Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
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)
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) |
I appreciate your help on Lower limbs venous ultrasonography. Doc Elisa ✉ 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
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) |
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)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Thank you for working on the Allow Me article! Another Believer (Talk) 19:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
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)
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.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)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)
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) |
Hi Iztwoz! I'm working on getting Cervix up to GA-status, but I'm having a bit of trouble and was wondering if a second pair of eyes could help. I've inherited the Function section and I'm not quite happy with how it looks, but I'm really not sure what to do with it. I was wondering, if you had time, whether you could cast your eyes over that section (and maybe the rest of the article if you had time) and give it a bit of a run-over? I more-or-less think that the formatting is quite strange, but am not sure where to go. I'd be very grateful, editing can get somewhat lonely sometimes! --LT910001 (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to BMJ's library: link to form. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks Nikkimaria, Iztwoz (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
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) |
I've never done a GA review before. I tried to do the right thing, and get someone to help, but that isn't going as quickly as I had hoped. I am aware of the general criteria, and haven't formally applied those yet - I decided to review the prose and anything else that jumped out at me. I will address the other issues soon, but I wanted to get started. I want to check refs, and have a request in for JStor access, not sure how long that will take.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
Hello Iztwoz, I hope that you're well. Thanks for running over Bone, it's always nice to have someone to collaborate with. I created this template so that on a few articles, the 'bone' navboxes can be easily managed. You may find it useful (for perusing purposes as well). I've also made a proposal on WT:ANAT about getting rid of the 'GA' numbers which I find distracting and unhelpful. The template box ({{Human bones}}) contains, I think, our human bone templates and is useful as a single box for comparative and standardisation purposes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
Thanks for your help! EEng (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
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) |
Yoor Know Phool | |
Have a humorous day filled with lots of PHUN on this April Fools Day 2015. Any annoyance is purely coincidental. Bfpage |leave a message 09:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC) |
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)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The Medicine Barnstar | ||
Iztwoz, for your ongoing effort and knowledge on Minimally invasive procedure. thank you Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
The Cure Award | |
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 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, and we would love to collaborate further. |
Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
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) |
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) |
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) |
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)
Hey Iztwoz. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this reference and was wondering if you could have a quick look: . I'm trying to find who gave the name "hypoglossal" to the nerve. From what I can parse, Herophilus was the first to describe the nerve, but didn't give it the name "hypoglossal". Other than that I'm having real trouble isolating that piece of information... --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi there,
It seems you have been among the most active contributors to the Hippocampus article as well , 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
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)
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)
on this user? Lots of clean up of their edits is needed.
This editor is using the same textbook. Not sure if it is a class. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi!
We have a second peer reviewer for the Hippocampus article who should have the review in by next week.
What I mainly came to inform you about now, however, is that we have a growing number of potential upcoming articles for WikiJournal of Medicine, which in itself is good. However, together with a requirement for at least two independent peer reviews for each work, we have fallen a bit behind in article processing. Both the malaria protein article and the gastrointestinal bleeding case study were submitted about two months ago, and still have no completed peer review.
As you have signed up as associate editors, I would like you to help out as "peer review coordinator" of any of these articles. I have described what it means to be a peer review coordinator at: Wikiversity:WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editors#Coordinator.
Also, I strongly recommend that you add the page Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Medicine/Editors to your watchlist, as well as add yourself to the public email list (unless you haven't already done so) to keep yourself updated about editorial tasks.
Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
Hi Iztwoz! I just came across Bronchus, and the first sentence seems to have a weird term, "wright main bronchus". I'd edit it myself, but since you are so much more experienced with anatomy articles and already have worked on Bronchus, I was wondering if you could take a look, in case it actually is correct. Right now, it starts with "A wright main bronchus, also known as a main or primary bronchus, is an airway in the respiratory tract that conducts air into the lungs." Is the term "wright main bronchus" correct? --Peltirasia (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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) |
Iztwoz wrote "Structure intro refers to humans and mammals so using human in subsections unnec. Also missing info is in section Other animals". -- Please check your arguments. The article is, per heading, about "vertebrates, echinoderms, insects (mid-gut), and molluscs". The sections I labeled "human ..." contain partly information generic to mammals, but in many cases the scope is restricted to humans. They are not about molluscs or insects. I believe we need clear labeling, whether in headings or in the actual text, about which organism the information is about. "Other animals" section at present is limited to vertebrates. We need the information about the invertebrates. And I believe we need to label the images as to which organism they refer to. --Vigilius (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iztwoz,
I am not understanding why my addition to the C.elegans page would be reverted? An important part is missing explaining the ease of use using C.elegans for research purposes. Do you want me to add aditional refs to support my claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basmill (talk • contribs) 07:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iztwoz,
CGC supplies all the genomic strains required by the C.elegans community to perform research, while LabTIE actually made a breakthrough discovery in supplying a new food type. If these additions are not wanted (which in our research world is important) than remove this line and leave the rest. Plus, if you are not into C.elegans your self why delete the previous lines that state the ease maintenance and use of c.elegans as it is clearly missing in the text now.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basmill (talk • contribs) 07:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello again Basmill can you please take this to the talk page as I suggested yesterday. Your edits were of an instructional promotional nature - not of interest to a general reader - your info would be readily available to those people who want to buy the worms for research. imo. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear Iztwoz,
My apologies, i thought this is the talk page. How to send you a personal message or a message on the talk page, so we can discuss this further. With kind regards, Bas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basmill (talk • contribs) 07:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Optic disc, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Blind spot and HRT. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
"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)
Hello, when you've created 2 more articles, could you please nominate yourself at . Your articles are too good to go through New Page Patrol every time, especially as it has a big backlog. Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see you are working hard on this article. Tom (LT) has put it up for GA and I'm reviewing it. Since Tom is currently busy, you're very welcome to pop in to the GAN and sort any of the comments as you like. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure I understand why you are continuing to make edits to the article that are not mandated in GAN review comments. If editors are continuing to change the article's content, that represents instability, which is a reason for failing a GA candidate. Explanation? Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, we're nearly there now. Could you fix the "pages needed" items and the dead link? And maybe also the cognition thing (it doesn't need much, just wikilinking and mentioning really, to tie the functional material together)? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap Do you think that Executive function would be better changed to Cognition heading as more appropriate for function section ---Iztwoz (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
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) |
Cruithne9 STAY OFF THIS PAGE --Iztwoz As writ to you yesterday I do not read a word you say on any talk page. I am not interested in your opinions on anything - so why do you keep posting on this page when I have made it clear that I have not the slightest interest in what you have to say - which seems to be an increasing amount day by day. I am very sorry that you have such a large ego that I must have bruised along the way - one can only hope that you will someday recover from your injuries and rejoin the human race. --Iztwoz (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for feed-back and the welcome. New here and trying to understand how I best can contribute. I think the knowledge-based information that is present in the Human Protein Atlas (and a large number of associated scientific publications in peer reviewed journals) regarding normal human organs and tissues would be a basic and very important piece of information to the basic description of the wiki sections that deal with organs/tissue types. A few sentences with the basis for differences between different organs, tissue and cell types should be of high interest. I am trying to find the right format and content length for this. The given references (to both published papers and external webpages) are of highest quality and trustworthy so that part should be absolute adequate. I can now see that all my additions to pages, e.g. prostate, adrenal gland, stomach, brain etc. I argue that these are important basic facts and should be present in wiki descriptive texts together with given references. How should I proceed? Need your input to do this in best way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey Iztwoz. I assume you saw my message to the above user at the Teahouse (I pinged you to the post). It would be great if the next time you come across copy-pasted non-free content you were to mark the history for redaction. We try not to leave copyright violation accessible in any way, even if the infringing content is no longer on display in the live article. This is done using {{copyvio-revdel}}. I've tried to make the instructions in this template's documentation very clear. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
Hi Iztwoz, trying to contribute but finding it difficult to discuss format and ways to do this. Yesterday I tried to adhere to suggestions, and made a test try on testicle, put in a new subheading, wrote comprehensive sentences and added references. Today I find it all gone, this time someone named IdreamofJeanie had deleted all without comment? Yesterday also tried to have a discussion regarding copyright violations with someone named Fuhghettaboutit. Interpreted a warm welcome from you and someone named Tom (LT), when first trying to add information to wiki pages relating to human anatomy and histology. Please advice me on how to proceed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs) 08:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Iztwoz (talk) Thanks for looking over - carefully from the looks of your edits - my 25 edits on Glomerulus, and reducing the image. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Iztwoz (talkI am here to introduce myself and talk about recent edits at the Kidney article. But I see from the above I have already con nected with you. I turned to the Kidney article after doing a bunch of edits at Nephron - lots of overlap. I reviewed the "View history" section, and find that I made 37 edits here over the past couple of days, and you started shortly after I did as a new editor at this site. You have 18 edits, most of them reverting or modifying my edits - which is fine: that what WP is all about. You may have been notified or noticed yourself that I "Thanked" you for 7 of your edits. The thanks means more than that when I do it: it means I agree with the edit.
