Tuckerekcut

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! JobE6 20:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Village pump

I'm a little confused by what you were trying to accomplish in this edit. Were you attempting to revert the page, or perhaps it was some glitch in the software? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Just a friendly reminder; if you'd like to talk to someone, just head on over to their user talk page (example: User talk:Knowledge Seeker). Most people have a link to their talk page in their signature (for KS, it is the little symbol). Click that and you'll be there. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Giant Enemy Crab!} 20:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, MoP. Tuckerekcut, I realize it can be a bit confusing; to find a user's "talk" page; click on the "discussion" tab visible at the top of the screen while you're viewing their user

page. Or, as Master of Puppets mentions, many users include a link to their talk pages in their signature. I understand now what happened. Do you understand now how the edit conflicts work? Please let me know if I can be of assistance. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi there! Thanks for your answers on the reference desk. I thought you might be interested in checking out Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. See you around! --HappyCamper 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fetus

You helped me out with my question regarding Image:Month8fetus.jpg on the science reference desk, and was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving Fetus a look. There is a section on anatomy and a section on physiology which I feel is redundant. Could you review these two section and make sure each topic is under the appropriate header (anatomy vs. physiology). It seems to me that size should go under anatomy, and the part about quickening has nothing to do with fetal anatomy nor physiology. But because I am not that familiar with the differences between these fields of study, I am requesting your help in reviewing this content. Thanks for your consideration and knowledge!-Andrew c 02:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. OK, the rat image appears like that in the original. You can see here that there are better images, but only the one we have has been released under the GFDL. I agree that this image isn't that useful. There was a discussion on images on the talk page, and there was a pretty good image of a cat fetus that I think I'll restore later tonight (since the discussion died down). Next, I do not exactly understand what you are saying about the fetus image at prenatal development. I gave it a look and couldn't figure it out. But your description makes it sound like there needs to be a clear command placed after the image to clear the float (see Template:Clear.) -Andrew c 03:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over the page. We'll wait and see how other editors of that page take the changes. I see a few places for change, so I'll make a few edits as well. Thanks again.-Andrew c 21:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Our changed to fetus were reverted, and we are now being 'required' to defend ourselves before User:Ferrylodge. This is why I have been trying to avoid that page and that editor. Anyway, your imput on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, and sorry to drag you into this mess.-Andrew c 19:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

1 GLOMERULUS and two tubules

Well,I was going to answer on ref. desk but now i've stuck here.This thing[1],i.e 2 tubules and 1 glomerulus,no way ,no human has been hiding this miracle inside of his mysterious body uptill today ,however i am answerless that what will be happening tomarrow.The thing you are talking about,is just kidney concerns ultimately leading to nephron,having only one glomerulus;the site where pressure filtration occurs then the proximal tubule,loop of henle, distal tubule and eventually the collecting duct. And if i haven't made out the right sense of your question.You can ask me on my talk page,probably my knowledge might be of some use to you.--Mike robert (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Medical and legal advice

You may wish to comment on this discussion. Bovlb (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Harmonic scalpel

A tag has been placed on Harmonic scalpel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)