User talk:Ossip Groth

Welcome

Hello, Ossip Groth and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Speedy deletion nomination of Metatextbook of Medicine

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 Metatextbook of Medicine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but 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. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Metatextbook of Medicine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metatextbook of Medicine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metatextbook of Medicine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Med

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) 04:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Project Med Foundation

Thank you for your interest in Wiki Project Med. We have created a non profit corporation in the state of New York to promote the aims of the Wikimedia Movement within the topic domain of medicine. This means we are and continue to promote the creation and release of "health care information in all languages" under an open license. This is being done primarily via speaking and collaborating with both individuals and organizations who share our goal. We are working on a number of collaborations already and are open to more ideas. We hope to be active globally and thus welcome all people who share these goals to join us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to hear more about these reviews Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

I just noticed some of your recent edits. (And I thought this historical one was interesting. Thanks for your work on that.) But it appears against Wikipedia style to make this type of edit. If the link merits mention per WP:EL then shouldn't it just go there? Biosthmors (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate response, thanks ! I decided to design a 'provocative' style of EL to my ressource to start the discussion. I will readapt the design to standard style EL on the about 7 preliminary edits. Wikipedians should have a spy on my resource because of its complementary principle. The [Addiction]-subject has 161 reviews, the more biological items have 2 to about 20. I will start integrating the topics of 10 to 200 reviews to get things running and not to de.enttäuschen people with 2 or 3 reviews only per topic and not to do the same with atrial fibrillation or coronary heart disease which are over 1000 reviews. My content validity is 2011 nearly complete, so, some of them are of real use to write wiki articles. My abstract deadline to get my news told around is may 11th, so I would be pleased to let it inside. Some earlyer reflection is on the german wiki at http://de.wikipedia.org/Metatextbook_of_Medicine --Ossip Groth (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and note. I started a thread at WT:MED, to have a more centralized discussion place. Biosthmors (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nephrology Review Collection

A tag has been placed on Nephrology Review Collection, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

link farm -- might have a place somewhere in Wikipedia, but not in the main namespace

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria 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, you can place a request here. Qwertyus (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:BDOM

Template:BDOM has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Qwertyus (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nephrology edit

I reverted this edit because it contained no discussion text. Please have a look at WP:Talk if you're not sure why I did this. I could not tell what you were trying to suggest. -- Scray (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you are right in removing it from the talk pages. In mainspace, it has caught a speedy with some hint to put it anywhere else...

--Ossip Groth (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not on a talk page, and that "hint" was posted prior to my inspection of your website (and my noticing the advertising on it, and the fact that it actually links back to Wikipedia). If you want this information to stay somewhere, then discuss with the folks at WikiProject Medicine. Qwertyus (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)When someone says "not here", that does not mean "anywhere else"; more specifically, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for a list like that. If you're going to continue editing Wikipedia, it will be important to prioritize improvement of this encyclopedia above promotion of your personal web site. -- Scray (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List_of indeed, wiki has no other list like that. Improving wikipedia means generating useful contents, and this work has been done on 13.997 topics, sure, on a reslilient external site...

--Ossip Groth (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a pile of 13,997 rocks, that would not justify inclusion here. The question is what Wikipedia need is addressed, specifically, by the addition you're considering. As suggested in our guidance on conflict of interest, you would do well to propose changes on WP:Talk pages and let other editors consider what you're proposing. If no one agrees with you, maybe the addition is not needed. -- Scray (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossip Groth (talk • contribs) sry --Ossip Groth (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you seem to have misinterpreted my wording. What I meant to imply was that having 13 997 of something does not make the collection valuable - what matters is how they will contribute to Wikipedia, and I don't think you've made a case for the content (you just keep mentioning how many they are). I am not implying that they are no more valuable than rocks - it's just not apparent from what you've contributed to WP. -- Scray (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

