User talk:Intersofia

Welcome!

Hello, Intersofia, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 14:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Terminal-Island.jpg, which you added to the Terminal Island article, is a photo of only a very small portion of Terminal Island, so I've corrected the description in the Terminal Island article, and also added a better description to the Image page. BlankVerse ∅ 03:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since what the photo showed best was the prison, I added the picture to the Federal Correctional Institution, Terminal Island article. Did you take the photo yourself and do you have any other photos of the Terminal Island area? BlankVerse ∅ 00:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:Image:San-Pedro.jpg: It's a shame that it not a wider view. That picture only shows about half of the Port of Los Angeles portion of Terminal Island. I want to track down the photo that's used on this page: [1], which is a better aerial photo than the one at Microsoft's TerraServer [2]. BlankVerse ∅ 06:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: The clui.org photo. That picture is almost certainly a picture from an airplane. I've noticed that satellite pictures, even though they can show great detail, tend to have much of the color washed out of them. You can also see that they "cheated" a bit with the photo and blacked out some of the rest of the harbor so the photo ONLY shows Terminal Island.

Do you live in the LA area? Although it's short notice, there is the very first LA-area Wiki meetup happening in the Chinatown area of downtown LA on Monday night, July 25, 2005 (see Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/1 for more details). There is also a newly created Southern California WIkiProject and California WikiProject that you might want to check out.

Also: I noticed that a Cesna photo you added was taken at the Catalina Island airport. You didn't take any pictures of the airport did you? BlankVerse ∅ 12:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify using the appropreate image copyright tag exactly what sort of public domain this image is? Has it been released by the author? Is it from a public source? Is it in fact copyrighted free use?

I edited the image from a friend's snapshot. She would prefer to remain anonymous, but has given consent to release into the public domain, therefore, I release it into the public domain. Intersofia 06:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support on my RfA. It is sincerely appreciated. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

07:43, 31 October 2005 Wayward deleted "Del Mar Fairgrounds"

Hey Weyward, why did you delete the Del Mar Fairgrounds article ? There are several pages that point to this now non-existent article, including Del Mar, California I commenced it by supplying a nice photograph of the fair grounds. Can you be more constructive and less destructive ? Signal it as a stub, contribute a paragraph or something. I think a good picture is a fine way to start an article. Anything the matter with that ? Intersofia 05:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Defend the wiki spirit ! Commencing an article, particularly one referenced by other pages, with a photograph seems to me a reasonable way to invite further contributions. 07:43, 31 October 2005 Wayward deleted "Del Mar Fairgrounds" (content was: '{{db}}Del Mar Racetrack and Fairgrounds')

Hi, Intersofia. The article Del Mar Fairgrounds qualified for speedy deletion. Please feel free to recreate the article when you can provide some context (see stub). —Wayward ^Talk 07:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The stated reason for the delete was "CSD A1 - very short articles without context". A picture is worth a thousand words (although it took words to say that, granted ;-)

