User talk:TheLimbicOne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Blue text represents comments originally posted on somebody else's talk page.

Blue and italics represents the beginning of a conversation posted on somebody else's talk page.

I reserve the right to edit posts here to improve clarity, assure readability, and remove patent nonsense.

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello TheLimbicOne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 21:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Germ layer[edit]

If your bio textbook and wikispecies both say this then it's most likely that version is correct. Be bold and change it, as long as you use a good edit summary and/or explain the changes on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 08:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Toes and abdomens[edit]

I didn't mean to step on your toes or crush your spirit when I reverted your edits to abdomen. We definately want you to be bold, but procede with caution before deleting a page's entire content. Look at the page's edit history. In this case the very first edit to the page was creating abdomen as a seperate article from human abdomen. Also use the link on the left hand panel that says "what links here" to help clean up ambiguous or erroneous links to incorrect pages or to clean up redirects after a page move. I agree with you that the page badly needs help, though. Maybe you can fix it so that it becomes a full fledged article on abdomens in all animals. Feel free to reply if you want, either here or on my Talk page. TheLimbicOne 19:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If you decide to completely re-write the article to clean it up, then feel free to replace the old text with your new text. TheLimbicOne 20:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I take your point about the intent of the Abdomen page and must say I didn't appreciate its purpose at the time. My toes are quite intact, thankyou, as is my spirit. Abdomen really is in dire need of some work. My first thought was it needed a disambiguation page, but now I'm thinking maybe some article that is informative, but provides the disambiguation links as well, may be more useful. I'll stick this to the abdomen discussion page in case others are more inspired to have a go. --Mattopaedia 01:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Symmetry (biology)[edit]

Wow, nice cleanup. The article was definitely a bit of an embarrassment before. It's such an important topic; I'm going to keep an eye out for more information to add later on. For the merge discussion, I would just leave a comment at the bottom like "Merge completed" or whatever you'd like, and sign it, that way it will be obvious that the matter is complete. — Knowledge Seeker 03:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it needs more plant stuff, but I'm weak in that area. Right now I'm tracking down and bypassing all the redirects I created. TheLimbicOne 03:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I completely forgot to check out that article you sent me. It's actually really good. It covers the next subject I wanted to see added (or add myself) to the symmetry (biology) article: evolution and symmetry. For now I added it to the "see also" section. TheLimbicOne 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry—I'm glad you like it. I would try adding some of it in myself, but you'd probably be better than I. — Knowledge Seeker 05:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
"...better than I..." Ha! Thanks, but I'm an amatuer working out of a biology text book and whatever I can find on the internet. My day job is machinist and welder. Go ahead and add Evolution of Symmetry if you find the info. I'm not possesive of articles; I just patrol the ones I worked on for vandals. TheLimbicOne 08:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Stealing[edit]

I really like your use of color and italics to track conversations across user talk pages. Consider that idea stolen. TheLimbicOne 04:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Good! I'm glad you want to use it! I dislike fragmented conversations, and yet I want my messages to be on the recipient's talk page...and then I saw User:GordonWatts (currently inactive) mark his messages in blue and I liked it (I can't recall that he placed messages on the recipient's page as well, though). It makes it so much easier to follow matters later on. — Knowledge Seeker 05:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Your contributions[edit]

I hereby award TheLimbicOne this Exceptional Newcomer Award for your improvements to the quality and organization of biology articles, as well as your precocious Wiki-knowhow. --DanielCD 21:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking at your edits. I have Brachiopod on my watchlist and it called my attention to your work. I just want to say I am quite impressed with your work and really happy that some of the sloppy ends are being cleaned up, such as moving all the symmetry stuff into one place. Good job, and then some!

