User talk:Spyder212

Medical disclaimer

The medical information I share on Wikipedia cannot be relied upon as medical advice.

I do not offer healthcare advice online.

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

If you need information about any health condition, please see a qualified healthcare provider.

Then perhaps skim through Wikipedia to find background information on your condition.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This user tries to do the right thing. If you believe that this user has made a mistake, please leave him a message on his talk page.

If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Hi Spyder212! I'm from the team at Osmosis who are creating CC-BY-SA medical videos and posting them on Wikipedia articles. We'd like to translate the subtitles to our videos into French and Spanish. It looks like you're partly in charge of both of those WikiMedicine Translations teams. Could you email me at [email protected]? Thanks! OsmoseIt (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Canadian Ski Patrol has been reverted.
Your edit here to Canadian Ski Patrol was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.cspssaultzone.weebly.com) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link even though it is that specific zone's official website as it is not necessarily required in the article. --Spyder212 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E. Feld ^talk 21:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spyder212! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 00:26, Thursday, May 7, 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi Spyder212! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 00:31, Thursday, May 7, 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi Spyder212! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 00:52, Thursday, May 7, 2015 (UTC)

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

E. Feld ^talk 23:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spyder212. I'm Adam, a content expert for the Wiki Education Foundation. I got a note from a professor in one of the courses you've subscribed to. They are using the course page (and our dashboard) to track their students' edits and since you're enrolled in the class, your edits are showing up as well. I don't know what the policy or guideline is on enrolling in these courses, but would you mind removing yourself as a student so that they can use the dashboard to check their work without wondering if a username belongs to a student of theirs or not (professor mostly write down student usernames but don't commit them to memory)? Thank you. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spyder212- I removed you as a student from my course since (1) you are not actually a student in the course and (2) your activity has overwhelmed the stream of activity from students who are in the course. Feel free to use the resources or anything else you may find useful on the course page. Biolprof (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'd like to follow up on Adam (Wiki Ed)'s message above. I think it's great you'd like to get involved with classes and/or the education program! However, for reasons along the lines of what Adam explains above, we've had a few professors express concern and/or confusion, so I went ahead and removed you from those classes. The only time someone should be enrolled in such a class who isn't a student is if they have an arrangement with the instructor first. But it's true that's not clearly stated anywhere, so please don't think I'm saying you've done anything wrong. If you'd like to talk more about ways to get involved, you can just reply to this message. If you have a particular interest in one of the classes, you're welcome to contact the instructor listed on its course page. Thanks very much. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way I can act as a course volunteer for some of those classes? I have lots of experience on Wikipedia as I have been editing for nearly a decade, and some of the topics, especially those touching upon biomedical sciences, are of particular interest for me. --Spyder212 (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Course volunteers are typically arranged with the instructor. In general those volunteers are typically either staff at the Wiki Education Foundation, campus or online ambassadors, or other Wikipedians who have an arrangement with the instructor. I saw your follow-up on the Education Noticeboard indicating you're no longer interested in becoming an ambassador, but you're welcome to contact the instructors individually to offer your help if you want to. I think many would welcome it, especially those people at schools outside the US and Canada as they may have fewer options for support. If you're particularly looking to help out with biomedical topics, I'd also strongly recommend getting involved with WikiProject Medicine if you haven't already. It's one of the most active WikiProjects on the site and many people there get involved with student work. You could leave a message on the WikiProject talk page asking about ways you could help. Can I ask, did you edit under a different name before or do you tend to edit anonymously? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tips! I will attempt contacting a few instructors to make arrangements. And yes, I will be moving temporarily to Whitehorse, so I won't be able to participate as much as I want to with Wikimedia. As for Wikipedia and WikiProject Medicine, I have been editing anonymously for more or less a decade, more regularly for half a decade or so, and I just recently decided to create an account. --Spyder212 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just wanted to welcome you, and invite you to introduce yourself to emergency medicine doctor and Wikipedian extraordinaire User:Doc James and public health enthusiast User:Bluerasberry. I'm sure that they'd be delighted to hear of another medical expert contributing to Wikipedia. I'd also like to invite you to participate in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine.

