User talk:DMacks/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions with User:DMacks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello Sir I am User:Sankararamank I Request you to Please Protect The Muni 3: Ganga Which Means Administrators only edit That article Thankyou Sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.105.132 (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to give me a valid reason. DMacks (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sir

Iam User:Sankararamank Please Protect The Article Muni 3: Ganga Because The Reason Is This is Real and Upcomming Project or article. If Somebody Missuse This Atticle Itwill be Lost.So Again I Request you to Protect That Article. And i request you to Protect Ayan II. Because The Reason is it is Referencable Article. But Some admin tagged Speedy Deletion. But i am not Intrested in that

Thankyou Sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankararamank (talk • contribs) 12:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You have not given a valid reason according to the WP:PROT rules. DMacks (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No. There are only very limited reasons for protection. Your concern is not one of them. If you disagree with another editor's tagging, you first must discuss it directed with that editor. Ayan II is not tagged speedy at this time, but instead has a whole page to discuss it. The top of the article clearly states "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." The "this article's entry" is a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayan II. Go there to discuss it. DMacks (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello DMacks

This is User:Sankararamank I Created One Temple That Template Name is

. if It is useful you semi-protect that template. If it is not useful you can delete that template.

Thankyou Sir

Templates do not get automatically protected. Please stop asking for protection. It is obvious you do not understand it because your requests all fail to follow the reasons allowed in WP:PROT. You are wasting everyone's time. If you think something you created is not useful, why did you bother to create it? If you created it and now change your mind, it's in your own private area...you can tag it {{db-user}} and someone will delete it for you. But why should I be the one to deem it "delete because I don't find it useful"? Wikipedia is about working together. DMacks (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sir This is User:Sankararamank I am in Wikipedia in 14days. I am also AutoConfirmed User in Wikipedia. Please Promote as admin of wiki —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RfA. From what I've seen you are nowhere near ready (not yet demonstrating understanding of conflict-resolution, deletion and protection processes, etc.). DMacks (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flap Jack (Musician Artist) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• with [[Record Union]]. He is also well known for Instrumental remix, He followed that album with ''[[Flap Jack Vol.3'' on October 31, 2013 which was backed by the singles "[[ Hold On, We're Going Home]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, I'm working on the Inverted Repeat article as part of a Molecular Biology course at JHU. I removed an old, out-of-date (2 years old) and misleading talk-page comment and I noticed that you preformed an "undo". Is there a problem with removing old talk comments that cause issues because 1) the person didn't sign their post so there is no way to resolve with them and 2) the issue raised is invalid (the person didn't understand the concept) and 3) the issue was raised more than 2 years ago. Thanks, -- Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed there is. You're welcome to ignore the message (if it's old or obsolete) or respond (if there's some kernel of an idea to help improve the article or clarify something the editor doesn't understand). But otherwise WP:TP (especially the "Editing comments"..."Others' comments" section) is the guideline. To address your concerns, we can clearly see that the comment was written by an anonymous user at 129.241.132.131, and it's just as valid to clarify his misconceptions on the article-talk (since he wrote there) vs on his own usertalk. There were indeed a series of edits in that timeframe in which that user attempted to change the article and another editor undid it (as you note, there were misconceptions). So it's probably best to just ignore that message and move forward. Talkpages are chronological, so discussions towards the top that have long ago stopped being discussed just get to site there and collect dust. DMacks (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sir!