If you ever need anything, I am an admin, so just leave me a message. --DanielCD 21:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I like to clean up the redirects because (1) I'm anal retentive and (2) it draws the attention of other users who will review my changes (and fix my gaffs). I'm glad to know somebody's watching out for the integrity of our projects. TheLimbicOne 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

fix edit summary[edit]

I screwed up. I removed a clean up tag (abdomen) and accidentally credited mattaopedia in the edit summary when it should have been Ec5618. The only way I can see to fix it would be to make a meaningless edit (like adding a space somewhere) so that I can have another edit summary. Can you edit my edit summary? (you can reply here, I'll watch for it) TheLimbicOne 21:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Gimme a min to check it out. --DanielCD 21:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Just let Ec know that you meant him. There's actually not a way to change those that I know of, as it's really not a big deal. You might just proofread the article again, as you bound to find something that can be improved, then you can add the correction to that edit summary.
In fact I did find something minor to fix. Now the edit summary accurately credits Ec. TheLimbicOne 22:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
But as a simple answer: it can't be fixed as far as I know (unless perhaps you appeal to Jimbo himself, who can then apply for an Act of Congress...lol). Shouldn't be a big deal, just chalk it up to a learning experience. --DanielCD 21:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
In addition, you could always make a "null edit" and add that. Nothing says you can't. --DanielCD 21:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
About the edit summary: Actually, you could always just make a "null edit" and add a comment to that. Nothing says you can't. --DanielCD 21:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Wikispecies dna strands 35.png[edit]

I notice you are trying to speedy delete Image:Wikispecies dna strands 35.png. That image is on the Wikimedia Commons, so you should move your use of {{tlp|db|Thumbnail}} to there. --WCQuidditch 22:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you; I've done as you suggested. TheLimbicOne 22:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

tegument[edit]

In tapeworms, the "skin" is actually called a "tegument," not an "integument." I think that the link to integumentary system works, though. In fact, I made tegument redirect there. Thanks for linking to integumentary system; I wouldn't have known the article existed otherwise.

Happy New Year, Dave (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"...actually called a tegument..." Cool, that's why I left such a detailed edit summary. Happy Holidays TheLimbicOne 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mer vs. Per[edit]

[Regarding [1]Knowledge Seeker 06:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)]

What a pleasant surprise to see you answering my question.
The reason I asked in the first place is I was looking at the pseudocoelom (which is supposed to be pseudocoel, right?) article and found it lacking. I'm halfway through a first draft when I realise that different sources use peritoneum, mesothelium, or "tissue derived from mesoderm." I want the "best" term and I'm going to stick with it.
I realised something else along the way. I also don't like the article linked to coelom: body cavity. I think these are really important terms (coelom, pseudocoel, acoelomate) that deserve a top notch article, so I suggested the merges. Comments or suggestions? TheLimbicOne 03:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Why, thank you. I'll have to do some research to comment further on this matter—my knowledge of human embryology is fading; that of non-human embryology is even weaker. It's fascinating material though, and provides an amazing insight into how the same basic body plan can be modified to produce such a diverse array of life! — Knowledge Seeker 06:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It's frustrating how little material on subject is available to a lay person. I'm going to do the article the best I can and let you guys fill in or correct the finer details. Does the RRevised template generate good peer review traffic? TheLimbicOne 07:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it is—which is why resources like Wikipedia are so great! I'll try to do some reading up on this stuff and see what I can do, when I have time. You know, I was not familiar with {{RRevised}}; I am not certain what effect it will have. — Knowledge Seeker 08:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Peritoneum[edit]

Here's a list of some things in peritoneum I think are a bit sus':

  1. "it covers most of the intra-abdominal organs" -- I can't think of any it doesn't cover
  2. "two layers: the outer layer, called the parietal peritoneum, is attached to the abdominal wall and the inner layer, the visceral peritoneum, ... " -- I think this is badly worded. Anatomically it would be more accurate to just describe parietal peritoneum as attached to abdo wall and visceral as covering the viscera. The whole inner and outer thing makes me think of some kind of concentric arrangement, which is not true since the viscera are all applied to, or hang on mesentries from, the posterior abdo wall.
  3. the embryology needs buffing.
  4. both omenta don't form the lesser sac. The lesser sac is the space bounded anteriorly by the posterior layer of the lesser omentum and the posterior wall of the stomach and posteriorly by the parietal peritoneum which overlies several important retroperitoneal organs including the IVC, aorta, pancreas, right kidney and suprarenal gland. The left wall is the lienorenal ligament, spleen, gastrosplenic ligament, short gastric arteries and greater curvature of the stomach, the inferior wall is the transverse mesocolon, the right wall is the free edge of the lesser omentum with contians the hepatic portal vein, hepatic artery and bile duct, and which forms the anterior part of the epiploic foramen. The posterior part of the epiploic foramen is the parietal peritoneum overlying the IVC. The superior wall is the inferior surface of the left side of the liver as far to the right as the porta hepatis. That's just off the top of my head, so check a text to confirm.
  5. all of the first part (D1) and last part of the 4th part (D2) of the duodenum are intraperitoneal. all of the second and third parts are retroperitonreal.