Let me know if you need help with anything. --Pine^✉ 20:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Guy Breton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fellowship

Suzanne Fortier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Crystallographer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:

1. Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
2. We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do. Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.
3. Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
4. The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
5. We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
6. More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
7. Citation details are important:
   • Be sure cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books
   • Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article, and please format citations consistently within an article.
   • Do not use URLs from your university library that have "proxy" in them: the rest of the world cannot see them.
   • Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
8. We use very few capital letters (see WP:MOSCAPS) and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
9. Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities. Avoid overlinking!\
10. Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
11. Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uptodate is not the best source as one cannot reference a specific version. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I had not noticed this particularity of UpToDate. Spyder212 (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spyder - i've noticed your changes to See also on some pages - adding or substituting with a new Heading -Internal links. 'See also' covers that, a new heading is not needed. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips! Still learning how best to edit on Wikipedia. I'm noticing things are slightly different between the English and French sister projects. Spyder212 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see that you moved D. Gregory Powell to Dr. Gregory Powell because you thought "D." was a typo for "Dr." I know you did this is good faith, but I have moved it back. "D." is his first initial; his accurate name is "D. Gregory Powell". We do not use titles like "Dr." in article titles. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message! Spyder212 (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edit to Wireless institute was right, please restore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toowoomba4350 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toowoomba4350, I believe you have restored a correct version of "u sed torepresent". Spyder212 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be respectful in my response to your post on my talk page; but I would like to ask you: How are my edits to the article of TV series "Lost in Space" vandalism when they were simple, inoffensive edits, just like I would fix or add on information to other articles? (I am especially asking this because you actually thanked my edit too, which got me curious.) WaylonSmithers73 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WaylonSmithers73 (talk · contribs) Thanks for pointing that out! I believe I attempted to revert edits that were done before yours, but since yours were done successively, I probably rollbacked once and they all followed through. Sorry about that! I have restored your edits done to Lost in Space and removed the warning on your talk page. Do continue to edit constructively! --Spyder212 (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are restoring unsourced content that may be removed at will per WP:BLP. Please be careful with that. Materialscientist (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! I was reviewing the previews versions and about to make the move! Will watch out for that! Spyder212 (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spyder212. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Amy Schwartz Moretti, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Endowed chair at a major university is a pass of NPROF and at the very least is a claim of significance . Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) Thanks for the notice! Spyder212 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks you for all your work on medical articles :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am confused as to why you deleted the hyphen here: 31st-most. --2604:2000:E010:1100:5C71:7123:9345:C316 (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Simply not needed within that sentence structure. Cheers, Spyder212 (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this is not needed.[1]

It is already called a list, it is a given that it lists something. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My perception was that the sentence structure was better with that pronoun and transition was smoother, but I agree that lists typically list items! Spyder212 (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref says "There are no controlled data in human pregnancies." thus the "but has not been well studied in this group of people"

Not sure your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see the difficulty in gathering such data. However, CDC 2018 states that chloroquine has not been found to increase the risk of adverse fetal events when used in recommended doses for malaria chemoprophylaxis in pregnant women traveling in chloroquine-sensitive malaria areas. As for treatment of malaria, chloroquine use in pregnancy is well tolerated and without known harmful effects on the fetus. Perhaps based on the fact that treatment benefit outweighs risk to pregnancy and fetus. My feeling is that for the pregnant lady who reads up on chloroquine, I believe it should be clear, at least in the introduction, that the medication is considered safe. CDC, both in its Treatment Guidelines and Yellow Book, UpToDate, Merck Manuals all state the same recommendations concerning chloroquine use in pregnancy. See:

• CDC Treatment Guidelines
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health Information for International Travel 2018: The Yellow Book.
• D'Alessandro U, Hill J, Tarning J, Pell C, Webster J, Gutman J, Sevene E. Treatment of uncomplicated and severe malaria during pregnancy. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(4):e133. PMID 29395998.

Spyder212 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with the CDC taking a stronger position, I am happy with your change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

-- ferret (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I just add an item to one place rather than both. Your thoughts with respect to self harm? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Both suicide/suicide attempt and self-harm are part of the diagnostic criteria for BPD, but they are mostly complications resulting from the impulsivity of the disorder itself. Removing them from symptoms as they are present in complications seems fair! Spyder212 (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well self harm and attempted suicide yes. But not suicide as those are dealt with by pathologists not psychiatrists.

