commitment that day :-( Bush6984 (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Hello, old friend! I had no idea you were a Wiki editor as well. Here's a tasty Dutch treat in honor of Wikipedia translation work! TheLeaper (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bush6984. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General topic messages (non-system, non-bots)

Hello there PolymathGirl (Bush6984). I noticed your important message and read point 4 ("Some women don’t edit Wikipedia because they are conflict-averse and don’t like Wikipedia’s sometimes-fighty culture.") of the "Nine Reasons Women Don't Edit Wikipedia (in their own words)" page.
I'm sorry that I created an argumentative and aggressive/confrontational impression through my use of bold words on the Hovercards Beta Feature Talk page - I only intended to highlight key information in my point. I also stated my point quite clearly and strongly but this text itself doesn't seem particularly aggressive, just slightly argumentative.
Thanks for notifying me of the problem and I will try not to annoy anyone else like this.
Edwardj 123 (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC) | This message is placed here to notify you of my response to your conversation here.[reply]

Add your message/discussion reply here.

(This is just copy-pasted from what I left on your User Talk page) I really appreciate it. Thank you not only for the acknowledgement/recognition of the concern and apology (worlds better than brushing it off/dismissal, which many others may have opted for), but also I certainly appreciate your consideration in reading that bullet-point #4 that addresses/highlights that concern, especially as that #4 point addresses a wider Wikimedia concern. Thank you again. Much respect, PolymathGirl (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Just thought I'd cheer you up. (First time I've tried this! Returned to WP recently and all this stuff had appeared!)

— Iadmc ♫^talk 04:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iadmc: OH. MY. GOD, that's so cute!!! Thank you!!! I didn't even know this was a thing (like, I understand Barnstars, well, kindasorta, but see this as a different function) but I totally love it! :-D

BTW, may I add that, as a fellow musician, I love your music notes on your signature! ;-) PolymathGirl (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither me. Just thought I'd try it! I think Twinkle adds it: it's one of my tabs, called "wikilove". And thanks: I added the notes to my old sig and dragged them over here when I created this new account after several years away... Lord knows where I got them from. Feel free to steal them! ;) — Iadmc ♫^talk 06:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Transgender, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Marianna251TALK 11:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PolymathGirl - I also read your message on Flyer's talk page. Though I agreed with her reversion, I wanted to sympathize as an openly trans person who knows it can be difficult to find published sources about our experiences that are acceptable for Wikipedia. As my user page mentions, I talked about this subject at WikiConference North America this fall. I've also blogged about "transgender/ed" and similar language debates; while my blog isn't an acceptable source, and the articles I linked to likely aren't either, you might find some interesting reading there. In any case, though I can see you're not new to Wikipedia (despite the "Welcome" template above), I just wanted to leave a friendly note in case you feel discouraged. Funcrunch (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Marianna251 and Funcrunch.

Bush6984, I meant no harm and was not trying to take away from your experience as a trans person. It's just that Wikipedia has certain sourcing standards and I usually follow those standards. I state "usually" because I have considered questionable and self-published sources before. I can help you source some things, but I'm often away from Wikipedia these days. I certainly know the value of preserving material on this site. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch: It's certainly discouraging. Especially considering recent events personally, that a week or two ago I was reading through Sue Gardner's blog post that's mentioned on the m:Gender gap#Read page and nodding my head in agreement to many of the bullet-points, but particularly to I think it's point #5 that talks about the letdown of having one's contributions reverted. That point #5 combined with point #3 (confidence; what could I provide that's worthwhile and not already there?) made total sense.

Then, thanks to Iadmc's insightful direction after a concern I had voiced over at the Wikipedia:GGTF page teaching me about the m:Whose Knowledge? campaign. After reading that page's point that they're pushing to "to create, collect and curate knowledge from and with marginalised communities, particularly ... LGBTQI" I got to thinking "oh, well I guess maybe I could provide some insight on something trans related, maybe" and hopped on over to those pages, feeling somewhat empowered, providing what I would contest is still NPOV input.

@Marianna251: Thank you for providing your other-perspective input. I appreciate it. I guess my concern with the original edit that @Flyer22: had made was that it seemed just too "binary"; that it didn't necessarily seek to find any "middle-ground" of "okay, well this sentence needs pulled, but that section is still valid," that it didn't simply add a ^{[citation needed]} template or similar, but was instead just an all-or-nothing reversion. That, to me, was the odd part. Black-and-white all-or-nothings seem oversimplistic and obscuring of the true reality of the world.