That's about it. Better check the links too. Happy editing! Mattopaedia 07:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oopse, I meant "I'd be interested in your findings in the body cavity article". Feel free to make these changes yourself (I'd hate to draw undue credit). TheLimbicOne 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

re: peer review body cavity[edit]

I've made signifigant changes to the body cavity article and invite you to review it for completeness, style, and factual error. TheLimbicOne 11:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I definitely learned some new things reading your expanded article! I'll see if I can dig up some material. — Knowledge Seeker 08:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hemocoel[edit]

Thank you for clarifying hemocoel. Unless I've misunderstood, the terms "hemocoel" and "open circulatory system" mean the same thing. Could I merge the articles on them or is there some usage where one would apply and the other would not? TheLimbicOne 22:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A hemocoel is the cavity present in organisms with an open circulatory system. It's filled with hemolymph. The open circulatory system itself is the hemolymph, the hemocoel, the heart(s), etc. The two articles should link to each other, and could definitely be merged, except for one thing: Apparently Hemocoel has a secondary meaning:

A Hemocoel is also the space in the connective tissue compartment derived from the embryonic blastocoel with contributions from mesoderm, filled with blood.

Hope this helps. I'll fix up the relevant articles a bit. Dave (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oooohhhh, I get it. I learn so much working on these articles. Thank you. TheLimbicOne 23:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I actually studied for my Parasitology class by writing articles on various worms. You might want to check out what I did with hemolymph and hemocoel. I think that hemolymph can be merged into open circulatory system and hemocoel works best as a disambig between the two meanings. If you support the merge, I hope you'll write that. Thanks for bringing these articles to my attention. Dave (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've already fixed most of the disambigs and all of the double redirects. Do you want to do the single redirects, or should we just call it a day? Dave (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll get them, but only if we're not going to merge "open..." into "circul...". Another reason to merge them (or rip "open" out of "circ"), the info on the "open" section of "circ" is a bit sloppy. TheLimbicOne 23:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My next merger[edit]

This one annoyed me while I was studying for a biology test. Eumetazoa used to redirect to animal even though that's not entirely correct (which I had to go to wikispecies to sort out). Any idea if the information someone removed from protostome (on its discussion page) is correct or not? TheLimbicOne 01:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yea I'm still here[edit]

I'm just having a silent tantrum. I'll be back tomorrow, when I get it out of my system. And I'll look at your page.

Just saw some stuff that made me question a few things. --DanielCD 04:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm going to have to do some memory refreshing before I can give a proper opinion. I'll take a peek tomorrow (Yawwwwn). Getting late here. --DanielCD 04:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
A hornets' nest...apt description. I'm sorry I haven't had time to look at it yet. But yea, Wikipedia is a place for people of opinions. --DanielCD 02:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Eumetazoa[edit]

The editors who have joined the discussion after you asked me seem to be quite knowledgeable; certainly more knowledgeable than I. I'll add the page to my watchlist and keep an eye on it; I'll contribute if I think of something. Nice job spurring interest in this, by the way. — Knowledge Seeker 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from your question elsewhere: "My bio textbook says that all animals more complex than sponges produce two or three germ layers. The Wikipedia suggests that only Eumetazoa produce germ layers. I'm compiling the germ layer, mesoderm, ectoderm, and endoderm stubs into one article and need to know which fact is correct for my final revision. Please feel free to respond on my Wikipedia Talk page. 68.106.203.138 23:56, 17 December 2005 "

The Eumetazoa includes all animals other than sponges, so both statments are in fact correct. Sponges are the only animals lacking germ layers. Within the Eumetazoa (all non-sponge animals) there are animals with two germ layers (jellyfish come to mind) and those with three (people for example). I hope this helps Dmccabe 04:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. So sponges are animals but not eumetazoa. Good, then I was correct to stop eumetazoa from redirecting to animal, since they are in fact slightly different definitions. Thank you and welcome to wikipedia. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 10:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome of course! Dmccabe 21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: User page[edit]

Well...I'd say I consider it more of a tongue-in-cheek story rather than a rigorous explanation. To be honest, I'm not even sure what a limbic gland is—a Google search only turned up two hits, neither of which was very helpful. — Knowledge Seeker 03:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving on[edit]

If you agree that the discussion on mergers resulted in a concensus of "No," then I'll remove the merge tags.