I would say the first two are symptoms will suicide (were death occurs) would be a complication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide is definitely a complication! But I think self-harm could be one as well... Many times these patients present to the ER with self-inflicted injuries: wrist lacerations, self-stabbing resulting in penetrating abdominal injuries, etc. Complications can lead to mortality but also morbidity, which I believe self-harm does in many cases. Spyder212 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Chowdhury SH, Cozma AI, Chowdhury JH. Incontinence - Adult. Essentials for the Canadian Medical Liscensing Exam: Review and Prep for MCCQE Part I. 2nd edition. Wolters Kluwer. Hong Kong. 2017.

Are you refering to this?

https://www.amazon.ca/Essentials-Canadian-Medical-Licensing-Exam/dp/1451186886/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0/136-7645812-5582517?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=1EQTTXEG9E991GPAY9TM

The year of publication however is different? A PMID is very useful. Also a page number if you have it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, same cover page! Strange, however, my copy has 2017 as year of publication written inside the manual... Probably a typo as with all the other typos throughout. Spyder212 (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2016 does make sense actually. Otherwise, I would never have used it for MCCQE. Spyder212 (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I has asked for a photo of mine to be deleted, the photo is totally mine so there is no copyright problems I was happy to let Wikipedia use it but maybe I didn't do it correctly. The photo on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Dillon is ancient and a more up to date one should be used, can we please sort this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quebear40 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is an old photo; however, the one you added was under investigation for possible copyright infringement... Old picture is better than no picture. Spyder212 (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm meant to put the image onto the frwiki article, obviously, because of the French caption. My mistake. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I wonder if you could help on the Headstonesband and Hugh Dillon the start date of 1987 is wrong it should be 1989, but I'm not sure how or if it can e changed.

Thanks

Karon (quebear40)

Hi, Do you have any sources affirming the band started in 1989? Both the article on Hugh Dillon and the Headstone band state it started in 1987 with sources... Spyder212 (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

99721829Max (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer's Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing articles under pending changes protection. Thank you PATH SLOPU 07:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PATH SLOPU Spyder212 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

If you look online there actual official logo states "Making Bad Life Choices Since 1989--Quebear40 (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Quebear40[reply]

Hi, the statement containing “some” medications, and treatments etc wasn’t correct in the first place. Despite “restricted” practice states, there generally isn’t a limit on what a NP can do, it just have to be with an agreement with a physician. NPTruth (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what the nature of these agreements implies. If this statement is entirely false, you may provide a reliable source indicating otherwise. Currently in all Canadian provinces and territories and in 38 states of the United States, practice is restricted by official legislation or formal agreements with supervisory physicians. Spyder212 (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are incorrect with the erroneous statement. The agreements don’t restrict what a NP can prescribe, diagnose or treat. That is defined in state law. Have you actually seen a collaborative agreement? You are making assumptions as to what is contained in them. There are general templates but There is no source that states what is and what isn’t in every written collaborative agreement in those states and providences. A sample can be found here (http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/nurse/np-sample-collaborative-agreement.pdf). And it’s clear that these are not supervisory in nature. I see that you reverted my edits back, where do we go from here?

In fact, I have collaborative agreements with two primary care NPs in Canada. My colleagues have similar agreements as well, both in primary care and acute care specialties such as neonatology and cardiology. The process differs somewhat from the U.S., but from what I can see in the sample you provide, it is clearly written, "prescribing medications for patients whose conditions fall within the authorized scope of the practice as identified on the college certificate..." Why would that be written if there is no restriction? All NPs I work with and those in Canada have practice restrictions on conditions they can treat autonomously, medications they can prescribe, and treatments they can deliver to patients. In addition, there is mention of practice protocols which must be described in your collaborative agreement sample. From recent meetings with colleagues that practice south to the border, it seems clear that restrictions do apply to their NP colleagues in most states. If that is not the case, please do provide a reliable source that states black on white that there are absolutely no restrictions to practice. Diagnose everything, treat everything, prescribe all you want... There were efforts to make practice independent for 2015, but no update since then... over 4 years later. Spyder212 (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spyder212. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You changed "reasons to avoid" to "relative contraindications". I don't like "reasons to avoid" either but was sticking with it because it was more straightforward. Has there been consensus about this elsewhere? thx BakerStMD 17:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have seen it used sporadically in other articles on Wikipedia, but I don't think there is any consensus. I noticed there is a short article explaining what a contraindication is and the difference between absolute and relative- was thinking of adding the link. Your thoughts? Spyder212 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Such remarks are sadly rare on WP. Virion123 (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, Virion123. Always great to see good contributions! Cheers, Spyder212 (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you cite sources in code when WP:PROVEIT applies so it's NOT taken as Vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:B:982:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spyder212,