To your point about Wikipedia:NOR I guess I get that concept, generally, but this seems like one of those situations where Wikipedia is self-defeating in that, with marginalized communities, that is simply not the type of thing that frequently gets "researched," therefore in a sense it seems that we (Wikipedians) are setting the bar too high in demands, such that it excludes valuable input, simply on the premise that "we can't find research on it, therefore it's not happening in the world." This is somewhat of an ongoing problem, really, with what some might term "whitewashed" history, in that plenty of events/phenomena do nonetheless exist and occur, regardless of whether we find textbooks that capture and share these niche interactions. Again, I understand the necessity for the Wikipedia:NOR stance generally, however it seems that this (marginalized communities) may be a place where that should be taken on a case-by-case basis, considering the inherent difficulty with which these extremely specific things that happen within extremely rare communities happen being, statistically, extremely unlikely to be researched. (Basically what Funcrunch said above, about "I wanted to sympathize as a ... person who knows it can be difficult to find published sources about our experiences that are acceptable for Wikipedia")

I've been milling over the weekend with the thought of "how can we claim (e.g. via the Whose Knowledge? website's aims) to encourage hearing the voices of marginalized groups, but yet then actively revert their input when provided? It seems rather self-defeating. I'm not sure what the solution is, but it very much so is discouraging.

@User:Flyer22 that would certainly be helpful, to try to find sources to provide, so that this phenomenon that does occur (usage as such e.g. "transgendered") may be included in a manner that is acceptable for Wikipedia's standards. PolymathGirl (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bush6984: First off, I want to apologise if my reversion/template message above came across as uncaring. I do care, quite strongly, but I was short on time before and I let that make me lazy instead of writing a message to properly explain my thoughts. I don't have a clue what it's like to be transgender, but I do know what it's like to belong to a marginalised group (I'm a homoromantic asexual). As clunky as it can be, I stick to Wikipedia's NOR policy because if we create exceptions for marginalised groups due to the relative lack of reliable sources, we have to extend that same exception to fringe groups, which would include hate groups - they have a similar lack of published sources and often consider themselves marginalised. Ultimately, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means it's always going to lag behind the forefront of research simply because an encyclopaedia summarises a body of research, which means that that body of research has to be collected first. That's a slow process with any marginalised group. On the plus side, the number of reliable sources about transgender people and the transgender community has been growing exponentially in recent years - 57% of articles on Google Scholar from the last five years were actually published in 2016, and that trend shows no signs of slowing down, so I'm of the opinion that we'll have reliable source sooner rather than later. Marianna251TALK 12:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marianna251: That's actually a fantastic response with a very cogent argument as to why it's a dangerous slippery slope to go down, for fear of the radical hate groups etc. I appreciate the relation as well as the thought-piece about how encyclopedias in general, regularly, tend to lag behind; I honestly hadn't even considered that as a part of the WP:NOR "effects"/"byproducts," but it's a good point. I especially also appreciate the encouragement that, regardless of reversion, that GoogleScholar rates/trends are promising for the future (which I also hadn't realized, but which is certainly promising to be made aware of) in regards to this topic/subject-matter. Thank you again for your input and uplifting explanation. PolymathGirl (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... Sorry to drop in unannounced (the system told me I'd been mentioned). But since I'm here, I'll put in my two cents.

For a straight, white, cis, able-bodied, able-minded, over-educated, middle-aged male (...) I also happen to be exceptionally (and unusually) open-minded and inclusive in my approach to people. I don't see difference, I see uniqueness... in everyone. Usually eccentricity, actually, but anyway...!
I hate to see any editor become discouraged. It's situations like this that we can all learn from and draw strength from.
For example: I certainly don't disagree with the statements added, but While many may argue... and Some speakers may conceptualize... are certainly weasels and most likely were—at least subconsciously—major reasons for the double revert...
Please all of you continue to edit: we need people who actually know what they are talking about on Wikipedia. I have no clue about gender-issues (is that even the correct way to phrase that?) being... well, male. That's probably the only quality I need to cite to prove that... :-p
The major problems here are WP:RS and WP:N. The former because too many people are apathetic about the issues you all face every day or, conversely, are too put upon by the system that they feel unable to contribute to the debate. Or are defined as cranks and the ideas they put forward as pseudo-science. Thus they are, by definition (the definition the system defined, circularly) non-reliable. The latter is a problem for exactly the same reason. That, and how can someone be notable if the system decides to define them and their situation as non-reliable and therefore, by extension, also non-notable?
Solution: carry on regardless. Just get all the ammunition (sources) and rearguard (notables) first. And make sure it is bullet-proof (NOR, NPOV, etc, etc). Or... just add the stuff anyway, knowing it's true, and use what you can to source for now hoping someone else will find better sources in the near future. After all, that's what collaboration is all about.

