User talk:AlphaEta/2008

Dawoodi Bohras
First and foremost, that the person is inserting the edit in question into the lead when it already has its own section (and has done so repeatedly despite warnings) smacks of silly/petty vandalism; you really don't have any reason to continue assuming good faith.

As for the section itself, it is wholly unsourced and highly dubious. There is another issue along with this, and let me be a bit frank here. I'm not sure if you hang around a lot of Muslim people or not, but obviously, Muslims are a pretty diverse lot. I have a lot of friends originally of South Asian descent. Very nice people, very good people, but when it comes to Islam - and this goes for the Shi'a as well as the Sunni from that area - is there is still a lot of "mystical" influence from pre-Islamic religions. You hear a lot of stories about their imams and sheikhs that are blatantly made up that people typically hear from their grandparents as children, just stories they grow up with about Sheikh So-and-so memorizing the entire Qur'an in a month, learning to speak Arabic without a teacher, or other far-fetched sounding miracles. Obviously you find it among all peoples of the world but there are more running jokes within the Muslim community about South Asian brothers and sisters regarding this than anything. Honestly, check any of the other Islamic movements from that geographic area here on Wikipedia and you'll find similarly hard-to-swallow (and unsourced) stories as well.

My advice, bring up the issue of citations on the talk page. Wait a week or two, and if nobody offers any i'd just remove the section from the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for finding that image of the Robert E. Lee.-- Bedford 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rv
You shouldn't have undone my edits before dicussing them first. In the Ali article, Shi'as do not consider Uthman to be ALi's predecessor or Muawiya his successor. In Taqlid, the word is almost always associated with Shi'as not Sunnis. In al-Abbas ibn Ali you acted very inappropriately by reverting my edit which was adding a very famous nickname. And in Day of Ashura, all Muslims believe that Moses fasted this day, and Shi'as have ever killed Sunnis especially on Ashura. So be decent if you will and do not revert my edits. 77.42.129.119 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits were a clear violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Regards,  AlphaEta  00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
Thanks for fixing the Pope's image! I added it and tried to get the words on the bottom but I was doing something wrong. Thanks for helping! NancyHeise (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Lederberg at WP:COIN
Hello AlphaEta. I notice you have been one of the editors working on the Joshua Lederberg article. There is an ongoing discussion at the COI noticeboard about the propriety of recent edits to that article by Shadow600. You are welcome to join that discussion and give your own opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Corn flicks.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Corn flicks.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to female genital cutting
Thank you for helping edit female genital cutting. Are you aware that the article now presents a set of definitions for the WHO's categorization that is based on two different revisions of that categorization? Also, there is a dispute regarding how we should approach editing this article given that its language of discussion is largely defined by the WHO, and the WHO in 2008 changed its definition of "female genital cutting" as well as its categorization. This seems to recast the entire topic and render all previous sources commenting on the WHO-types useless and misleading, posing a huge problem for this article. At the very least, we need to be consistent with one version; perhaps we should separate coverage of the topic according to which definitions were being used in the scholarly sources at the time such sources were presented. I invite you to comment on the question of integrating this radical change to the language of female genital cutting, as well as the dispute, which may be found here. Thanks. Blackworm (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping format the references at Circumcision, AlphaEta. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note
Hi AlphaEta. I just wanted to let you know that I mentioned my understanding of one of your edit summaries in this edit. If I've misunderstood your intent, I'd be grateful if you could let me know. Many thanks, Jakew (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for using my suggestion, and for attributing me in the edit summary. So much nicer than edit warring. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Citiations
Did I forget to put it somewhere? Sorry if I did, could you tell me what page? thanks. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Hey Red, I was looking at this edit in particular. There is a discrepancy between the number of U.S. wounded in the infobox and the text.  Of course, there were problems with the number killed before you corrected it.  It's just difficult to figure out which casualty figures are correct without more information.  Thanks,  AlphaEta  01:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed that up. Was there anything else? (Red4tribe (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Hello again, sorry to keep bothering you. Do you know how reliable the source is?  The Combined Arms Research Library lists the U.S. casualty count at 126 wounded (scroll down and see Figure 4 in this document, which is based on the War Department records).  Let me know what you think. Thanks,  AlphaEta  02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite reliable, a very detailed site, and it is usually right on the dot. I should probably change it back though, not a big difference in the casulty numbers but I would take Combined Arms Research Library to be more official than the other site. (Red4tribe (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