Just a quick note. Thank you so very much for supporting me on the Snowden editting toward NPOV. I run the risk of being viewed as conducting a 1 man edit war if others don't also revert the changes and get rid of the whistle-blower anti-NPOV labeling.

Would you be willing to get others to chime in with this in edit form? Too many in talk are talking about this, but not doing anything.  :( 𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Will consider joining! Spyder212 (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed cite the The FDA' MedWatch website.... and I included the link to the Amiodarone WARNING on the FDA'a website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.67.125 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation to the Medicine WikiProject! Lonnie14 (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Released September 2020  · Previous newsletter

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

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

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

	new good articles since last newsletter include Epiglottis, Human nose, Pancreas, Prostate, Thymus, Trachea, T tubule, Ureter and Vagina, with Anatomical terms of location also awaiting review
	A made-up eponymous term is used in our article that eventually makes it in to university anatomy teaching slides and a journal article
	We reach a project goal of 150 B-class articles in July 2020, increasing by about 50% over five years, and are one good article away from our goal of 40 GAs, doubling over the last five years
	In the real world, Terminologia Anatomica 2 and Terminologia Embryologica 2 are released ([2], [3]). Terminologia Anatomica 2 is now included in anatomy article infoboxes, and there is ongoing discussion about updating TE as well
	A beautiful new barnstar is released ({{subst:The Anatomist Barnstar}})
	Portal:Anatomy receives some attention, and two related portals are deleted (vale Human body and Cranial nerve portals)
	Some things left out from past newsletters - A large amount of redirects are created to help link plural structures, and Cerebellum ([4]) and Hippocampus ([5]) are published in Wikiversity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings, Spyder212. Thank you for your acknowledgement of my clean-up edit at the Atorvastatin page. I wish there was a simple "You're welcome!" button one could hit to do so. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spyder212. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I understand, I was trying to save as a draft until I had my references sorted. I have now edited the page to only include the bits that are referenced. We can edit as we go along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashshe27 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The article's deletion was based on its lack of notability, not so much the references. Please see Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Spyder212 (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was wondering why this page was not moved to a draft instead of the result that occured.

FlashFarach (talk)

Hi! You may create the article in the drasft space while building it. Sending it into the mainspace too early with low quality references and without any evidence of notability will get the article deleted unfortunately. I suggest you review the general notability guidelines. Spyder212 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spyder212, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tongi Govt. College, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! Will definitely do review those. Spyder212 (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of the new article I created, Women of the White Buffalo, what do you think of the article? Right cite (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifully written! 'Twas a pleasure to read. Spyder212 (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanations sound bureaucratic, can you articulate the specific reasons for deleting Pluto in Scorpio Generation? Dudanotak (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet general notability guidelines, and simply seems like an elaborate version of WP:QUACKS. Spyder212 (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never written a wikipedia page before, but I know more about Tom Osler than probably anyone alive. I thank you greatly for suggestions for improvement and welcome all suggestions. Thank you also for your contributions to this wonderful website.

peace, Skymath1 (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! You are making wonderful improvements to the article. However, for the subject to qualify for inclusion into Wikipedia, we must demonstrate that they are notable. Why them and not all the other mathematics professors out there? Please see the criteria at WP:PROF. Spyder212 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you erred in nominating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Osler for deletion. The AfD page of the previous version of the article (Tom Osler) indicates that he qualifies for notability on several points. One in particular is that he is a member of the Road Runners Club of America Hall of Fame, which is criterion 10 in WP:NTRACK, specifically. He qualifies by dint of his work on the fractional calculus, which is cited 100s of times, as well. I request you withdraw the nomination. Thank you! Skymath1 (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am sorry! I thought those were two different articles! Looks like other editors caught onto that fortunately! Spyder212 (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Page Curation messed up--no AfD discussion page was created. Would you be so kind as to remedy this? Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 23:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Seems to have worked on this second attempt. Cheers, Spyder212 (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services removed that terminology years ago as it is insulting and degrading to the professions that provide advanced medical care.^[1]