86.000 tagged medical review articles, all free pdf, are a ressource worth less than rocks ? The site is public accessible without any fees, royalties or anything else, so check things out before criticising the unknown. If you, after a few years, should not revert your opinion, the reason might be that you were interested in high-energy physics or choreography, subjects which are badly covered by my resource.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked it out (I did in the first place) and remain unconvinced that this adds substantively to Wikipedia's content. It seems to me, based on all of your edits, that your primary reason for editing Wikipedia is to promote your web resource. If that pattern continues, it's not going to work out well for you as an editor here. You do seem quite knowledgeable, so if you shift to improvement of the encyclopedia as a primary goal, we'll be happy to have you contribute. -- Scray (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make a bot which parses my stuff at wikipedia-title X pubmed-ID-list resolution, adds the stuff to the respective wiki articles extended reference collections and things work. I can do quite a lot things, but up-bots are beyond my scope of experience. With some help from the community, 86k references are available to all. Not more, not less.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia needs carefully-selected references for our articles. -- Scray (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a realm of inspiration for all those who want to contribute but do not want to run a 2.000 retrieval pubmed search - and it is a fair benchmark collection to see what the published reviews say. If an article is better than 20 reviews - not impossible, see mine at /Neutrophil_extracellular_traps, at the time, no better review on that topic was available, checked against revs and original articles to get streptodornase into the 2011 hus epidemic in germany which had been better than nothing at those times. I accept the argument that my 86k reviews are the better-appearing 25% with obvious roc-problems including lack of knowledge and vigilance in selecting or overseeing them, and the freeness requirement is all but a scientific argument. But they come per click on the screen, and they give complementary information. The trash quote is really high, of course; by runnig things on a "commercial" base, even viewing them is at US$ 2.500.000 for the 86k items - "free" or "hybrid" is not "open". But the whole collection is a honeypot for immediate-information on a given topic. The interested reader gets his 3/20 hits to be happy, and needs not to run a whole medline search which means day 1 search day 2 open pdf day 3 other pdf day 4 library day 5 recostituting day 6 reading, which means 3 months with a few rounds of cited items. I have set up, but not proceded to do so, to give ready-to-use medline search terms, the only example is the experimental at sample pub med search terms . Such a kind of thing, somewhat below the ref/external links section, is quite new idea. But even at the first implementation, I had to defend it. The 13.997 record sets are out there and it is my job to defend them. It is not my job to add 13.996 search terms only to - they will never appear.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "somewhere else" part is my fault. I should have checked that website before posting the CSD tag (see original text, above). Qwertyus (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:XBDOM

A tag has been placed on Template:XBDOM requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can 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. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review articles

We need an explanation of what you are trying to do. Continuing to add these links without consensus is not appropriate. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So is the hope than to provide editors with access to a list of recent reviews that are freely accessible? If so I would support such an effort. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the basic idea :))))))))

In-between your posts wirtten:

Somewhat reflected 10 lines above at 15:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC) .

To give a complementary bibliography on article-related concepts, consisting of ready-to-open free available peer-reviewed review articles from the currenct scientific literature, so that the reader can first-line use the wikipedia article, second line some of the instant reviews, third line papers which he or she selects by running standard scientific database searches.

There is enough time to reach a conclusion; I am matching the thesauri since 2 days, and even the top relevant items would take 2 weeks to constitute the matrix.

Of course, I started the discussion by providing examples (7 wikipedia articles got the linkouts), so there was an option to try out the things which are not well communicable; a systems description without the possibility to try and check it is the most useless thing on earth. This means not to check 13.997 or 86.000 but to look at the system in a real-world setting.