User:Sankararamank I imroved one Article Thai moogambikai and i Uploded some Suitable image for that article. And i Put Suitable References. If you Read that article please Semi-Protect that article —Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The infobox looks nice. The image is a violation of license policy. Also please stop asking for protection. It is clear you do not understand what it is. DMacks (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I put a link on the photo and it says creative commons 3.0 so it wasnt a fail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardleonardy (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Another editor tagged the image disputing the license, so I looked more closely at the source. site says CC3.0 but also has specific icons restricting as NC and ND[1]. Those restrictions make it not completely free (WP requires those two parts of the licensing). DMacks (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you lower protection settings of Lester Coleman to "pending changes"? I saw just infrequent editing before and after protection. --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There was long-term problem with serious WP:BLP there. Even once protected, they continued via talk-page. I don't see evidence that there is an intent by non-autoconfirmed editors to make viable changes (quite the contrary). Semi seems to me a better balance. DMacks (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey. Would you be able to make a usable stub of this article? I tried going through the history and there's really nothing salvageable on the copyright end, but I'd rather not have a redlink if I could help it. Wizardman 04:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I could strip it down to the chemistry, but I don't know enough about the biochemistry/biology of it to be able to summarize or give a key two-sentence overview of its significance. Maybe that's really for the best...it's a chemical that is notable for it being a folk remedy and that has some scientific basis for biological activity, and that's that (not details about what any of that is, leave it to someone who understands and has time to read and write clearly). DMacks (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey DMacks, this file has not been deleted yet and it has been more than seven days. 12.168.128.77 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I know we've had our quarrels over structures but I do respect your opinion on structures and as part of this I felt like asking your opinion on this structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:(Sodium_Nitroprusside)2DACS.svg) for sodium nitroprusside as there's been some argument over its accuracy when compared to this structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sodium-nitroprusside-2D.png). Thanks Fuse809 (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know this particular chemical very well, but the two images are actually "different" in several factual ways. What is the geometry supposed to be? The 6 bonds coming off the iron in File:(Sodium Nitroprusside)2DACS.svg point in an extremely distorted direction, whereas File:Sodium-nitroprusside-2D.png is clean octahedral molecular geometry. The 2DACS.svg has the metal nitrosyl complex bent, whereas the 2D.png is linear. DMacks (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your opinion. Fuse809 (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Good afternoon, The webpage http://wildfarmkids.com/take-action/ you deleted/edited has been used by parents, mentor, coaches, schools, doctor offices to show that this activity is in fact real. I believe you know nothing on this subject. We were encouraged to add it to Wiki to help parents and caregivers relate to this. There is a blog connected to it but the information has all been researched and is worthy of being included under the heading it was placed. WSEngle (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@WSEngle: Wikipedia documents things that are reported in the mainstream media. However good your cause, Wikipedia articles do not link to good causes willy nilly. Show that your source has had discussion in reliable sources and re-addition of the link may be reconsidered.

DMacks has no need to know anything about the article to know that the link was not appropriate as it stood. Please be substantially less accusative ion the way you address him. Fiddle Faddle 18:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.thesimpsonian.com/news/students-play-deadly-game/article_a72cdde2-4c55-11e1-ad29-0019bb30f31a.htmlhttp://www.thesimpsonian.com/opinion/brother-s-death-had-warning-signs/article_30cdc9da-4c60-11e1-9102-0019bb30f31a.html http://vimeo.com/40964307 http://wildfarmkids.com/2013/04/17/2012-iron-journalist-2/ no small feet to win this at SIMPSON COLLEGE.

The information on the CDC is outdated and makes the problem seem as if it were resolved. Their numbers are so off that it is insulting.

WSEngle (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If the information has been "researched", then those underlying sources might be valid to include (assuming they meet reliability standards if they cover ground not already covered in the article. A college newspaper obviously can report on events reliably, but I don't see how it supports this specific website being notable. You'll need a very strong source to support a claim that the CDC is wrong. Note that the only reason I added the CDC at all was as a better reference for "how to talk to your kids about it", which is the only thing that the disputed site sounds like it has beyond what is already extensively in the wikipedia article. WP:EL instructs us not to include extlinks that merely duplicate already-existing (or easily includeable) article content. DMacks (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The CDC is out dated and the numbers that are used daily by news and public to "site" of how many kids have died is outdated. This is such a controversial death that as everyone tip toes around it, only the children that come forward to say it is a real problem and addictive "chasing the high" and never thinking death is possible. I hope you see our frustration as most the parents feel that sadly it will never get the recognition as being real until a celebrity is the grieving parent and they will go to all the search engines and search, and they will find out dated information. just as the links to CDC and Wiki provide. Having the take action link is a resource for parents. I find parents don't know how to ask, what to look for, how to start a conversation. Show compassion and see it was added as a lay way of bringing the conversation to the world. The site has been viewed in over 45 countries world wide. This is global. As far as random blogs or websites, this one has a constant feed to keep parents engaged in the ripple effect of education by sharing the new knowledge. While word of mouth has saved lives, having a link on Wiki is a title wave not a ripple. Please read the link, I do not want to battle you over this, it just makes me frustrated, The blog is a way that as it is shared to social media, NEW eyes see the information. I hope you have learned more about this deadly activity, Blessings WSEngle (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@WSEngle: You need to understand the difference between a soapbox, which Wikipedia is not and an encyclopaedia, which WIkipedia is. Wikipedia is entirely uninterested in your good cause unless you can show that it is notable. Wikipedia does not have compassion. If you find that to be a problem then seek to change WIkipedia's policies. Please use WP:VP or a similar platform to seek to do that. Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As Timtrent says, the goal is laudable and the underlying situation unfortunate at a personal and societal level, but none of that meets our standards for encyclopedia content. You have again repeated your claim, with zero evidence provided that published material from reliable sources is incorrect. Again, wikipedia is founded on the policy of verifiability, and we pretty much have to trust major research/medical organizations such as CDC unless there is "at least as good" a source to dispute it. DMacks (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please would you look at User talk:WSEngle and consider both the dialogue and the edit summaries, and determine whether additional thoughts are needed. I have decided to have no further duscussions with this editor. I do, however, disagree with his addition of what is patently his external link to the article. Fiddle Faddle 10:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the website it is obvious, as it has been from his demeanour, that he is a grieving and loving parent of a child who died in this pointless manner. He deserves our empathy, but that does not mean that his particular site deserves a place on Wikipedia. As a father I am more than sorry for the untimely death of his child, but that must take no part of my thinking on Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 10:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sir This is User:Sankararamank((Talk) Please Unblock My account. Sir i am really very sorry. This is my last edit to wiki please unlblock my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.247.165.146 (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You will have to make this request after logging in as your account. I left you the ability to edit your own talk page in order to do so. But if this is your last edit to wiki, then you have no need to be unblocked. DMacks (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop deleting information that is correct. You're a big boy....you can do some real research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.92.2 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 November 2013‎ (UTC)