WP:3RR
Good call on the spam in 8 Man. However, I should point out that you did violate the 3RR in the process. Please be careful. Toddst1 (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the friendly 3RR warning. I thought reversions of spam were excepted from the 3RR?  Thanks for the clarification.  Kindest regards, AlphaEta  02:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And you knew that removing spamming is an exception, and I forgot that. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tren
Anytime :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Tren, again
Thanks for adding an article on tren. Overdue and a great start. I added some information and edited some of yours, so I hope that you are okay with that. All organonitrogen compounds when combusted release CO and NOx, so we usually do not mention this aspect (or we'd need to expand the warnings on hundreds of articles on organoN species). Also, tren is colourless. Samples might appear yellow or brown, but tren is colourless. I'd appreciate it if you'd look over the coordination chem part that I added for clarity and typo's. It would be nice to say something more about ATR, but I dont think that tren is really used as much as the permethylated amines.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Smokefoot, Your edits are great!  I'm not trained as a chemist, so I'll defer to your expertise.  Thanks for the help.  Kindest regards,  AlphaEta  00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dinh et al.
Hi AlphaEta. Congratulations on substituting the proper reference for Dinh et al. so quickly! I'm still trying to obtain a copy - do you by any chance have a pdf that you could share? Thanks, Jakew (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I was hoping there might have been an OR or p value (or at least something to demonstrate significance). Oh well, the quote is verifiable, if unsatisfying. Thanks for your help. Regards, Jakew (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that makes a lot more sense to me now. Regards, Jakew (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Corpses in New Orleans floodwaters
Hi. That human as well as animal corpses were in the post-Katrina floodwaters unfortunately is no "exageration". I wish it were. Some photos from national media ...and the media never got to many of the worse damaged parts of the disaster area. May we never see our citizens left like this again. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Infrogmation. Sorry if it seemed like I was understating the toll of Katrina.  I, like you, am painfully aware of the storm's consequences.  My edit summary (in which is used the term "exaggeration") was in reference to the concern that human corpses were a source of pollution in Lake Pontchartrain (principally as a biohazard).  This same misconception was common following the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004.  Further, the citation does not support the claim.  Thanks for the note.  Kindest regards, AlphaEta  02:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you look again?
Hi AlphaEta, re this revert, while the edit may have looked like vandalism, there was actually a reasonable (if ineloquent) explanation on the talk page. Can you look again? Jakew (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cerne Abbas giant
I noticed this where you changed the definition of rude. I wonder if it might be a good idea to remove the definition completely? I wasn't able to find any source that indicated why it was called the Rude Man, and as noted at Talk:Cerne Abbas giant it could well mean naked. In fact that is what I thought it was refering to. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for helping make sure that changes to Circumcision are discussed and well thought out. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision - HIV source
I have replied on my talk page. I look foward to your response. Kind regards. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