Rant over. Time for bed (UK editor: probably another one to add to the "bad list"...) — Iadmc ♫^talk 00:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iadmc: Thank you also for your input. I appreciate all of it. I actually don't think I've come across this WP:WEASEL concept (of your #3) yet in any of my Wikipedia dealings yet (trying to actually read through the entirety of the MOS and all the associated Policies and Guidelines and everything is prohibitively dense and time-intensive) and it's very good to know about, to learn from, so I can avoid doing that in the future. Your #5 is a fantastic point (especially emphasizing circularity), and I think it helps make sense of it all, as well as why not to take the revert(s) personally. And then thanks for the #6 "be bold"-related encouragement. I think now thanks to y'all's explanations and/or encouragement I'll be able to jump back in less bothered. Thank you again. PolymathGirl (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Katarzyna Mycka) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Katarzyna Mycka, Bush6984!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Are you able to look this over and address the improvement tags? Thanks.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bush6984. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anatomy newsletter (#6)

Released January 2018 · Previous newsletter · Next

Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is our sixth newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest.

I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or remove your name from the mailing list.

Yours truly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's new

	new good articles since last newsletter include Thyroid, Hypoglossal nerve, Axillary arch, Human brain, Cerebrospinal fluid, Accessory nerve, Gallbladder, and Interventricular foramina (neuroanatomy)
	I write an Introduction to Anatomy on Wikipedia in the Journal of Anatomy [1]
	Vagina receives a lot of attention on its way to good article status.
	We reach two projects goals of 20 good articles, and less than half of our articles as stubs, in July 2017. [2]
	A discussion about two preferred section titles takes place here.

Introduction to WikiProject Anatomy and Anatomy on Wikipedia

We welcome all those interested in anatomy!

Seeing as we have so many new members, and a constant stream of new editors to our articles, I would like to write in this issue about how our project and articles are arranged.

The main page for WikiProject Anatomy is here. We are a WikiProject, which is a group of editors interested in editing and maintaining anatomy articles. Our editors come from all sorts of disciplines, from academically trained anatomists, students, and lay readers, to experienced Wikipedia editors. Based on previous discussions, members of our project have chosen to focus mainly on human anatomy ([3]), with a separate project for animal anatomy (WP:ANAN). A WikiProject has no specific rights or abilities on Wikipedia, however it does allow a central venue for discussion on different issues where interested editors can be asked to contribute, collaborate, and perhaps reach a consensus.

Project and article structure

Wikipedia has about 5,500,000 articles. Of these, about 20,000 fall under our project, about 5,000 of which are text-containing articles. Articles are manually assigned by editors as relating to our project (many using the rater tool). As well as articles, other Wikipedia pages in our project include, lists, disambiguation pages, and redirects. Our articles are improving over time, and you can have a look at our goals and progress, or last newsletter, to get a better idea about this.

Our articles are structured according to the manual of style, specifically here. The manual of style is a guideline, which "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and prescribes the layout of anatomy articles, most of which follow it.

Our articles are organised in a particular way. Most articles have a infobox in its lead, describing key characteristics about the article. Because we have so many articles, articles are often linked together in different ways. An article tends to focus on the primary topic it is written about. Further information can be linked like this, or piped (like this). We use navboxes, which are the boxes at the bottom of articles providing links to similar topics, as well as hatnotes. Typical hatnotes in articles include {{main}}, {{see also}} and {{further}}. This lets us link to relevant and related articles. The bottom of articles also shows categories, which store groups of related articles.

Tools

For interested editors, our project offers a number of additional tools to help edit our articles. On our main page appears a log of the most edited recent articles. An automatic list of recent changes to all our articles is here. We have a list of the most popular pages (WP:ANAT500). To keep abreast of news and discussions, it is best to monitor our talk page, newsletters, and our article alerts, which automatically lists deletion, good article, featured article, and move proposals. We also have a open tasks page for editors to create lists of tasks that other editors can collaborate with. Articles are also manually assigned to a "discipline", so interested editors in for example, gross anatomy, histology, or embryology can easily locate articles via here.

