User talk:Patho

Image:Cysticercosis_by_Taenia_solium.gif

Hello, and thank you for uploading your files to Wikimedia Commons. There seems to be some license information missing regarding this particular file, however. Could you please fix this? Thank you--Orgullomoore 23:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This file could be deleted. Patho 12:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello! from Histopathology "creator"

Hello Patho! When creating many month ago the Category Istopathology and posting very first images about a prostatic carcinoma, I wasn't logged in... and I never dreamt such a work by you!

I posted a Histopathology article; my suggestion is to use its Talk page as a shared beginning "village pump" for interested pathologists. I'm thinking about categories, categorization of images, new templates for informations, gallery-containing articles and so on! There's a beginning project about pathology into it.wiki (we have a new, pathologists "village pump" too there); would you like to visit us? All from us speak English too (I hope)!

There is too a just installed WikiPAT - and external, experimental wiki - dedicated to pathology, just a large "sandbox" so far. It's almost empty by now, we'll wait and see! --Alex brollo 06:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Alex brollo, I'm no pathologist but a medical student. I am working in german Wikibooks, e.g. creating educational material (compendia) for students in pathology, microbiology, pharmacology, pediatrics, ophthalmology and so on. The photos are not from me. These great histopathology photos are created by user KGH, unfortunately he doesn't post any more, the gross pathology photos are from Ed Uthman and PHIL, from PHIL are the most microbiological photos I uploaded here. Being interested especially in pathology and internal medicine I will visit your pages willingly, but I don't think that I can help you. Anyway, I'm still interested in good pathologic pictures for illustrating this book. ;-) Patho 20:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'd like your opinion about my simplified categorizations system (take a look to Talk:Histopathology for an introduction). Thanks--Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 15:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Very nice! And creating the arcticles was a good idea. Patho 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Creative use od a simple scanner

I saw you added some interesting pictures into category:Histopathology; I'm going to categorize them as usual in a couple of days (you'll find them into limphomas "gallery-article").

Please do it!

Take a look to my images obtained simply scanning a microscopic slide, as if it was a photo slide, with a common, cheap scanner (Epson perfection 1670). What do you think about? :-) --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 09:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice pics, but as well as your microscopic fotos unfortunately a little bit fuzzy (in high resolution). ;-) In normal resolution the scanner pics are even better (sharper) than the micsoscopic ones. Maye be you could even scan a Centimeter scale with the specimens for comparing the magnitude. Patho 14:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Caesium-137_Decay_Scheme-de.PNG

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 02:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please delete this picture. Thanks! Patho 15:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fibrilation, not flutter?

- ECG 006 b.jpg ... looks to me like atrial fibrilation not flutter as described. Saludos. --Bobjgalindo 22:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC) (¿Comentarios?)

Image Tagging Image:Keratoacanthoma_(3),_H&E.jpg.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Keratoacanthoma_(3),_H&E.jpg.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. Fschoenm 19:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You can delete this file. It is allrady uploaded here: Image:Keratoacanthoma (3), H&E.jpg --Patho 20:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Blue nevus (1 of 4).jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 20:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

PDB images

Weel, frankly I don't understand the situation... You are speaking of PDB's Molecule of the Month images, true? I started uploading them two years ago. I uploaded all images published before October 2007 (these are the last ones). Why did you uploaded images that were already in PDB.org's Molecules of the Month's category? Which are exactly the cuplicates? Anyway, we just have to ask administrators to delete them... --Giac83 11:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mm.., e.g. these already uploaded pictures were uploaded once again at 10 August 2008 by Giac83 (look at File history): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Citratesynthase1.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Exosome1.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Fattyacidsynthase1.png --Patho (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... You are right... It seems that my last Commonist upload (last august) contained images that you've already uploaded... OK, so it's my fault and I think it's my duty to clean. Just an information: did you upload all images from that pdb.org's section or just some? In the first case, I'll ask for the deletion of all images I uploaded last august. In the second, I'll have to control one by one... Thanks! --Giac83 19:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I did not upload all images which were published by the PDB in the last time, but all of them should be in the PDB Category, so we may find the duplicates easily. --Patho (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I started to list to Filnik (a friend of mine who is administrator) images that should be deleted. Now I look for others. If you notice some other duplicates, feel free to ask him (or anyone you like) for deletion! Thanks! --Giac83 08:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Tonsilitis.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Tonsilitis.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Kam Solusar (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Patho!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Clara cell lung - TEM.jpg is uncategorized since 10 April 2009.
• Image:Calcium 1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Immotile cilia syndrome.jpg was uncategorized on 8 October 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Image:UIP (Usual interstitial pneumonia)-CT scan.jpg was uncategorized on 15 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Bilder von Flickr

Hallo Patho, bitte beachte, dass über jedem Flickr Bild, z.B. http://www.flickr.com/photos/euthman/3459404395/, eine Lupe angezeigt wird. Diese Lupe führt zu einem Link der dem eben genannten entspricht und ...395/sizes angehängt hat. Hier erhältst du eine höhere Auflösung (original size) als die verkleinerten 500px Versionen die du immer hochlädst. Bitte lade die detailreicheren, größeren Ansichten hoch und keine Miniaturen (thumbnails). Danke und Beste Grüße, --Martin H. (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Martin, wenn die größere Aufnahme im Vgl. zum kleineren Bild unscharf ist sehe ich keinen Sinn darin, diese hochzuladen. Kostet nur Speicher und Pixelnebel will sich vermutlich auch keiner anschauen. Gruß --Patho (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, ich habe deine Antwort hier völlig übersehen. Jein, du hast natürlich recht dass die Originalaufnahme wenn unscharf nicht viel Sinn hat, allerdings ist Speicher kein Gegenargument. Durch den Upload des Originals geht nichts verloren, in der Miniaturansicht ist die Qualität die Gleiche, wenn jemand eine Abwandlung des Bildes machen möchte, z.B. einen Ausschnitt, gewinnt er wenn er die beste Qualität zur Verfügung hat. --Martin H. (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Greeting from Italy - About Ontologies

Hi Patho, I presume you're a collegue - a pathologist.