On another topic, I noticed this bit in the flatworm article: "...flatworms, now thought to be unrelated to the Platyhelminthes...." Is that correct? --TheLimbicOne(talk) 01:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing the tags sounds fair to me.

The original version of the flatworm page said acoelomate flatworms; what was actually meant was acoel flatworms, which are now classified as the Acoelomorpha. Thanks for spotting the problem, I've fixed the page accordingly. Josh

Thanks; I've discovered recently that I hate taxonomy. :-) --TheLimbicOne(talk) 02:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a taxonomy section to eumetazoa that you might want to proof-read for me. I paraphrased it tolweb.

If you're not a huge taxonomy fan either, just let me know and I'll stop pestering you. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 04:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind, but keep in mind I'm not an expert. I think the text is perhaps misleading, because the two systems as described aren't mutually incompatible. In many schemes, the Bilateria are divided into deuterostomes and protostomes, which are in turn divided into Ecdysozoa and Lophotrochozoa.

There's also one more group to worry about, the Platyzoa. TOL shows it as a bunch of phyla of uncertain origin, but since 2002 there's been evidence that they share a common origin. Some authors consider it as part of the Lophotrochozoa and others don't. We've been following the latter approach, in part because it makes the groups easier to discuss, so I'll add mention of them to the page.

In general, though, I don't think info that is uncertain or subject to change should be copied in too many places. All these groups are already discussed on the animal page, and I think that's a better place for it than Eumetazoa, a group that does not appear in too many classification schemes. So I'd suggest keeping there things to a short summary.

Thanks again, Josh

That's why I hate taxonomy. The only way I've been able to get through my biology classes is to just accept blindly what each of my text books say for each different class. How do you keep it straight? Do you have a resource that you rely on more than others or do you just really keep up on journal articles? --TheLimbicOne(talk) 19:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Updates (germ layer, etc)[edit]

Thanks for the heads up! —Pengo 03:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It looks really good Limbic. I like the layout and flow; well done!


WikiProject Neuroscience[edit]

By the way, a few weeks ago I started reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject_Neuroscience. How are you not over there yet? :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: RRevised[edit]

Heh...good luck! You may also consider asking someone on the Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce to take a look at it. — Knowledge Seeker 07:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Coelomata[edit]

I ran across your user page while cleaning up links following a merger/re-write.
  • body cavity
    • was coelom, pseudocoel, accoelomate (and a bunch of variations of those words)

I just wanted to let you know, because I'm wary of editing people's user pages. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 04:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Not particularly relevant as Coelomata is a clade name and the taxobox in question is just a parody.

Your opinion requested[edit]

History of Earth is my new pet project. I've only written a couple sections so far, but if you have a chance, take a glance at it and let me know what you think on my talk page. Do you think this kind of article is appropriate for Wikipedia? — Knowledge Seeker 08:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! Especially for examining it so closely. I still have quite a ways to go on it, obviously, but I thought it'd be a good idea to make sure someone else thought I was going in the right direction before I worked any more on it. You can take your time reviewing it; I'm going to be away the next few days and so probably won't make any progress on it until next week. I'd definitely like the picture—I love stuff like that! Feel free to include the lava rocks if you think it's appropriate; I'm trying to briefly summarize the current theories and obviously can't go into too much detail, but in areas with controversy or not much data, we should briefly mention the major possibilities. By the way, you can use <SPAN> (it's an inline element) instead of <DIV>, a block-level element. — Knowledge Seeker 05:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Limbic system[edit]

I've replied to you on the Category talk page, too. As for the categories, I think it's okay for there to be overlapping categories, as this happens a LOT in the brain: something can be in the limbic system, cortex, central nervous system, and endocrine system all at once! It's tough to figure out how to categorize them. Neuroscience categories really need to be reworked, so when I have time I'm going to reorganize them. For now, don't worry about it really; you did a great job. Semiconscious · talk 02:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not certain about the limbic template... I don't really know what to do with it. Should we include just structures (e.g., hypothalamus), types of structures (e.g., allocortex), theoretical aspects (e.g. Papez circuit), etc. It's a tough call.
  • You may also want to check out how I did the references; Wikipedia has some cool templates to make referencing easier. :) Semiconscious · talk 21:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! That is really cool. I just added plain text to disambig the citation (if anybody else ever adds a citation to the article). --TheLimbicOne(talk) 06:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Theia-Earth collision image[edit]

