user talk:Taylornate#Your merge

Hello Taylornate. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of :Myfreeimplants, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Taylornate,

Thank you for reviewing and commenting on my submission, The EMBRACE Healthcare Reform Plan.

I changed the headings as you suggested.

As for your other suggestion, ("Most of your sections don't have any citations. Everything needs to be cited."), I have to explain that the entire article is based on the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM) article that is my first citation. Each section in the Wiki article reflects mostly the content of the article in AIM with some additional information off the group's website (www.hpfhr.org), and some subsequent letters to the editor to the AIM. Is there a way to re-cite the same article over again? I have not been able to find a way without duplicating the listings.

Thanks again for helping,

--Glancast (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

:An article that is mainly a summary of some document might not be appropriate for Wikipedia, but I'm pretty new here and I can't find where I think I read that. You might be best off waiting for someone else to reply who has been around longer and better understands these things.--Taylornate (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Image:Information.svg Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to :Moneyer, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. That was a massive amount of work from other contributors that you casually deleted because ... well, why exactly? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

replied.--Taylornate (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Part of WP:LEAD means including relevant information. I think the one type of wound that NPWT has been found useful for certainly counts, but it was a wordy statement. How's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Negative_pressure_wound_therapy&diff=444037281&oldid=443931069 this] instead? I think the fact that evidence supports its use for diabetic ulcers but not much else is worth including, did you want to seek a third opinion? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

:Looks fine to me, thanks.--Taylornate (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

::Glad to hear it, thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I spotted your "I'm confused" note on the September drive page, and have put in your counts for you. "word count" is the number of words in articles you edited in this drive. "rollover words" is zero for you this time as you didn't take part in the previous (July) drive.

When you posted asking for a review of your first copyedit, I also took a look at it and, like Dianna, I thought it was outstanding. I hope you decide to stick around. Copyediting medical articles isn't very easy for lay people, and there are dangers in our doing it. The two you've done so far are valuable. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

:Thank you for the explanation and feedback! What will I do with the words during the next drive?--Taylornate (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

::Glad to hear you want to! Next drive, you start with a total-word count of zero. On the drive page, you'll find the "how to sign up" section will have a link to a document that gives the rollover count for each editor, and yours will be there. You should copy it across to the drive page and then leave it as it is throughout the month, only adding to the word-count. At the end of the month, the coordinators will do the sums. --Stfg (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

:::Thanks again!--Taylornate (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks for cleanup on phase 3 section Abhijeet Safai 16:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai (talk • contribs)

:Glad to help!--Taylornate (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/October 2011}}

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

First, let me say welcome to Wikipedia!

FYI: Articles can be sorted on category pages by adding a "|" to the category followed by the sort string. When the "|" is followed by a "blank", the article is listed at the top of the category. E.g. :Category:Education where four articles have been categorized as:

:

So my edit of Problem-based learning which you reverted was not a "test edit." My intent is to keep it sorted at the top when I and other editors add pages to the :Category:Problem-based learning.

Again, welcome! And I hope that as you learn copy-editing tricks, you will pass them on. — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 15:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:Ah, thank you for the explanation!--Taylornate (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/November 2011}}

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 02:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Screwed up the talkback message. Anyway, replied to your message on Fall out Boy -Jer ^{Hit me up} 06:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2012/Notice1}}

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

:Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

::added links pointing to Extension, Lumbricalis, Lateral epicondyle and Interphalangeal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Membership/News/2011 Annual Report/Notice}}

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I invite you to help upgrade death to good article status. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death#Nomination here] Pass a Method talk 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

:Thank you for the invitation, but while I might pop in from time to time, I won't be able to commit a significant effort to this article.--Taylornate (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you merged some parts of the posterior compartment of the forearm (the ECRB and ECRL muscle, the ECU muscle into the new page you created extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand. But it appears you didn't initiate a Template:Merge before doing so. It's pretty standard to have distinct articles for each muscle since they're notable enough to deserve them. I'm concerned that not all of the content may be included in your new article. That's usually why merging is done as a gradual process to make sure nothing is lost.

