User talk:Rdp060707/Archives/2024/July

Journal of Investigative Dermatology page

Hi,

I'd like to remove the paragraph: In 1972, it absorbed the journal Advances in Biology of Skin, also known as the Proceedings of the Brown University Symposium on the Biology of Skin.

I work for this journal and this change happened in 1972 and is no longer relevant.

We would prefer to have further current information about the journal, like the below:

"The JID places a high priority on publication of new insights into basic cutaneous biology, disease pathogenesis, and treatment. Reports that describe a new methodology, technique, or tool in combination with mechanistic insights into the problem that is being investigated are encouraged. It is possible that occasional descriptions of novel technology, methodology, or resources that are of special interest or utility to JID readers could be competitive for publication, even in the absence of new mechanistic insights. Reports describing novel variants in known genes with no new mechanistic data will not be reviewed. Case reports or case series, unless they provide new biologic insights, are rarely appropriate for submission."

This gives any Wikipedia reader further information about what the journal publishes.

Please let me know if I make this change again it will stick? Thank you. AnitaCJudd AnitaCJudd (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Unread messages

james laine is criticised for his non sense use of jokes in a history book, why you are avoiding it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.232.132 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I dont believe I made a change to anything 74.116.47.26 (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I was just wondering if the image of Baháʼu'lláh could be removed from the page on Baháʼu'lláh. Baha'i's are asked to not distribute images of Baháʼu'lláh so it would be greatly appreciated if it could be removed from this page. here is a message from the Universal House of Justice regarding the matter of Baháʼu'lláh's image: "It is apparent in letters written on behalf of the Guardian that he did not approve the publication of any photograph of Bahá'u'lláh, and regarded such publication to be offensive to religious feeling. Nor did he approve that the photograph be exposed openly to the public, even in Bahá'í homes. Only on special occasions did he permit the photograph to be displayed, and then he urged that it be done with the utmost reverence."

Thank you for your understanding! 2600:1009:B02D:BD65:E929:3791:494:7778 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)