I found a beautiful illustration of the Theia-Earth collision. Thought you might be interested. It's a shame we can't use it on Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker 06:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: plural edits[edit]

I saw your extensive edits of "circulatory system." I'm just curious, what's wrong with linking a plural form like this [[word]]s? The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) says this on the subject:

When forming plurals, do so thus: [[language]]s. This is clearer to read in wiki form than [[language|languages]] — and easier to type. This syntax is also applicable to adjective constructs such as [[Asia]]n, as well as hyphenated phrases and the like.

I've reverted the links as per the WP:MOS. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 22:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was having problems following the links and assumed that it was a problem with the links themselves; in fact it was due to a monobook.js problem that I have since corrected. Thanks for performing the revert. haz (user talk) 11:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

I like how you reverse the conventional title/comment order of a section edit summary [2]. I'm sure I read in some manual of style that it's supposed to go title then comment. However, your way looks like the way it was originally designed. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 20:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I wondered about this (a little bit) when first faced with making an edit summary, and assumed this was the way to go. Do you think I should use the "conventional" order? On a cosmic level, I don't suppose it matters too much! ... Puffball 20:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it, unless you're Zen and don't want to be the tall nail (since it does make your edits stand out). I was just amazed when I saw it, "comment -> section title," so logical. I wonder how or when the standard practice got reversed? Should we ask the help desk? --TheLimbicOne(talk) 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I am an adherent of Zen, as a matter of fact! Suggest we leave the help desk out of it, or face a long and utterly pointless discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. There's enough nitpicking on WP as it is :) I think I'll go on as before ... till I get blocked for it. Puffball 21:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
"...zen..." Oh, I hope I got that reference right. "...pointless discussion...nitpicking..." LOL, agreed! "...blocked..." I doubt it, since you are a major contributer to Knowledge Seeker's pet project :-). --TheLimbicOne(talk) 21:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hardly a major one, but it's a good page & very interesting to work on. Just the kind of thing WP is for, IMO. Oddly enough, after our last exchange some Freudian thing made me hit the "Save page" button without doing the edit summary. Puffball 21:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes[edit]

Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

History of Earth[edit]

I award you this barnstar for your outstanding work on History of Earth. — Knowledge Seeker 04:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you. I really didn't think I contributed that much yet. I'm moving right now. Once I get to my new place, I'll get back to grammar checking. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 03:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Your contributions have been quite helpful. I've been away too but will return next week. Thanks for the barnstar! I'll add it to my userpage when I add the awards section back. — Knowledge Seeker 21:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Embryology[edit]

Thank you so much for the kind words and the barnstar. And if you have any suggestions for Template:Embryology (what should be included, or how it should be organized), feel free to edit it -- it would be very good to have another set of eyes look at it. --Arcadian 12:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: I'm back![edit]

Hello, and welcome back! Nice to hear from you again! Yes, I'm in my referencing phase now, trying to add citations for as much of the article as possible. I can't believe it's already at 54! And I still have more to go. Yes, by all means I want you to continue helping me out. After all, you're the first editor to join me working on this article. The discussions I had with you (and Puffball) helped shape the direction of the article. And your encouragement helped me continue work. One of the most problematic sections for me is Civilization. My grasp of history is not as strong as that of other fields, and it is extremely difficult to condense 10 millenia of civilization into a couple paragraphs. Do you have any suggestions for improvement? As I catch up to that section with my referencing, I'll probably try to rewrite it a bit as well. I'm hoping to have it ready for peer review in a week or so—what do you think? — Knowledge Seeker 07:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested[edit]

Hi LimbicOne! You may be interested in having a look at the WikiProject for Preclinical Medicine. Thanks! -- Serephine / talk - 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Opinion requested[edit]

... on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behzad Ghorbani. He apparently co-discovered and/or named 2 minor species of planaria. Is that notable enough to deserve an article? You seem to be a knowledgeable biology editor, please weigh in on that discussion. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Bilateral_symmetry.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bilateral_symmetry.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Radial symmetry.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Radial symmetry.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)