Did you ever met "ontologies" as a classification tool in pathology? I opened a talk about into village pump, asking the Commons community for the permission to test it on Pathology/Histopathology images here, but - I presume - the idea hasn't been understood, and I didn't get the permission. Perhaps community is right and I'm wrong... but I have a running, test implementation of such an approach into it.wikisource, and even if it is really exoteric into its theory, it is not so difficult to use. Take a look, if you like. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 06:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not testing it? The actual system ist arbitrary and often the pictures are distributed in 1000 subcategories so I have to do 200 annoying mouseclicks instead of seeing them on one screen page if I want this. So I would give it a try. --Patho (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

File: Papilloma Virus (HPV) EM.jpg - wrong picture?

Hi, I used this picture in a talk at an virology institute and some of the HPV experts there doubted that this is an EM of a HPV particle. Indeed, the description reads "negatively stained human papilloma virus (HBV)", i.e. there is either a typo in the description or maybe it is an EM of a hepatitis B virus. Perhaps there is an error in the database of the NCI.

Please help replace this outdated license

Hello!

Thank you for donating images to the Wikimedia Commons. You have uploaded some images in the past with the license {{PD}}. While this was a license acceptable in the early days of Wikimedia, since January 2006, this license has been deprecated and since October 2008 no new uploads with this license was allowed.

The license on older images should be replaced with a better and more specific license/permissions and you can help by checking the images and adding {{PD-self}} if you are the author or one of the other templates that you can see in the template on the image page.

Thank you for your help. If you need help feel free to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or contact User:Zscout370.

The images we would like you to check are:

• File:Trichomonas vaginalis Zyklus german.png

BotMultichillT 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

File:ATPsynthase_labelled.png

I have removed your "deletion request" comments from the description page of this image because it was not completed properly. There is no entry on the nomination page for deletion. The reason you put below the template, which was improperly done, "Most of the pictures from the PDB (Protein of the month) were deleted recently because of insufficient permission." is not valid. You need to be more specific; images are not merely deleted because similar images were deleted recently. Please evaluate each image's copyright status independently. I would also recommend contacting the uploader asking for clarification, prior to listing the image for deletion. Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please compare: http://www.pdb.org/pdb/101/motm.do?momID=72

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:PDB.org%27s_Molecules_of_the_Month

--Patho (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:A_scene_as_it_might_be_viewed_by_a_person_with_glaucoma_EDS02.JPG

File:A_scene_as_it_might_be_viewed_by_a_person_with_glaucoma_EDS02.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Vinne2 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Cast nephropathy

I added a some annotations/notes to the images. I think there are PAS negative casts in the image. If you agree there is a PAS negative cast in File:Cast_nephropathy_-_1_-_very_high_mag.jpg, I think one can see them in the other images too (File: Cast nephropathy - 2 - very high mag.jpg and File: Cast nephropathy - 2 cropped - very high mag.jpg). I purposely selected areas with PAS positive casts and PAS negative casts -- so one can see the contrast. Nephron  T|C 05:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Aspergillus

I am not sure where the aspergillus is from -- that is why it isn't recorded. Lung is the most probable location - generally speaking. I'll see if I can find the slide again. Usually, I record info about the cases I photograph -- but for some reason my log doesn't have this case. Nephron  T|C 01:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Cholesterol Polyps of Gallbladder.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 18:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Keratocystic odontogenic tumour

Why I think the image is a keratocystic odonotogenic tumour (KOT):

• Basal cell palisading.
• Artifactual clefting of the epithelial component.
• Keratinization with parakeratosis - I do see a pinkish tingle.
  • I agree the keratin is subtle.
  • AFIAK nuclei are supposed to be present (parakeratosis).

Images for comparison:

• Dentigerous cysts: [1],[2]
• KOT: [3]
• Schematic comparison of jaw cysts & oral cysts: [4]

Nephron  T|C 21:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can show it to a few other people. I don't consider myself an expert in that area. Nephron  T|C 23:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope I didn't annoy you with my question. I find pathology sometimes very difficult to understand until I get the point. --Patho (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to answer questions as it helps me learn more. I don't think the particular KOT is a perfect textbook example -- though I'd like to think it is at least technically a good picture and diagnostic. BTW, thanks for annotating the parotid gland oncocytoma. :-) Nephron  T|C 10:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Congenital cystic adenomatoid malformation 3.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 12:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Congenital cystic adenomatoid malformation 2.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 12:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Human brain frontal (coronal) section.JPG

File:Human brain frontal (coronal) section.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Busy

I see you've been busy uploading the past few years and taken some really great pictures! I was in a longer hibernation over the past year and a half -- but am now back at it again. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page or send me an email (on the English WP). Nephron  T|C 04:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you. :-) --Patho (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Spherule of Coccidioides immitis with endospores PHIL 481 lores.jpg

File:Spherule of Coccidioides immitis with endospores PHIL 481 lores.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Splintercellguy (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Papilloma Virus (HPV) EM.jpg

File:Papilloma Virus (HPV) EM.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Graham Beards (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)