That leaves the 10 I didn't thank you for. I prefer my version to your version; you prefer yours to mine - it's a difference of opinion. What I propose we do rather than discussing these differences at Talk is that I will revert your edit and explain why I prefer mine to yours. If you buy my reasoning, my edit stays. If you don't, you revert to your version and I won't touch it again - instead we can take those to the Talk page. I have resolved differences with other editors this way and it has worked quite well: alot easier than doing it at Talk. Would you like to give it a try? I hope so. I'll start with the easy ones, and leave the tough ones til the end. I'll do one now, and if you don't want to do it this way, revert it and type reason for reversion: STOP! Regards IiKkEe (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Iztwoz I apologize. My intent is to be pleasant and co-operative, and with your feedback, it's clear I violated my intent. I like it when I know someone is reviewing my edits. In the future, I will take straight to the Talk page any editing differences of opinion we may have. Regards, and thanks for your "All best". IiKkEe (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC) And
The Half Barnstar | ||
For your work with User:Chiswick Chap on improving the Microorganism article! pwnzor.ak (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) |
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)
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)
Hello,
In order to be compliant with SCOPUS guidelines, WikiJournal of Medicine is resetting our associate editor list. This is so that there is a record of applications for all editors involved in the project. To re-apply, simply click the button below and fill out the template. There is no need to have information in all sections. If you wish to remain anonymous, insert your username in the name section and email Editor.in.chiefWikiJMed.org to confirm your identity privately.
Thank you for your understanding as we reorganise! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 14:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
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:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
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 |
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy |
Submit a nomination |
Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Iztwoz. 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)
I deleted content from these pages because they had unsupported parameters that show up here. (for some reason I couldn't get it to link internally. Anyway...) I was simply trying to remove these articles from the category by deleting the 'synonyms' and 'pronunciation' parameters, which I didn't realize appeared on the page. I thought they were invisible because of their unsupported categorization.
Potatornado (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitamin&oldid=825306879
it seems that you purposefully added a typo to a page. This seems out of character. DPS2004 (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I undid your edits to Sex organ as they seemed to be very muddled. Surely you didn't mean to say "The secondary sex organs are known as the primary sex characteristics"? Maybe take a moment to rethink what you were trying to do and how to explain it in a way that people will understand and then, if you still want to, have another try editing the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for thanks for taking a look at the VT article. The sources included cysts as tumours, it wasn't my mistake or point of view. I don't know what else to tell you. I also thought that cysts were not tumours until I read the sources. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 06:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vulva 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 SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Vulva you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Vulva for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
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) |
I've raised a query on an addition you made to the article. Can you help out on the talk page, thanks. -- Colin°Talk 14:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alcoholic Korsakoff syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PET (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
I noticed that you changed back Dmitri Ivanovsky's to Dmitri Ivanovsky's and was wondering if the 's is clickable to you? At least in my browser the 's appears as non-link text that can't be clicked, so I assumed the pipe trick simply doesn't work with apostrophes. JustOneMore (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
Do you think Hookworm species should be at Hookworm? —usernamekiran(talk) 18:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sepsis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronic lung disease (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of heads of state of Angola#Requested move 2 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello again. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of German presidents#Requested move 6 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Iztwoz. 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)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
Ozzie10aaaa (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Iztwoz,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Brodmann areas 44 and 45 for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Brodmann area 45.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
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) |
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)
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 ). 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)
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)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2020.
Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.