While experimenting, i setup a wikimedia application and thought someone would contribute something. People started contributing, i would like to express some metaphors on what they contributed, it was horrible until i changed the writing options. One page had 3000 edits- each another link. the web is mad. Any idea how to kill 10k pages ? better rescue 10... At least, I am not in the buy-pill biz, I am driven by some more altruistic thoughts. It is my hobby to make bibliographies. My really forward-done bibliographies on fibrosis are out (Fibrosis and Tumor Biology) here, but it is not the subject of this communication. --Ossip Groth (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay were is a link to one of these list of reviews for say "burns"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the most basic way is to run a simple phrase search in the green box of www.kidney.de/chap.html, which results in (simple search). - the idea how to linkout from a wiki article is a connecting page which contains the humanized matched topics. Example is linker. This page gives one link to the somewhat bigger bibliography. (I have not done burns yet, actual is airways(foreign body)... ) The connecting page requests a simple mysql with wiki-.-bdom pairs, whereas more associations are possible as seen in BDOM-Topics linked to this article. --Ossip Groth (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC) --Ossip Groth (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I like here [1] than I click here [2] than I click here [3] and I get nothing but advertising to rent the page in question. Sorry still not getting it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my so-called "common linkout box". I have no deeplinks to pdf. In the major screenbox, there is a row of links which were grabbed from the pubmed record by screenscraping; FULL TEXT SOURCES have some links to pubmed central. What is yellow here tells us whether a paper is open(yellow) hybrid (green) and so on. By clicking on any of them, the publishers journal archive opens. The light blue box above opens (java) a lot of sites where occassionally, institutional repositories could have the paper. If anything should happen to fail, somewhat lower (blue box) is a open medpilot cologne from which the journal archives can be accessed, too. To see an abstract, the next lower line opens a standard pubmed view - for better performance to get the pds, the pubmed linkouts were mirrored as described above. The commonlinkoutbox is used in any of my medline applications (common...). A documentation is here HELP HELP and it is stupid not to give a context-specific helplink. Will be resolved immediately. Thanks for validation ! --Ossip Groth (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will I support the idea of a "list of high quality free to access review articles" this is way to complicated and thus I am unable to support its inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Let me know if you make it simpler. (one click to see a list of reviews that are free and a second click to show the full review). If there is no advertising I would than support its inclusion on the talk page of articles. I know http://www.tripdatabase.com/ is working on something similar and actually pubmed does this already (you simply select free full text, review article, last 5 years or 10 years) and there one is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the bibliography ( bdom bibliography ), the references are numbered, and the numbers contain links directly to pubmed for 70% of hits. Where pubmed has no links, the mlpefetch.php comes into play. The few gads() will be set to #gads() in the php. A help box telling this will appear in that row, so, I complied with your recommendations to get it going. Sure I am not safe in business english, only medical, but I think its ok. For the next couple of days I will do the matching, then I will program anything which makes the uploads. I will change the links (numbers-pubmed, citation-mlpefetch to get it more suggestive. This change will be visible at the next regular update of the files. Deeplinking directly to the pdf is not wanted by most publishers. Even tripdatabase goes via pubmed unless it accesses other databases (which also secondary link to pdf).

--Ossip Groth (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC) I will do the whole site update now. Computer needs 2-3 hrs to perform the task. --Ossip Groth (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC) The articles are upped completely. Ads are gone, the obvious linkout goes directly to pubmed, the alternate linkout is available as explained. --Ossip Groth (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay not bad. This could be a useful tool for editors. Have started some discussion on the topic here Wikipedia_talk:MED#A_link_from_the_talk_page_to_evidence Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This little issue has to be solved Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_11#Template:BDOM --Ossip Groth (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=(fibrocyte)+AND(editorial%20OR%20review%20OR%20conference%20OR%20guideline%20OR%20guidelines%20OR%20meta-analysis)AND%201500:2015%5BDP%5D

--Ossip Groth (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still have no idea how to navigate your site. It is full of strange colors and I see no easy clicks to find either reviews or abstracts easily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The strange colors reflect the status ABC, A/OR and so on in the next row of the table, and, as discussed below the table, reflects which kind of search term is parsable by each of the +-50 websites which get opened with the search term. The program.php parses the users's search term to make the simplified search terms if necessary. The php is preloaded with the searchterm in the URL S1, S2, S3 parameters which reflect the inputbox fields. For each of the +-50 websites, the link (where the table has the many funny colors) opens directly the external websource pre-loaded with the optimal appropriate search term simplification. Run the thing here and click Wiley (should run this).