and Del Mar Fairgrounds is crying out to exist - pointed to a priori by other articles. I advanced the cause of wikipedia by contributing a picture. So if you think the article is too short, offer some constructive help! Destruction is cheap, easy and leads nowhere. Thank you. Intersofia 05:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else or myself would soon supply the text. Intersofia 05:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Wayward says) Hi, Intersofia. The article Del Mar Fairgrounds qualified for speedy deletion. Please feel free to recreate the article when you can provide some context (see stub). —Wayward ^Talk 07:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you confusing context with content ? There is plenty of context for an article on the Del Mar Fairgrounds - since there were other articles that pointed to it prior to its creation (Links that take you to an "edit this article" page) I think this is the very definition of referential context. This is not the unrelated story of some José Nobody who had an Hacienda who know where and a Factory in Lower Obscuria. (see [[3]] ) I provided complete illustrative content: a photograph. Your deletion of this article makes me and others who could soon write the text loose time. I am recreating it and signaling it as a stub, and providing what little text content I can, in the hope that others can soon shed some more literary light on the matter. It is my opinion that visual descriptions alone of a an article needing creation and existence are a positive step forward and should be respected. Intersofia 16:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Article re-created with literary AND photographic content. Context provided a-priori by the encyclopedic environment that pointed to this (formerly) non-existing article. Best Regards, Intersofia 17:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to contribute to the article Del Mar Fairgrounds, as it is only a short stub, needing the constructive work of wikipedians. Intersofia 17:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curious as to why you are deleting these references ? Intersofia 17:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I deleted San Diego neighborhoods from the list of unincorporated places in the county. There is a full list of neighborhoods in the city article, San Diego, California. Maybe we should have the neighborhood list in both places, or at least a pointer from the county article. -Willmcw 18:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you upload images to the Commons please make sure you add them to a category or article so other users are able to find and use them. Use Commons:Commons:Categories to find cats you need. --Denniss 09:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In the AfD for Contact Consequences you voted merge as a valid suibject. Have you seen first contact (science fiction)? You might be interested in contributing to it. My delete vote on Contact Consequences was largely on the basis that the other article is better (although CC has now been cleaned up; however, it is still questionable in my view whether it actualy adds anything). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please upload your images to Wikimedia Commons. --Saperaud 01:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake on the shock cooling article. I missed that study where they were actually able to cause a stuck valve in the Lycoming engines, so I'm glad you caught that and was able to make a correction. As a side note, I used to work in a maintenance facilty for a large training fleet (~30 aircraft) and we rarely (never actually, IIRC) had problems with cylinders cracking. The last engine I pulled and overhauled was an O-320 that had ~3400 hours on it, despite the training environment of students jamming the power in and out, engine kills with the mixture, inexperienced leaning, hours of pattern work, etc. We were always on the lookout for studies that proved shock cooling was a real danger but never found anything solid. Take care, Mexcellent 21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, thats really most reassuring.... I often fly a '79 TR182 (Turbo Skylane Retractable) and I was concerned that I couldn´t just yank back the power to come down in a hurry like you can on that trusty workhorse of complex training, the Cessna Cutlass, 172RG. The basic theory makes sense though, in general. That is, cooling implies dimensional changes in blocks of metal (of all and any shapes and sizes) rapid (read: shock) cooling logically translates into rapid dimensional changes - since stuck valves have been proven to occur, a certain respect to rapid power regime changes should be developped. For example, I was always taught to smoothly, surely but gently, advance the throttle to full power for takeoff, and to wait until a minimum altitude above ground level Above_Ground_Level_(aviation), to reduce power, because engine failures, if they occur, are more likely to occur when the power output of the engine is changed. So I am more confident in reducing power to come down, but I still learned that descent planning is important. And a healthy respect for an engine and it´s care.... Thanks again !! Intersofia 05:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would baby the turbo myself, since there are a lot higher temps and pressures with those engines. And a lot more expensive to fix, of course. :)

Mexcellent 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Intersofia,

I work for a publishing company and I came across a red tide on Wikipedia and it says it was uploaded by you. Following is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:La-Jolla-Red-Tide.780.jpg I would like to use this image in an educational science textbook I am working on. Unfortunately the size on the web is too small for print and I was wondering if you had any higher-res image of this red tide. Give me an email at athos2001@gmail.com

All the best,

Christine :-)

Hi. Thanks for helping out with mercury. I may have been too hasty in some of my edits today. I am proposing a centralized article on Mercury toxicity but have only been collecting quotes on its talk page so far.

For now, can we say that thiomersal has "neither been proven safe nor unsafe"? Or that its toxicity is a matter of dispute? Or something like that. I want to be neutral; I don't want to downplay hazards any more than I want to exaggerate them. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 03:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I think the fact that thiomersal, as a mercury containing compound, is hazardous to life is clear. That is the reason it was ever included in vaccines, is as a bacteriostatic, a "bacteria killer". It outright kills these simpler life forms. In humans, it has been conclusively demonstrated that even small very small amounts inhibit the myelin sheath formation around nerves, eventually causing the nerve to wither and die. The increase in autism spectrum manifestations concurrent with the increased number of vaccines on children's schedules in the 1990's (previous autism incidence of 1 in 10,000 shooting up to 1 in 150) leaves no doubt, at least in my mind that thiomersal is NOT safe. Some attribute this to better diagnosis, and perhaps that accounts for some increased cases, but not for a 2 order of magnitude increase.