No, you WP:PROVEIT DMacks (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sir Please Semi-Protect my User page User:FROG ALLIEN —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see his new unblock request, I ask you to extend his block. Sohambanerjee1998 11:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The only one I see is from a few days ago, which another admin promptly declined. Is there another unblock request somewhere else I'm not seeing? DMacks (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

See his this unblock request termed by him as an order See...this is not a request. I know I havent done anything wrong...in Shahrukh Khan filmography, i tried to prevent some mad vandalism and did it...I got pissed off and I had a reason. I am ordering you, whoever who blocked me, unblock or i'll find u and beat you up in front of your mother. He was blocked for beind disruptive and using abusive H:ES, keeping that in mind and the recent unblock request the user in my opinion has become a tiger. The user and I work in the same the field I don't want him to take out his anger on those articles. Sohambanerjee1998 12:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Another admin declined his "request" (technically a request, even if not worded as such), mentioned that he saw the request itself was inappropriate, and did not extend the block. So I will defer to User:Perido's judgement on that. If he returns as a problem, let me (or AP:AIV) know (remember to include a diff of the specific new problem edits in case they're not obvious)...his next block would obviously be an indef based on his history. DMacks (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Sohambanerjee1998 17:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately the lesser watched institution pages in WP get a lot of cruft and unnecessary detail. 12:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

what do you think of merging Far Eastern University – Institute of Architecture and Fine Arts and similar into the main Far Eastern University. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd support that merger. Being able to write lots of flowery prose about the succession of presidents or buildings does not make the topic notable. DMacks (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yea, my bad. I just wanted people to know that I am awesome and that I am married to Chris Pine. Probably will not happen again. I saw that you go to Brown University? I went there too! Graduated last year actually... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goddardsrocket (talk • contribs) 04:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sir Please Protect My User Page User:Indian Fellow Please Protect My Artice Nenjam Marappathillai. Because the Reason is it is a real article and referencable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Fellow (talk • contribs) 15:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sir This is Robert Axe Shall i Ask One question to you

• How to Create an Great article in Wikipedia
• how can i Protect One article in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Axe (talk • contribs) 02:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sir This is User:Robert Axe|Robert Axe]] Please Remove the Protection of user page User:Sankararamank. Because this user is currently blocked and You put it as No Expiry set so this user can't edit or anything else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Axe (talk • contribs) 07:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not a chemist but I am plodding through an AfC review of a proposed article. I am reaching out to two experienced chemist editors to take a look at a proposed article that is presently in AfC status.

(The other editor is Rifleman 82; I identified you two by reviewing the relevant editor category page, and noting edit numbers and other criteria - my idea is that only one of you would look at this, so "whoever runs first" would be the only help on this, so sorry to bother "the other".)

So, if it is of interest to you, and the issue has not been addressed, would you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Proline organocatalysis? Your help (or the help of any editor chemist to whom you can point me) in taking a quick look so as to avoid any glaring disasters would be appreciated. (gently note: the proposed article comes from a "new" editor, so I want to handle this nicely and at the same time with somebody's expert insight.)