UTI and circumcision
Just so we are looking at the same thing - the conclusion of the Singh-Grewal can be found on this page. It results are illustrated with tables on this page. Tremello22 (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Tremello, thanks for the links. I was working from the abstract, but I hadn't seen the other page you provided.  I like your latest iteration of the UTI section.  We did a good job working together to present a high quality synopsis of the study.  I'm still not too sure about the breast feeding sentence though.  I agree that it is practically useful, but it seems more like advice than something that should be in an encyclopedic article.  Let me know what you think.  Kindest regards, AlphaEta  18:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision
You have broken 3RR on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.75.230 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is exempted from the 3RR. Thanks though, AlphaEta 17:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between vandalism and edit conflict. What's with the reverting to a pro-circumcision version? Are you an advocate or opponent because I admit I'm an opponent and our views affect our editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.75.230 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing pro- or anti-circumcision about the image, yet you continue to remove it because that is your POV. Such a substantial change should be made by forming a consensus on the talk page, where an ongoing discussion can currently be found. Given that the image has remained on the page for quite some time (see history), the clear consensus is that it is a suitable representation of the cultural aspects of circumcision. This, obviously, could change if a well argued case is used to generate consensus that the image is not appropriate. Thus far, that hasn't happened. My only motivation is to maintain the consensus version and work towards a high quality article. I've made edits that could be perceived as both pro- or anti-circumcision, so long as info is accurately depicted, I could care less. Regards, AlphaEta 17:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like one of Signsolid's many socks has visited you. This character is on a roll with his enlarging sockfarm. -- Fyslee / talk 04:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On the HIV/table
I think it helps to get things out in the open so that we are both reading from the same page. Maybe I tried to prove my point in a over-elaborate way though? It wasn't meant to take a "got you" tone although it may have seemed that way. Tremello22 (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible mistake?
Hi AlphaEta. You reverted an edit of mine that reverted the phrase "the practice of" in the lead sentence (the definition) of circumcision.(diff) Despite your edit summary, I couldn't find where you address "the practice" in Talk. Is there a rationale for this, or was the revert a mistake (I see you reverted a bunch of other stuff too)? Blackworm (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision History
Well done Alpha. That section has bothered me from the get go and needed major polishing. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.'  — Magnus Holmgren (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoopsies, daisies... AlphaEta 19:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Smegma
I notice you undid the changes I made to the smegma page. I dispute your claim that what I wrote is filler. Please discuss mass changes in talk page, thanks. Tremello22 (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ''I think your previous edit was a huge improvement. I was just trying to remove a few superfluous words. All of the relevant info remained.  For example, what's the substantial difference between this:


 * Little smegma is produced in childhood; production increases during adolescence. When the boy reaches sexual maturity the function of smegma for lubrication assumes its full value. From middle-age on, production starts to decline and in old age virtually no smegma is produced.


 * and this:


 * Some researchers have claimed that smegma production is greatest between the ages of 20 and 40, when a man is most sexually active.?


 * 1. It doesn't present Wright's hypothesis as fact (which, at least according to the citation, it isn't).


 * 2. It is much more concise.


 * Maybe "filler" was a poor word choice. Sorry if you found it offensive.  Oh well, either way the article is much better than it was before.  Also, I agree, we should both do a better job of using the talk page....  AlphaEta  22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added back most of the info you added but kept the layout and intro. Smegma is produced in male and females but it is generally associated in males.  I think the article now reflects that.  I hope this is OK. Tremello22 (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * re:Wright sentence - Wright seems to be presenting the smegma production as fact. Just from a reasoning and logical point of view it seems to makes sense.  I personally feel that, yes,  your version is more concise but leaves out some important info.   I don't think brevity should be used as an excuse to leave out good info.  I have amended it, I think it is an improvement and is more concise. Tremello22 (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision
In the source given it states that in babies circumcision can increase UTI infections. It states "The glans at birth is delicate and easily irritated by urine and feces. The foreskin shields the glans; with circumcision, this protection is lost. In such cases, the glans and especially the urinary opening (meatus) may become irritated or infected, causing ulcers, meatitis (inflammation of the meatus), and meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the urinary opening). Such problems virtually never occur in uncircumcised penises. The foreskin protects the glans throughout life" 88.111.37.75 (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Can the infection risk increase be reinserted? 88.111.37.75 (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It states it where it says "A 1984 AAP pamphlet, "Care of the Uncircumcised Penis," shed new light on the subject. The section on the function of the foreskin read:" 88.111.37.75 (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The main thing was I thought it would be best to make both the sentences on opposition and proposion equal in length to keep them neutral as the opposition was was quite a bit smaller and lacked quite a bit of fact based content compared to the other. 88.111.37.75 (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Corn flicks.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Corn flicks.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. In addition to the requisite form letter, I wanted to add as a personal note that I don't believe your use of this image in the infobox on the man is within our non-free content guidelines. As WP:NFC points out, we can use cover art "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This is not an article about the film, obviously, but about the filmmaker, and the image does not accompany critical commentary about the film. It is being used to identify the man, in an infobox; we can't use non-free images to identify people. I'm not familiar with this individual, but the article seems to indicate that the film is notable. Perhaps it could be used in an article about the film? If you disagree with my reasoning, please let me know. I'll be happy to take it up at non-free content review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:About time.jpg)
You've uploaded File:About time.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Acres of suede.jpg)
You've uploaded File:Acres of suede.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Doodad.jpg)
You've uploaded File:Doodad.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Hybrid vigor.jpg)
You've uploaded File:Hybrid vigor.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 03:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:It Came From Nashville.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:It Came From Nashville.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Scattered smothered covered.jpg)
You've uploaded File:Scattered smothered covered.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 21:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Town and country.jpg)
You've uploaded File:Town and country.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 16:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Simon Overland.
Why did you remove the description of Simon Overland? I agree it may not be important - but what is "relevant"? In the absence of a suitable picture of the man, I thought a brief description of what he looked like might be of interest. And I provided a reference for that, too.