Hi ! Thanks for your message on my talk page. Official term used by the WHO is mid-level provider. See here. Also left a message on your talk page. Spyder212 (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong to refer to the PA profession as mid level provider. The WHO is also wrong. AAPA discusses it here please edit it back. ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.137.98 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please keep your American marketing claims out of Wikipedia articles. As mentioned several times already, this issue has been discussed at length not only for PAs but also all other mid level providers, including NPs, CRNAs, etc. Read up on those discussions on the articles' talk pages before claiming some mid-level associations' statements are the only truth there is on this planet. Why is the term "mid-level provider" so degrading to the profession? WHO at least offers an international perspective of the profession and at least seems to describe their role adequately. If you wish, I could also pull out some statements by physician associations stating the exact opposite of your claims... But I don't think that would be time well spent. Spyder212 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not American marketing claim. It's the whole basis of our profession that was started and is being discussed in America and the professional organization that represents PAs. The centers for Medicare & Medicaid services also disagrees with you. Mid-level is inaccurate and degrading and you ask why. When you seek care do you want to think the profession entrusted with caring for you or your loved one is practicing middle level care? Obviously the answer is now. PAs practice exceptional quality care not middle level care. You are still wrong! ^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.137.98 (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep citing the same BS source from the AAPA... anything better than that? As I already mentioned, the article needs an international perspective- not just one based on American discussions and lobbying from your professional organization. In addition to the WHO definition above, I'll add the following, which interestingly shows that the US Justice Dept considers PAs as mid-level providers... See here and here. Spyder212 (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I think you should stop editing this article. It seems as though you have an obvious conflict of interest. Spyder212 (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think your argument of adding in "American marketing claims" also show your bias. As stated at the top of the wiki page "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with North America and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate." Given that the PA profession was founded in the United States and is represented by the AAPA using the nomenclature put forth by them would be most appropriate. The correct title at the internationally recognized University Hospital I work for is appropriately "Advance Practice Provider". No reason to attempt to demean other professions because of your preference for your own.

I added the tag today actually. I think the lobbying efforts from the American professional organization (AAPA) should not be brought to Wikipedia. The article has been cleaned quite a few times in the past as well. As long as the World Health Organization describes PAs as mid level providers, Wikipedia should describe them as such. And even in the USA, the US Justice Dept formally describes PAs as mid level providers. You can see all the links above. What is it about PAs thinking everyone's trying to demean the profession? And no need for personal attacks and BS arguments. If all formal organizations are describing them as mid levels, with a few exceptions here and there, then coverage in Wikipedia should represent the general international perspective. By definition, a PA is a mid level provider. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Spyder212 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing, ChillyMD, Jclemens, and Drchriswilliams: Your thoughts on this issue? I believe this was extensively discussed in the past on various mid-level pages including PA, NP, CRNA, etc. Spyder212 (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AAPA doesn't like mid-level. AAPA also prefers 'PA' to 'Physician Assistant' for commonplace use, and is in the process of deciding whether or not to pursue a title change. AAPA is a membership organization, and the de facto voice for the profession in the U.S. Their opinions are worth mentioning, but not normative. That is, yes, note that they object to a term, but no, don't censor the fact that terms are disputed and various people and organizations differ on preferred terminology. Full disclosure: I am an AAPA constituent organization elected leader, so I can expect anyone in the professional staff or board of directors to actually read an email if I wrote one to them. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is the one that caught my attention:

> do you want to think the profession entrusted with caring for you or your loved one is practicing middle level care?