For the moment I'm going to revert the redirects (as well as others on the talk to restore that content. Please feel free to nominate them for merging. Your overview page is valuable but I think the old pages should link to it, rather than redirect to it. Y12J (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

:Moved to article talk page.--Taylornate (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Taylornate:

I have (briefly) reviewed (parts of) the ongoing discussion on whether or not to merge the articles on the individual muscles of the hand. While I have not yet reached a decision on how I will "vote", I certainly appreciate the effort you have put in, and wanted to recognize your work. I look forward to checking in on your stuff occasionally. If you ever want another pair of eyes to help copyedit or tweak, please let me know. Keep on humping!

Best regards:

Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

:Haha thanks a lot for this. Even if we end up disagreeing, it's really nice to know there's another person who doesn't think I'm completely insane.--Taylornate (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

::No worries on that, bro, because I am the ONLY person who is COMPLETELY insane. Besides, I'm probably going to vote for MERGE.

::Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

:I would like to state for the record that I disagree with this block, and I think my appeal probably did not attract attention because of the short duration. I was scratching and clawing to try to get my opposition to participate in discussion but they explicitly refused and I don't understand what I could have done differently.--Taylornate (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that this user has declared his real-life identity, so per WP:PRIVACY it would be better not to speculate as you did in this SPI. I don't see that it affects the SPI materially: the user and the IP are clearly the same on behavioural grounds alone. Cusop Dingle (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

:Replied at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Andrewlees#Comments_by_other_users.--Taylornate (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Taylornate. Will you reply to my most recent comment in the above linked discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Ivmbox

| The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 April 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

}}

In regard to what you call canvassing, are you referring to replying to these posts by the MedComBot which already bring up the subject on the talk pages? Y12J (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

:Moved to User_talk:Y12J#Canvassing. For clarity, please try to keep a thread in one place.--Taylornate (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

::I continued to respond there, though it's common enough for people to back-and-forth on their own talks so they get announcements. Y12J (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
• Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
• If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to [http://www.highbeam.com/prof1 http://www.highbeam.com/prof1]; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

{{Ivmbox

| The request for formal mediation concerning Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

}}

File:Stop x nuvola.svg You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy{{#if:|, by {{{1}}}}}. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or submit a request for unblock to the Unblock Ticket Request System. --Arcadian (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed | 1=This block was done purely to serve the blocking admin's own interest in a content dispute / edit war, and the ultra-vague reason he gave for the block (violated Wikipedia policy) is false. | accept=The blocking admin, having been blocked themselves over their past interactions with this user, is in blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED, making this block highly innapropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)}}}

• Since no reason was given for the block, I have contacted the blocking administrator and asked for clarification. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::Taylornate appears to have been been edit-warring against a number of different editors on a number of articles about muscles for quite some time. For example, on Extensor pollicis longus muscle, I see extensive warring against at least four different editors. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::PS: I must also point out that it does look as if the blocking admin has been involved in the content dispute, being one of the four opponents of Taylornate, and so was possibly not the best person to decide on and take admin action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:::(edit conflict)I could say a number of things about that Zebedee, but I don't think it is necessary. It is an edit war and content dispute that the blocking admin is personally involved in, making it wildly inappropriate for him to block me.--Taylornate (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:::It looks like my additional comment got lost in the edit conflict, so I've fixed it up -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::::The most recent edit warring I see was four days ago and the block was placed today. Additionally, {{User|Y12J}}, the editor Taylornate was edit warring with was not blocked or even warned for that matter. I'll note that I recently issued blocks for slow moving/long term edit warring only one day after the edit warring had taken place and there was general consensus that such blocks inappropriate, so I doubt that four days after the fact is any more appropriate. I'm having a hard time seeing much justification at all for this one. I'll wait for Arcadian to comment though. Tiptoety ^talk 17:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::Yep, a number of editors have been edit-warring on those articles for some time, and one of them was the blocking admin, so the block does look inappropriate (though if they carry on with their slow-burn edit-war much further, I'll block all five of them - or however many carry on doing it) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::Looking a little bit closer, upon placing this block Arcadian used [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rollback_feature#When_to_use_rollback rollback] to revert Taylornate's edits to his preferred version. Some examples include: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extensor_indicis_muscle&diff=prev&oldid=488962606], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_extensor_tendon&diff=prev&oldid=488962634], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extensor_carpi_ulnaris_muscle&diff=prev&oldid=488962625]. Not only does this violate WP:INVOLVED, it also violates the rollback policy. Not to mention, looking over Arcadian's edits I would say he has violated the edit warring policy a number of times as of late. Tiptoety ^talk 17:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