Our project has all sorts of smaller items that editors may or may not know about, including a barnstar, user box ({{User WPAnatomy}}), welcoming template ({{WPANATOMY welcome}}) and fairly comprehensive listing of templates (here).

Invitation

We are always happy to help out, and I invite new editors, or for those with any questions relating to how to get around the confusing environment that is Wikipedia, to post on our talk page or, for a kind introduction to questions, at the WP:TEAHOUSE.

How can I contribute?

Ask questions! Talk with other editors, collaborate - and if you need help, ask!
Continue to add content (and citations) to our articles
Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!
Find a space, task or type of article that you enjoy editing - there are lots of untended niches out there

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WikiProject Anatomy users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bush6984. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Anatomy newsletter #7

Released September 2020 · Previous newsletter

Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is our seventh newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest.

I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or remove your name from the mailing list.

Yours truly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's new

	new good articles since last newsletter include Epiglottis, Human nose, Pancreas, Prostate, Thymus, Trachea, T tubule, Ureter and Vagina, with Anatomical terms of location also awaiting review
	A made-up eponymous term is used in our article that eventually makes it in to university anatomy teaching slides and a journal article
	We reach a project goal of 150 B-class articles in July 2020, increasing by about 50% over five years, and are one good article away from our goal of 40 GAs, doubling over the last five years
	In the real world, Terminologia Anatomica 2 and Terminologia Embryologica 2 are released ([4], [5]). Terminologia Anatomica 2 is now included in anatomy article infoboxes, and there is ongoing discussion about updating TE as well
	A beautiful new barnstar is released ({{subst:The Anatomist Barnstar}})
	Portal:Anatomy receives some attention, and two related portals are deleted (vale Human body and Cranial nerve portals)
	Some things left out from past newsletters - A large amount of redirects are created to help link plural structures, and Cerebellum ([6]) and Hippocampus ([7]) are published in Wikiversity.

Newsletter topic: anatomy and featured articles

I have been asked to write up something introducing the Featured article (FA) process to anatomy editors, but I took a more general approach to explaining why one might want to contribute featured content and the benefits to the editor and to Wikipedia. I also tried to address some misconceptions about the FA process, and give you a guide that is somewhat specific to health content should you decide to take the dive.

A vital purpose of Featured articles is to serve as examples for new and aspiring Wikipedia editors. FAs are often uniquely comprehensive for the Internet. They showcase some of our best articles, and can enhance Wikipedia's reputation if they are maintained to standard—but in an "anyone can edit" environment, they can easily fall out of standard if not maintained. Benefits to the writer include developing collaborative partnerships and learning new skills, while improving your writing and seeing it exposed to a broader audience—all that Wikipedia is about!

Looking more specifically at WP Anatomy's featured content, the Featured media is impressive and seems to be an Anatomy Project strength. The Anatomy WikiProject has tagged 4 FAs, 1 Featured list, and 30 Featured media. Working towards upgrading and maintaining older Featured articles could be a worthwhile goal. Immune system is a 2007 FA promotion, and bringing it up to date would make a nice collaboration between WikiProject Medicine and the Anatomy WikiProject. Hippocampus is another dated promotion that is almost 50% larger than when promoted, having taken on a bit of uncited text and new text that might benefit from a tune-up.

Whether tuning up an older FA at Featured article review, or attempting a new one to be reviewed at Featured article candidates, taking the plunge can be rewarding, and I hope the advice in my essay is helpful.

You can read the essay "Achieving excellence through featured content" here.

SandyGeorgia has been a regular FA reviewer at FAC and FAR since 2006, and has participated in thousands of nominations

How can I contribute?

Ask questions! Talk with other editors, collaborate - and if you need help, ask at our project page!
Continue to add content (and citations) to our articles
Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!
Find a space, task or type of article that you enjoy editing - there are lots of untended niches out there

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WikiProject Anatomy users. To opt-out, remove your name from the mailing list

Fellow Brass Audodidact

Hi! I added two diagnoses to your page face of the giant panda sign: Leigh syndrome and rabies encephalitis. I'm wondering where you obtained the picture for the article? I am a LS researcher. I'm very interested in making contact. My email is smpnewstead@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smpnewstead (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]