My answer: Yes! Why? Because if I can be treated by a mid-level provider, it means that I'm not actually that sick, which, you know, is how I'd like my life to turn out. I would like to be one of those boring patients that only needs routine care. I do not ever want someone to feel obliged to tell me that I need the most advanced practitioner available. If it's up to me, I want all of my future ailments to be comfortably within the scope of practice for a PA. I don't want my healthcare providers to say things like "sorry, but it's bad, and you need to see an expert" or "your only hope is an experimental surgery, which a PA can't do because it's experimental, and the scope of practice for a PA is limited to procedures which they have explicitly been trained to do". I want them to say boring things like "you have an upper respiratory infection, and you'll be fine in a few days". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that is, in practice, what PAs do: we provide excellent care for the problems we're conversant on. While I agree that "mid-level" is an AMA-preferred term and pejorative against both PAs and NPs, that doesn't mean it's 1) not in use, or 2) so offensive it shouldn't ever be spoken in polite company. In my experience, PAs tend to provide more patient-centered care than MDs/DOs, because what most patients need is not a brain in a vat, but a compassionate, communicative generalist that most physicians in the U.S. are not, which is the fault of a system that trains them to see patients as problems instead of people and maximize profits, but that's another discussion... Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of some previous discussions. Every few years, we see new editors whose goal seems to be making it sound like there is no substantive difference between PAs or NPs, and physicians. The conversations usually feel something like this:

"Can they legally perform complex heart surgeries on babies?"

"They can do anything they're specifically trained to do."

"But are any of them actually trained to do complex heart surgeries on babies?"

<sound of crickets>

"Okay, so I'm guess that silence means that none of them are legally allowed to perform complex heart surgeries on babies, right?"

By contrast, at least in California, if you are a licensed physician, you are legally permitted to provide any form of healthcare, even if you're not trained on it (to the disgust of the acupuncturists, who unsuccessfully tried to stop the MDs from horning in on their market ~15 years ago). I think that if there were more willingness to admit the differences in the scope of practice, and less of this "anything at all, so long as we're trained (and I refuse to admit that we're trained on only a reasonable subset of 'anything')", it would be easier for us to write a description for the articles that was fair to all sides. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

My name is AVardhana (WMF) (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC), and I recently joined The Wikimedia Foundation and am writing to invite you to participate in a user testing study that I'm currently conducting for The Wikipedia Library team. I noticed you've been an editor on Wikipedia so I thought I would reach out to see if you're interested in testing a prototype of the library's new Homepage?[reply]

This would involve my emailing you the prototype with a list of instructions and questions. The purpose of the study is to get a better understanding of what people think of the new Homepage design! If you're interested, please let me know here or feel free to email me at [email protected], and I'll be in touch via email! If you have any questions, I am happy to answer them.

Thank you, Aishwarya

Ajpolino (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Thank you for creating David Wright (academic). When you create an article like this with a "disambiguated" title, please make sure that the reader can find it from the basic name (ie David Wright), by adding or expanding a hatnote, or adding the article to a disambiguation page. This helps the reader to find your article, and also reduces the chance of a future careless editor creating a duplicate article with a slightly different disambiguator. I've fixed this one. Thanks, and Happy Editing. PamD 20:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely forgot this time! Thanks for catching that. Spyder212 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spyder212. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While your track record was quite good overall, I do want to note that I think you made the wrong call at Battle of Tauroento, as I was unable to find any whiff of the subject in secondary sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spyder212, I am new to Wikipedia. The edits you continue to add on the Medical Council of Canada's page are NOT from a neutral point of view. That organization was created to protect the public and you are presenting the opinions of a few disgruntled residents as facts. I removed inflammatory language and statements to make the page more factual. WP:DISRUPT Why are you be the authority on this page and seeking to prevent other from adding facts? Isn't everyone entitled to contribute content? Do you have a vested interest in spreading editorial content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.120.224.181 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

for your reference, here is an example of a page with a neutral point of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_College_of_Physicians_and_Surgeons_of_Canada

They're actually now facts running through the media as Canada's physicians and resident physicians are questioning the very existence of the MCC. Spyder212 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you believe that the same situation with that single editor is still going on after months? [6] Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not even surprised, unfortunately. American lobbying efforts are still taking place. Now they want to change their name to "physician associate" in order to further blur the lines between physicians and their midlevel profession. Just a matter of taking advantage of the general public as most have no clue in who's hands they are receiving care... As for the article, I reverted the changes, restoring to an earlier version, warned the user, and requested (again) page protection. Hopefully this helps. I will check the user's history and might ask for another block if it is the same user. Cheers, Spyder212 (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]