In addition to anything that strikes you, I wonder if you can help confirm that the content within the proposed article should not be merged in some way to an existing article such as Hajos–Parrish–Eder–Sauer–Wiechert reaction ? - I don't think so but that's the kind of thing that I as a non-chemist would value you confirming, thanks.

I will of course gladly either stand down from edits during any period you want to run with this or indeed entirely relinquish the AfC review to you. Thank you for your consideration. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I left some comments (I've done some of these reactions, but not recently and more often to get the product for other uses rather than to study the reaction itself). Feel free to move them to a more appropriate place if necessary (I don't know the current AfC process very well). DMacks (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply on the proposed article's page. I understand your advice points: they correspond to my sense of things. I will carefully reach out to the proposing editor who initiated the article. Thanks so much! FeatherPluma (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

DMacks, would you be able to look over the PhotoBox page again? I have made edits to try and keep it as informational and non-biased as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulriw9d (talk • contribs) 16:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think my article on Mahdi Moudini is no more orphan. There are several citations added and I knew there are several links also to this page. Asoleimanif (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dmack. Molecular Breast Imaging is not even close to the same thing as Scintimammography or PEM (especially PEM -they are nothing alike other than they are both nuc med imaging). That is why I do not think it makes sense to list this as a disambiguation page. I was attempting to write it all in layman's terms, and maybe I can have someone help me further with that, but a lot of patients do not know what MBI is when they come into the clinic and are referred for an MBI procedure. PEM is similar to PET whereas MBI can be considered similar to SPECT (if you notice both have their own separate wiki page and are not tied to each other via disambiguation). I was attempting to use the history section to go more in depth with that but scintimammography and PEM are basically no longer in practice and that is why I thought it would be best to really explain MBI on a website like wikipedia where patients can search it. Patients do not have a lot of resources describing the procedure and the dual-head system which reduces dose and scatter and acquisition times and increases cancer detection 4x as much as mammography with a sensitivity as good as breast MRI and specificity as good as whole breast ultrasound.

Also, I was pleased to find that molecular breast imaging was listed under breast cancer screening and I updated a reference that was to a blog that was no longer in existence- but if you notice scintimammography and PEM are not under the wiki breast cancer screening page (because they are basically no longer used- both systems are no longer made some hospitals have existing PEM units that they may still use but they are no longer manufactured). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon 013189 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a number of scientific references on MBI I was planning to include before all my edits were deleted which patients frequently do not have access to, but which is where all the information can be obtained..

Siegal E, Angelakis E, Morris P, Pinkus E. Breast molecular imaging: a retrospective review of one institution's experience with this modality and an analysis of its potential role in breast imaging decision making. The Breast Journal. 2012; 18: 111-117. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon 013189 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Conners AL, Hruska CB, Tortorelli CL, et al. Lexicon for standardized interpretation of gamma camera molecular breast imaging: observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012; 39(6): 971-982.

Conners AL, Maxwell RW, Tortorelli CL, et al. Gamma camera breast imaging lexicon. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 199(6): 767-774.

Hruska CB, Rhodes DJ, Collins DA, Tortorelli CL, Askew JW, O’Connor MK. Evaluation of molecular breast imaging in women undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging with Tc-99m sestamibi. Journal of Women’s Health. 2012; 21(7): 730-738. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon 013189 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hruska CB, Weinman AL, Skjerseth CM, et al. Proof of concept for low-dose molecular breast imaging with a dual-head CZT gamma camera. Part II. Evaluation in patients. Med. Phys. 2012; 39(6): 3476-3483.

Mangasarian OL, Street WN, Wolberg WH. Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis via Linear Programming. Operations Research. 1995; 43: 570-577.

Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138: 168-75.

Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, O’Connor MK. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Radiology. 2011; 258(1): 106-118.

Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval-and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92: 1081-7.

Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008; 246: 376–383.

Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012; 307(13): 1394-1404.

Killelea BK, Long JB, Chagpar AB, et al. Trends and clinical implications of preoperative breast MRI in Medicare beneficiaries with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2013; 141:155-163.

Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR. 2009; 193:586-591.

Boyd NF, Dite GS, Stone J, et al. Heritability of mammographic density, a risk factor for breast cancer. NEJM. 2002; 347: 886-894.

Mankoff DA. A definition of molecular imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007; 48(6): 18N, 21N.

Kelloff GJ, Krohn KA, Larson SM, et al. The progress and promise of molecular imaging probes in oncologic drug development. Clin Cancer Res. 2005; 11:7967-7985.