Search filters (date/review) can not be applied to the non-Medline external sites.

To look at PubMed results, take NCBI (green) or This Medline version. To keep it uncomplicated, choose NCBI. The pre-loaded search terms can be modified, in that case, the big orange enter/refresh button has to be pressed, so that the +-50 links can be changed by the php. Filters are set in the checkbox right-to the orange enter/refresh button. After setting filters, press the orange enterrefresh. Now, the ncbi opens with an added extended search term for things like reviews. Tripdatabase has been included :), its in the bottom section between uptodate, the wikis and cochrane.

If one gets explained what it does, then one understands the idea and its simple implementation. The BDOMsearch is a METALOADER which by itself is independend on my BDOM/Metatextbook reviews collection. (Of course, my other resources are targeted like all the others).

Remember, the difference to a simple linklist of external sites is that the URLs of their php's are pre-loaded with the parsed search term expressions.

A simplified thing is my german Zeitungsgucker which has a more intuitive look (because trivial journal archives can parse maximum phrases like asozial Gauck. This site has no orange refresh button because i have solved that issue with a few lines of java. --Ossip Groth (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI_GATA

Marketed as Wikigata (Wikipedia Content Aggregator), my new Addon for Mozilla Firefox is ready to run. marked text--rightclick--WIKI_GATA opens the BDOM Bibliographic Dictionary of Medicine which currently integrates and content-aggregates like Google-News the medical wikipedia articles. --Ossip Groth (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm Randykitty. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this right, please correct me if I'm wrong: you have compiled some PubMed searches of articles published in the NEJM, which you have (self-)published and are offering for sale on Amazon. Now how is adding a link to your website with ordering instructions not spam? And given that anybody can do any PubMed search they want for free online themselves, exactly how is this helping our readers? --Randykitty (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to part 1, then editconflict

1What can normally be linked: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

2Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions.

3But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked.

The typical Wikipedia User is quite anonymous or posts via ip. I post under clear name. I trust in my posts and in my academic products. Of course, there is a reporting bias since I didnt include the similar things like this or similar reprint stuff from the MGH - in my case, independent work. Others ca proceed by setting a balanced bibliography, but someone has to seed the topic. Also, my BDOMsearch system is a product of mine, I had submitted it for publication but never heard anything again, so I put it into the appropriate topical list amongst many others. Indeed, who on earth should post it if not a colleague of mine or a wikimaniac ? My resources are free-to-use, and my books are published under a reverse-hybrid-access-model - submitted to J... and rejected 'because it is not of interest to our readers' - a nwe and unknown mode of sci book publication: 6 months free to download, then at typical pricing, to make contents immediately available to the interested reader, not a year later when it is available in 3 libraries worldwide. My googleads account is at 50$ since years, and the best-of-nejm collection is good for 10 downloads. The BDOMsearch has a bibliographic power which is worth fair evaluation, without i-dont-understand-what-it-does-restriction and with the potential to solve the task of retrieving nonpubmed literature in the only way which is allowed by the journals owners using free low-commercial applications by zerobudget individuals. --Ossip Groth (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the fact that despite your efforts, you're not selling any of these books is not really a convincing argument on why this is not spam. And the rest of your comments just underscore that there is no added value for our readers and that these books are not notable whatsoever. I urge you to self-revert your addition of this link (which is placed in the wrong section of the article to boot). --Randykitty (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NEJM book shows, by subject area, all the important advances of medicine as reflected by their publication in The Journal; to tell it trash is to tell that the NEJM is the same. I think editors should de-select links like buyviag and so on, but not valid items, indeed, you have lost objectivity when killing a link in one article and now by killing a link from the same person on a quite different subject, with some surrogative argumentation 'THIS IS NOT OF INTEREST TO ME' - from which I had a funny lolcat some years ago.