You appear to have removed this only minutes after I created the article. You might have discussed it with me.

I'd be interested to know what basis one decides what details are relevant and what ones not. Lots of articles give details about a public figure's personal life, as well as their career and public life. If I had known whether Simon Overland was married or had children and had mentioned that, would you have removed that too?

I would think that anything that contributes to the overall picture of the subject of an article has a place in the article if it can be referenced. I would be interested to hear your view on this.

Thanks. M.J.E. (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, hair and build may change over a very short period of time and do not contribute to the reader's overall understanding of the subject. However, if you feel that these facts are important enough to warrant inclusion, re-add the info. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 02:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC) NOTE: Discussion references to this edit.

Re your message
Hi AlphaEta. Thanks for your message - very much appreciated. As to where I've been, let's just say that I chose not to edit for a few months, and now I've returned. Jakew (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Correct me if I'm wrong"
Hi AlphaEta. Since you invited me to do so, I thought I'd comment on this edit.

You're right in that the source does mention the BMA. However, the sentence in (WP's) article reads as follows: "[the AMA] states that medical associations in the US, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada do not recommend the routine non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns."

The source states: "Recent policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.5,8-10"

Two paragraphs later, we find: "The British Medical Association has a longstanding recommendation that circumcision should be performed only for medical reasons.14"

Now, to my mind the BMA sentence probably implies that the BMA belongs in that list, and it may have been omitted from the list due to an oversight. On the other hand, one of the authors (perhaps someone as pedantic as I am) may have decided not to include them, perhaps because their source didn't discuss routine neonatal circumcision. I don't know. One thing that seems clear, though, is that the AMA do not state that the BMA have this position, hence the sentence in the article is currently incorrect. Do you agree? Jakew (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind?
Hi AlphaEta,

If you wouldn't mind, I'd be grateful if you'd sanity-check this edit. I've tried to stick closely to the sources, but I may have introduced an error or two by mistake, and would appreciate it if you could have a look. Regards, Jakew (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bleustein
here is the discussion, point 4. According to Jakew's reasoning only later studies of the same series need to be cited. I hope he isn't selective in that. I think it is the same series the abstracts (2003) and (2005) seem very similar. So it makes sense to just use the larger sample(2005). Tremello22 (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done.
Thanks for giving Blackworm positive feedback. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
...for your message. It's all good. Blackworm (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Dermatology
Do you have any interest in dermatology? If so, I am alway's looking for more help ;) ---kilbad (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

tuberculosis
Hello,

Recently you removed my info: "In 2000 in Russia was developed a new method of curing lung tuberculosis, which is used in addition to antibiotics - Endobronchial Valve (Russian Federation Patent #58898). One-way endobronchial valves allowed to achieve excellent results in treatment for multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR TB), extensively drug resistant tuberculosis (XDR TB) and its complications. The method is described on the website of the producer, Medlung ."

I'm new here. But the info is important, as you may guess from the content. How can I make this info fit the format and stay here? What should be changed? Thanks for you help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex VS Kaverna (talk • contribs) 17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Immunology
I see you have edited some of the pages within the scope of immunology. Please have a look at the proposal for a WikiProject Immunology WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Immunology and give your opinion (support or oppose). Thank you for your attention. Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 09:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Arnold C Klebs.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Arnold C Klebs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)