: Are you denying that you have been edit-warring? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I support Beeblebrox's unblock, above, as the block was done by a clearly involved admin. But please be warned that if this edit-warring on any of those muscle articles should continue, by any of the warring parties, the next block will come from an uninvolved admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• :Please seek dispute resolution via the steps outlined at WP:DR if you cannot get a consensus on the relevant article Talk pages. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Would you look at that. I'm blocked, and then suddenly the pages are protected during my block. Coincidence?--Taylornate (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• :Just out of interest, how did you notice they're protected? Did you try to revert them again? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:::Protection log is on my watch list.--Taylornate (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Ah, OK. To be even-handed here, I have also warned the other editors who were edit-warring that they will be blocked if they continue too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::Honestly, I don't understand what I should be doing differently and I'm frustrated. I started an RFC, it has run its course, several people agreed with me, and nobody from my opposition has been able to give a logical policy-based argument. The timing of the protections speaks to collusion. I've read DR. What should I do?--Taylornate (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::The validity of the RFC was disputed - I'm not judging who is correct, but you have 4 editors disputing the consensus you think you have and reverting you. So, even if you are right, you must not edit-war to enforce the version that you think is correct. What I suggest is that you start a discussion, neutrally worded and without making any accusations or claims about other editors, asking whether the articles in question should be turned into redirects. Then let the discussion take its course, do not try to judge the outcome or close it yourself, and leave it to an uninvolved admin to judge the consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::Oh, and on the RFC, if it was *you* who judged the outcome, then that was indeed invalid - you don't get to judge your own RFCs, but must leave it to someone uninvolved -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::Actually, I'll start a discussion for you - give me a minute or two. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::I did close the RFC but I did not judge it. As far as I could tell, my actions fell within the guidelines. I left the outcome blank and posted a request for closure. I did post here my opinion on the outcome and I think I'm within my rights to do that. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the RFC was not neutrally worded. I gave a perfectly neutral RFC question and then went on to give my own view. To the best of my knowledge, that is how it is supposed to work. I'd be happy to continue with the discussion you started, but I don't think it's fair to discard the RFC.--Taylornate (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::I do think the validity of the RFC is debatable (and you should not have closed it yourself), but the discussion in it can still be examined and referred to. So, as a discussion I'm not suggesting discarding it. But having examined it, I really don't see there is a proper consensus for redirecting all those articles - or for not redirecting them. To be honest, I think the whole thing is quite confused, with people frequently talking past each other. I really do think that my simpler question, which is directed at what should be done now rather than debating what has happened in the past, and is specifically aimed at the actions in the edit war, will be a useful step forward. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::My concerns are satisfied. Thank you for your willingness to help. I may or may not find the time to get back into it during the coming week, but I'm pretty sure I'll have time after May 1.--Taylornate (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::Sure - the discussion can take as long as it needs, so no rush. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• As I noted in your block log, the only reason the block was overturned was because of the blocking admins willful diregard of the involved admin policy. Please don't take that as a free pass to continue edit warring, there are plenty of uninvolved admins who can re-block you, and given the history in this area longer blocks and/or protections will be the result if this warring behavior continues. There's no conspiracy against you, just a desire to end edit warring. As Boing notes, there are flaws in the previous attempts at resolving this, ot may be time to move up the WP:DR chain if this is not resolved soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::I understand about this not being a free pass. What is the next DR step after RFC?--Taylornate (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've started a discussion on a simple question to try to resolve the edit war, at Talk:Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand#Redirection of muscle articles. And having looked over the RFC, I conclude that it was carried out improperly, as it was closed by the editor who started it and not be an uninvolved admin, and the question as posed was not sufficiently neural. So in my opinion those two issues taken together nullify any conclusion that anyone thinks they can draw from it. I hope this new question will help get some way towards resolution of this dispute, but if not, escalation along the WP:DR process will be needed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share. I found your username from the Highbeam application list.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at :m:WikiMed. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

{{WP:TWL/Header}}

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)