FreEBOOKfirst is a label for ebooks published in a reverse hybrid access style

--Ossip Groth (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My removal from your Talk page

I hope this removal is not upsetting to you once you have a look at WP:NOTPROMOTION. As far as I can tell, that entry of yours was a clear violation of that WP:Policy. Similarly, I think the image you display immediately above (the big red banner) is promotional and should be removed - I've initiated that discussion on Commons. If consensus is against me, I'll desist of course. -- Scray (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

You must have consensus before you add any more refs to your own work to the main space or talk pages of articles. A number of editors have concerns that this is self promotion without community support. Unfortunately you may lose you editing privileges if you continue. While I am supportive of your ideas they simply do not work intuitively at this point (in other words I cannot figure them out). Support can be shown by a WP:RfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open textbook

So I ask for a reliable source for your statement and you say in your edit summary "RS is published on Mozilla.org as shown". I'm a bit slow, I fear. I don't see any mention of Mozilla.org in the whole article. Can you clarify this? --Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I had another revert in mind, sorry for any inconvenience implied.
I tried to get the concept published, but it was out of the scope of interest of medical librarians.
Wiki is not the J-Reject-Submiss. , of course, but some speculation on emerging-concepts is valid ?

--Ossip Groth (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP is absolutely not for "speculation on emerging concepts". Please see WP:OR (and WP:SYNTH). Everything we write must be backed up by reliable, independent, secondary sources. After you have read these policies, please self-revert and remove this unsourced (and apparently, unsourcable) remark from the article. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-profit

Regarding some of your category removals, you should perhaps read-up on the meaning of "non-profit". It is not synonymous with "free". Several open-access publishers are commercial. Other publishers selling books or subscriptions to journals may well be "non-profit". --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

did a revert on annual-reviews inc, added link on its standards-of-operation page. Non-profit means bound to economic restrictions at 94% costs and 80% tax, not expressing pure altruism... not serving the demands of the public... Its just something among the spectrum of E.K., AG, KG, GmbH, gGmbH, e.V., Individual in german terminology, indeed nothing worth-mention at all... Less tax, less management freedom. One should say, the category is intrinsically misleading holding a unjustified positive connotation, and I fell into the trap.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia referencing

Hello Ossip Groth,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Wikipedia referencing for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[:{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disc runs on here

Proposed deletion of Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography 2013 April

Hello, Ossip Groth. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography 2013 April, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography 2013 April

Hello, Ossip Groth,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography 2013 April should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography 2013 April .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm Scray. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Your edit contains a personal attack - I suggest that you retract it. Scray (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ossip this edit adds nothing to the conversation at hand [4]. It appears to be an attempt to intimidate a fellow editor. You have been warned above. I have removed it and have blocked you for 24 hours. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for inappropriate personal attacks and intimidation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One should never comment on other users. This is a bright line rule. Am away for a few hours. If you agree on this you can return to editing sooner and I am happy to see others unblock you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really mind, and I think a block is a wee bit harsh. Adding the sorts of comments in question to the discussion in question however is still not appropriate. Especially after one has been warned about person comments. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay have unblocked per your request. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those who might look at this in retrospect, I want to point out that my warning above pertained to one edit and the one that triggered the block came a little later. In light of that, and the nature of the edits, I don't think the block was overly harsh. I hope this is fully resolved now. -- Scray (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not post this pic on his homepage. It was linked there 09:27, 27 April 2013. It is a valid intrawiki link. It was the only content of his homepage.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why was that link posted in a deletion discussion? -- Scray (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well-done collection of citation templates on usr hp but this is how it should be, worth no mention at all... I needed hours to find the solution for my MicroRNA template. I have looked at the deldiscs on the more medical subjects and indeed, on 10 topics, there is not one original contributor defending his stuff, and i even get into metaphors; no real-world spamer takes this effort. --Ossip Groth (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like what you find on my userpage, but it sounds like you posted the link to Barney's as a criticism, intending to intimidate or discredit him/her. I think that's why you were blocked. -- Scray (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed my impression. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