I also have a number of external links related to the topics

MBI casts wider net for improved breast cancer diagnosis: http://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=spt&sub=mbi&pag=dis&itemID=91850 New imaging tools address challenges of dense breast tissue: http://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=spt&sub=mbi&pag=dis&itemID=91901 Cardiolite (Tc99m-Sestamibi): http://www.cardiolite.com/index.asp National Cancer Institute; Breast Cancer: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/breast Are You Dense: http://www.areyoudense.org/ Are You Dense Advocacy: http://areyoudenseadvocacy.org/ The National Consortium of Breast Centers: http://www.breastcare.org/ The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation: http://ww5.komen.org/ American Breast Cancer Foundation: http://www.abcf.org/ American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/ Food and Drug Administration: http://www.fda.gov/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon 013189 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I am also confused as to why tomosynthesis has its own page instead of being a disambiguation page to mammography- the only difference is that DBT is 3D mammography. It is the same thing as mammography. Anon 013189 (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems wikipedia is biased to include only the DBT link to Hologic's system but neglect to mention GE Healthcare http://www.gehealthcare.com/usen/xr/mammo/docs/TACT%20White%20Paper.pdf or other companies that make it- is wikipedia paid by companies for articles? Anon 013189 (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please review this

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748346/

This free CME course for practicing physicians and it also gives a great deal of information about how scintimammography is no longer used in clinics (and why) and the difference in MBI versus Scintimammography.

http://courses.icpme.us/class_learn?course=340

Also PEM uses a different radiotracer and is not the same thing as MBI. Anon 013189 (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sir This is Washington Vetrivel Please Semi Protect My User Page (Washington Vetrivel (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

I have just found an interesting link. I wonder if you would mind look at this diff and both editors' editing history along with the latest sock report in this area at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sankararamank. My duck sense is quacking. Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sanka... seems to be himself a puppet of another master. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amaravathiarun/Archive. Thanks for continuing vigilance. Fiddle Faddle 15:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder...hadn't noticed the confirmation of that cross-link. DMacks (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is also one of the most pointless sock drawers I have seen for a long time. Fiddle Faddle 15:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, today I must call upon your skills as a chemist and ask you a question. I have been using MarvinSketch for some approximations of chemical data of a few different molecules and one of these molecules is hypericin and with it I get this microspecies distribution (%) vs pH plot. My question is this: which value is the pKa value for hypericin? I ask because the first microspecies (the orange one which is the unionised form of the hypericin) has two points (corresponding to pH = 3.37, 6.695) on the curve where 50% of it is ionised. Thanks for your help in advance. Fuse809 (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to that file and I don't know this chemical in particular, but SciFinder's chemical-properties entry for hypericin only gives a single pKa of 6.91±0.20 for it, calculated using Advanced Chemistry Development software. The entry also has calculated other properties that in some ways relate to ionic character (solubility, partion-coefficient, bioconcentration factor), and all have a noticeable change in the pH 8–10 vicinity. DMacks (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I just happened to see these comments and would like to point out that calculations of chemical data such as pKa are notoriously imprecise. Different algorithms for making these approximations can give wildly different results. For Wikipedia articles, I think we should only include experimental data. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just found an interesting link. I wonder if you would mind look at — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.30.0.116 (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I had brain failure and finger trouble. Good catch. Fiddle Faddle 17:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

need a secondary source or well-regarded standard recipe book (WP:RS) not just someone claiming to have something and calling it something. If I post a recipe for a breaded potato on a stick and call it a "corn dog", that doesn't make it so.

Find me a well-regarded standard recipe book that say corn dog are made of hot-dog sausage. Funny thing is there is no reference for that? Also there a patent link in the reference. Its against the rule. But keep editing the good stuff instead of helping the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.2.252 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I added the ref for you. Patents universally fail WP:RS because they are (like almost any random thing I post on a webpage) self-proclamations with no fact-checking...all they can support is that "the filer makes a claim", not anything beyond that. DMacks (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"4 franks or pre-cooked sausages (He is partial to buffalo sausages)" Did you even read your reference? Thats exactly the point i was making thanks for the confirmation.