Statistic proof of its un-safety exists, (read David Kirby's "Evidence of Harm") but has been disputed by the pharmaceuticals companies whose monstrous liablility exposure would certainly bankrupt them. In fact, these pharmaceuticals have been heavily lobbying for legislative exemption from liability concerns, and in some cases have gotten it.

The only "testing" ever done on thiomersal was to administer it to terminal meningitis patients in the 30's. Since they didn't seem to show any adverse effects in the following two weeks, it was assumed that thiomersal was safe. All of these test subjects died within a year or two from their meningitis. All were adults.

No testing to prove safety was ever done in a manner that would pass muster today, and never on very young, suceptible developping children, and so evidently not tracing it's effects on them over a term of years.

It is generally and widely recognized that mercury is neurotoxic. I think the most accurate statement that can be made about thiomersal is that it has never been proven safe, (certainly not to the rigor that new medications would), that companies involved in it's manufacture have sought legal exemption from liability, and that it is being retired from active use. To say it has not been proven unsafe is more than a stretch. The statistical evidence is overwhelming.

Best Regards,

Intersofia 14:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with your points above, Intersofia, and thanks for pointing them out! Ombudsman 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i want to know which camera,you usally use for photographing aircrafts.Yousaf465

All of the pictures I have put on wikipedia have been taken with the Sony series of digital cameras, starting with the F-707, the F-717, the F-828 and currently I'm using the Sony_DSC-R1 Intersofia 22:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you picture flying aircraft from large distance. User talk:Yousaf465\

I set the camera to "P" mode, which allows for manual focus, and set the focus fixed at infinity. Use the highest resolution available; , in the Sony_DSC-R1 it's 10 megapixels. It's also important that the shutter speed be 1/250 of a second or faster; this might require going into full manual mode ("M" mode) and setting both the shutter speed and the aperture.

Then in Photoshop I crop it close to the aircraft image and optimize the light with Ctrl-L. I have taken some pictures from inside small aircraft (Cessnas') when I hear air traffic control call out airliners nearby, and also as a passenger in commercial jetliners; when landing and taking off there are many opportunities. Intersofia 11:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 April 2007 you changed the phrase "logical drive" in the article Disk partitioning to "logical partition" saying in your edit explanation: Extended - a drive is a hardware device. This is just plain wrong; as can easily be seen from the fact that an extended partition allows one to have MORE than one "drive" (C:, D:, E:, etc.) on a single physical hard disk! I haven't bothered changing it back, since both terms are essentially synonymous. But "logical drive" may fit the context better; if so, it should prob. be changed back. I just wanted to be sure you understood "drive" does not always refer to physical devices, and can indeed refer to a variety of "virtual devices," either those inside of an extended partition (on a hard disk), as it did in this article; and even "drives" created in memory, as is possible with a Windows 98 boot diskette. Daniel B. Sedory 08:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess the term has evolved... it used to be a contraction for "hard disk drive", which implied the unit of hardware undelying the (originally or usually) single "drive". Intersofia 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In November 2006 you asked me to help verify that iridology was "part of most Russian medical studies". Is that still relevant? Alexander Konovalenko 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your name at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. I just spent the past few days moving all the California photo requests into County categories to make it easier for photographers to locate requests in the locations where they take photos. Please consider monitoring and adding your name to the list at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Los Angeles County, California and the other So. Cal counties. GregManninLB (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Statistics

I noticed you recently added yourself to the list of participants, and I wanted to welcome you to the project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on statistics-related articles. You may like to add the project's userbox to your user page: {{User WikiProject Statistics}}. We also have a statistics portal that's worth a visit.

Here are some suggested activities that you may consider tackling.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page.

