User talk:Mattopaedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the five pillars of Wikipedia. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page.
[edit] Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
- If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
- You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
- You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
- If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
- If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
- If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
[edit] Happy Wiki-ing.
[edit] Toes
I didn't mean to step on your toes or crush your spirit when I reverted your edits to abdomen. We definately want you to be bold, but procede with caution before deleting a page's entire content. Look at the page's edit history. In this case the very first edit to the page was creating abdomen as a seperate article from human abdomen. Also use the link on the left hand panel that says "what links here" to help clean up ambiguous or erroneous links to incorrect pages or to clean up redirects after a page move. I agree with you that the page badly needs help, though. Maybe you can fix it so that it becomes a full fledged article on abdomens in all animals. Feel free to reply if you want, either here or on my Talk page. TheLimbicOne 19:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- If you decide to completely re-write the article to clean it up, then feel free to replace the old text with your new text. TheLimbicOne 20:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
See my reply on your Talk page. --Mattopaedia 02:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] peer review invite
I've made signifigant changes to the body cavity article and invite you to review it for completeness, style, and factual error. TheLimbicOne 11:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: peritoneum
Oopse, I meant "I'd be interested in your findings in the body cavity article". Feel free to make these changes to peritoneum yourself (I'd hate to draw undue credit). TheLimbicOne 13:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, what the heck. Just rip into body cavity instead of sending me changes. :-) TheLimbicOne 13:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Labium
Welcome to Wikipedia (again)! I replaced your deleted sentence in the article Labium. It seems as if your main objection against the sentence is that it would simply be for "People who are interested in vulvas" (cough User:Alexander 007). However, your arguments aren't ground for the deletion of the sentence; conversely it results the deletion of the vulva in the See also section. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has to be factually accurate. In fact, I added more to the article about the Labium and its "role". AndyZ 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome! I didn't remove that sentence because I objected to some of the motives of "people interested in vulvas" in that schoolkid looking up rude words in the dictionary kind of way. I don't object to that at all - 20 years ago I would have been looking for precisely that reason! The reason I removed it was because I felt the neutrality of the article was compromised by labouring one interpretation. I've since re-read the NPOV policy and realise majority opinions may receive proportionately more space in an article without necessarily being POVist.
- I've reconsidered my stance therefore, and decided I'll leave that aspect of the article alone. Now I've had more time to think about it I feel my major issue is there is one article for labia (plural) and one for labium (singular). They're both alternative forms of the same word and have similar links. Perhaps they should be merged. I'll put it up for consideration & post this to their discussion pages here and here. Mattopaedia 23:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] could use your opinion
Please review my latest proposed merge at eumetazoa as it's apparently controversial. TheLimbicOne(talk) 02:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Branchial arch merging
Thankyou very much for the heads up. I see the Branchial arch article as a general article, and I could see why you would nominate to merge the subcategories, such as the First branchial arch, into it. They were previously stubs for the most part. But I initially, and continue to see, that in the future all that information placed into the branchial arch article would make for a sprawling article, and it would be better to have the information broken up. As it stands now, the first branchial arch article is really very small considering the amount of information that could and probably should be in there. But my focus is not in that field--- it only touches upon it. This is why I made the stub in the first place. If the articles are merged together, no harm will be done in the short term, but I think it will save time and effort in the long term because the information is going to need to be split up eventually anyways. Other articles may want to link to an article solely on the second branchial arch or on the sixth branchial arch, and it would be better to have readers see the specific information in that article. Also, concerning the branchial pouches and branchial grooves, I think they DEFINITELY belong on a different article. Though associated, they are entirely unique and separate topics from that of the branchial arch--- enough so that they warrant their own article. I never created separate articles for the pouches and grooves, but I figured someone would come along and create them. - Dozenist talk 15:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An orthopod!
Goodness, I hadn't realised you're an orthopod! The medics are rather dominating Wikipedia, we're still trying to lure some surgeons into here. The problem is, general surgeons usually try to do a laparotomy, which cannot be achieved on Wikipedia without breaking the servers :-) JFW | T@lk 18:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- We have actually had an orthopod around, Myles Clough (Mylesclough (talk • contribs)), but he appears to have left again. He edited a few articles and uploaded a bunch of useful images, e.g. Image:Nof pauwels3.jpg. I've worked on osteoporosis before. JFW | T@lk 10:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Connecting tubule
Hello. I noticed that you are a participant in the WikiProject Preclinical Medicine. The article Connecting tubule has been nominated for deletion. As this is an anatomical subject I was hoping to get somebody within the project to adopt the article for expansion. I could find no way to add the article to this project. I hope you or your fellow particpants would consider adopting this article to love. James084 22:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] “Medicine” on MCOTW
After a bit of inactivity, Medicine has been selected as the new medicine collaboration of the week. I am taking the unusual step of informing all participants, not just those who voted for it, since I feel that it is important that this highest-level topic for our collaboration be extremely well-written. In addition, it is a core topic for Wikipedia 1.0 and serves as the introduction to our other articles. Yet general articles are the ones that are most difficult for individuals to write, which is why I have invited all participants. I hope it isn't an intrusion; I don't make plan to make a habit of sending out these messages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Perhaps you'd be interested
I noticed your interest in topics surgical. Perhaps you'd be interested in adding an internation perspective to the breast implants entry
- Not really my cup of tea, actually. I'm more into bones, professionally. Mind you, it is quite an impressive entry. By the way, I generally prefer it if people leave some kind of indication who they are. Its nice to know who I'm talking to. So why not sign in before you edit, so you can leave your mark on your work? Mattopaedia 12:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:MED
Hi,
the main page of WikiProject Medicine has just been redesigned, comments are welcome! Please consider listing yourself as a participant.
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Newcastle Uni Userbox
Hiya Mattipaedia, just wanna give you 2-thumbs-up for creating the userbox. I shall be inserting onto my user page forthwith. And just ignore that Fuddlemark character (if that is his real name). --Jquarry 22:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