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.

added links pointing to Microenvironment, Stroma, Ezh, Exosomes, Thy1, Hgf and Zeb

Mir-196 microRNA precursor family (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to GIST, MLL, MAL, Menin and PTN

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. - Vivvt (Talk) 19:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Testing templates in article space

Hello, I'm Scray. An edit that you recently made to mir-196 microRNA precursor family seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Scray (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not test your templates in article space. You've been provided with links to your sandbox, which is where such testing belongs. If you want to test on an article, then just copy the article's contents to your sandbox. If you need more help, ask an experienced user. -- Scray (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit)

Get free access to research!

...Support Open Access...

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} 20:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your free Cochrane account is on its way!

Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to Cochrane Collaboration's library of medical reviews: Link to form.

If you have any questions, just ask me. Cheers, Ocaasi 13:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't see your name in the list of email addresses submitted. If you still want an account, please use the form above. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about PMID onto PDF using PDF XChange

Hello, Ossip Groth,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether PMID onto PDF using PDF XChange should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PMID onto PDF using PDF XChange .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Jackson Peebles (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OER inquiry

Hi Ossip Groth, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.[reply]

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Translation Newsletter

Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 1, June/July 2014
by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery

This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.

note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:

WHO's list of Essential Medicines [5]
Neglected tropical diseases [6]
Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

IEG grant

I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.

Wikimania 2014

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.

Integration progress

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.

Swedish
Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that.
Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
Dutch
Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
Polish
Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article.
(This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
Arabic
The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration guides

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [7]

News in short

To come

Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
Proofreading drives

Further reading

Translators Without Borders
Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Medical Translation

partners

resources

outreach

get involved

Sign up

Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse
If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter Aug./Sept. 2014

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 2, Aug./Sept. 2014
by CFCF

sign up for monthly delivery

Feature – Ebola articles

During August we have translated Disease and it is now live in more than 60 different languages! To help us focus on African languages Rubric has donated a large number of articles in languages we haven't previously reached–so a shout out them, and Ian Henderson from Rubric who's joined us here at Wikipedia. We're very happy for our continued collaboration with both Rubric and Translators without Borders!

Just some of our over 60 translations:

New roles and guides!

At Wikimania there were so many enthusiastic people jumping at the chance to help out the Medical Translation Project, but unfortunately not all of them knew how to get started. That is why we've been spending considerable time writing and improving guides! They are finally live, and you can find them at our home-page!

New sign up page!

We're proud to announce a new sign up page at WP:MTSIGNUP! The old page was getting cluttered and didn't allow you to speficy a role. The new page should be easier to sign up to, and easier to navigate so that we can reach you when you're needed!

Style guides for translations

Translations are of both full articles and shorter articles continues. The process where short articles are chosen for translation hasn't been fully transparent. In the coming months we hope to have a first guide, so that anyone who writes medical or health articles knows how to get their articles to a standard where they can be translated! That's why we're currently working on medical good lede criteria! The idea is to have a similar peer review process to good article nominations, but only for ledes.

Some more stats

In July, 18 full article translations went live (WP:RTT), and an additional 6 simplified versions went live (WP:RTTS)!
We have a number of new lead integrators into Dutch, Polish, Arabic and Bulgarian, with more to come in smaller languages! (Find them here old sign up page)
We were mentioned in a Global Voices Online report by Subhashish Panigrahi at Doctors and translators are working together to bridge Wikipedia's medical language gap
New medical professionals have started, dedicated to working in Odiya and Kinyarwanda!

Further reading

Translators Without Borders
Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:MicroRNA

Template:MicroRNA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:21, 22 June 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!

Membership renewal

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.

ReJoin Wiki Project Med Foundation

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Membership renewal of Wiki Project Med Foundation

Membership renewal

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 2022.

ReJoin Wiki Project Med Foundation

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk), 2021.01

Nomination for deletion of Template:WORP

Template:WORP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]