—G716 <^T·_C> 22:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Maison-de-Balzac.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, there is a copyright symbol by my name. I took the picture, and everysingle thing I have ever uploaded to Wikipedia, now for quite a number of years, is abosolutely legitimate. Why do you fail to see that this is my work and that I am licensing it in the terms given ? Intersofia 12:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:San-Pedro.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the picture, and everysingle thing I have ever uploaded to Wikipedia, now for quite a number of years, is abosolutely legitimate. Why do you fail to see that this is my work and that I am licensing it in the terms given ? Also, kindly restore the picture of the Maison de Balzac. I do not appreciate that you destroy my work, which is my own, as is everything I have uploaded to Wikipedia. I am sorry, but I do not appreciate the extra work you heap on me for no reason at all. Intersofia (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Terminal-Island.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, like in the previous two photographs you inexplicably question, I "P. Alejandro Diaz", known by the handle "InterSofia" on WikiPedia, have the copyright and am making the file available under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license 2.0. What is unclear to you ? I am disturbed that you apparently don't understand the simple terms explained on the licensing page. I am the creator, and do not have to ask anyone else for pemission to license my work to WikiPedia. I am disturbed because it is evident to me, that without warrant (has anybody complained about these pictures? who else has dared to claim authorship ? and if so, have they offered any proof at all ? Nobody could, for I AM THE AUTHOR and I have the means to prove it !) many valuable images are needlessly being deleted. Please respect the cheerful contributions of many, and do not gratuitously diminish the value of WikiPedia. There is no need to create a problem where THERE WAS NONE. Intersofia (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite puzzled by this sequence of notices. Permission is clearly stated and granted by the image uploader. Thanks in advance.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  13:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It lacks any form of attribution or source not even "my image" or "by me" or "by uploader".--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that stated by "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses:"? There's only one individual involved, that is, the person who uploaded the file. Perhaps something less drastic than threatening deletion with a drop dead deadline with no confirmation the user even read the notice is in order, no? These sort of deletion threats in lieu of a conversation is the kind of thing that discourages WP participants.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Peters Vecrumba. When the uploader states that HE/SHE, THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER of this work publish it under the following license, that should erase any doubt that the uploader is claiming copyright on the work and publishing it. I strongly concur, that speedy deletion is completely inappropriate, and stuns the growth of the WikiPedia project. Best Regards, Porfirio Alejandro Diaz Barba aka Intersofia (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:RHaworth#NMT Medical. In case you have forgotten, you wrote the article. Do you want to have another go? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jordan Brown (accused murderer) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Brown (accused murderer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Travelbird (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be using one of your photos at work, and wanted to contact you about using your full name on the attribution in the publication. However, you don't have email enabled here, on Commons, or on es.wiki. Can you shoot me an email? Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(cross-posted on Commons)

Thanks for uploading File:Hotel-del-Coronado-Beach.640.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 15:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your persistence in defending the chelation therapy page.

I wanted to provide you with a bit of evidence with regards to the argument that chelation may be a logical therapy when the issues of metals and compounds and structures which involve metal ions are considered. After all these arterial and coronary calcifications are not just calcium phosphates (mono, di or tri) alone, they involve other minerals and these other constituents may strongly alter the dynamics of their formation and evolution.

The journal article is doi: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e32834c187e from the journal of Nuclear Medicine Communications, Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary artery disease Yuxin Lia, Gholam R. Berenjia, Wisam F. Shabaa, Bashir Taftia, Ella Yevdayeva and Simin Dadparvarb

From the article

"Conclusion Our study demonstrates that vascular calcification and fluoride uptake are significantly correlated in the same arterial territory, although not necessarily overlapping in the same anatomic locations. An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Combined anatomic and metabolic imaging with sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT offers a promising, noninvasive method to evaluate atherosclerosis"

I have a subscription but the article shouldnt cost too much to access.

Good luck ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.100.14 (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Bichon ice cream.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2013 (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) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Helium (operating system) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable software that doesn't even make a claim of significance. No sources located that show this passes WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Feng Bingxian requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]