Let's continue this on the article-talk page (thanks for starting that more centralized discussion!). DMacks (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dmacks, I hoped against hope for this user and now the inevitable became true. You know he's a fan of Shah Rukh Khan and edits articles related to him. Now the actors competitor, Aamir Khans film Dhoom 3 released big. As expected he came, and vandalised. Had it been earlier I would have used the term removal of content but it has lost its integrity due to him. The diff. - section removal (referenced). I asked him to stop his disruption and advised him to use preview button for convenience of article history patrollers like me. Then after a few days, he uploaded a new version for the existing poster, which I reduced size but then he uploaded a different file and removed the existing one. This upload was unnecessary. When I explained it to him politely I got retaliated in such filthy words that I want to stop editing wikipedia. Thanks I hope this would be enough to get him indeffed. Soham 09:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like ANI discussion led yo him being indefinitely blocked, which is what I would have done if I had been online at the time. Glad it got resolved, sorry you had to bear the brunt of his bad behavior:( DMacks (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Nevermind, its part of the job, I think you handle it more often than not. Soham 17:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why did you revert my changes to the article? The cited article is about to appear. Hermann Luyken (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit summary, "Unpublished work does not meet WP:RS guideline." The previous content was supported by the existing references in the article (which are all published and include both primary and secondary sources), so we can't replace that with a less-reliably-sourced material. Once something else is actually published, it might be suitable to include it (might not for other reasons, but at least it would meet the reliable-source threshold). DMacks (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

WHy the F*** did you delete my page? I wrote everything on that page myself and its from creditable sources as I linked where I received the information from which was the factory ktm website but none of the text was from anywhere else.. I own one of these bikes and there is no other page related to this model. btw wikispaces page has links to the copyright pictures from ktm but yet that is ok to show but none of my text is?? if this is how someone gets treated on their first article in wikipedia then no wonder why they are sooking for donations cos they will end up out of business with people randonly deleting stuff and pissing people off like this.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.3.7.200 (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• KTM 1190 Adventure R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As the big pink box says, and also per the note left at User talk:Troy xlr8, it was deleted because it was a copyright infringement. Another editor noticed it, and I confirmed that large chunks of the text were cut'n'pasted from other sources--that's strictly forbidden--we cannot accept content that is against policy (and possibly even against the law). DMacks (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• KTM 1190 Adventure R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If you have a look at the page, you will see that the user (who is from the same adventure motorbike forum I am) has linked to the page I created. I did not copy any of the text from his site, I take it it was copyed from mine which I am fine with. Can you please undelete my page and look at when i last edited my page and look when the page you are referring to is last edit and i bet you will find the edit of any text similar will be after mine.

If we followed this type of play then if I got text off wikipedia and put it on another site then you would have to delete it off wikipedia right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.3.7.200 (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2014‎ (UTC)

According to the history of the other website article (http://ktm1190adv.wikispaces.com/page/history/models), that article was last edited December 15. According to the history of the the wikipedia article (you don't need to keep re-adding the {{la}} now that we already have it), it was created on December 16. That chronology sounds the opposite of what you are saying. An easy way to break the license deadlock is to have the other website simply declare that it is open-licensed. That means its text is freely copyable to Wikipedia (doesn't mean the text might not have other content/tone/etc problems, but at least it's a legal starting point). See WP:DONATEIMAGE for details. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the Deletion of User:Raghusri/editnotice, User talk:Raghusri/editnotice Pages & Belated Happy New Year Wishes from Me to U & Ur Family Sir :)

Regards,

Raghusri (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy New Year to you and yours as well! DMacks (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly respect your decision of claiming that my additions on the Transformers page were copyrighted, for the reason that 'some' was copyrighted. However, I believe it was inappropriate for you to delete everything added, given that a considerable percentage of my additions on that page was original work based on a variety of reliable sources. Moreover, my additions contained highly valuable information pertinent to the topic. Thus, with the expectation of compliance, I will be returning all such material that I believe deservedly should be on that page.

If you still have any conflicting opinions, please feel free to message me on my talk page, and I will do my best to resolve the issue. Thanks and Best of Wishes. JREling1 (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Shashikanth Ramawat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.169.182 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• User:Shashikanth Ramawat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- blocked as sock of ...
• User:Shashiramawat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"No" and "not possible", respectively. You cannot hide from your own behavior or the results of it. But you are welcome to go away and stop editing if you do not intend to follow our rules. DMacks (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sir i have another account if you remove this one i will be unconfused and v.happy

What account is that? DMacks (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:shashiramawat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.169.182 (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sir , i came to know my mistakes if u remove my Accout USER:shashikanth ramawat I will be happy with my current account User:shashiramawat and will Never do a mistake Again I promise You Sir.

Sir Please Give me Replay , I haven't sleep Whole Night if this problem is solve i will got to sleep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.169.182 (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm very confused here, DMacks; maybe you can clear it up (but you're sounding like this is confusing you, too!). Shashikanth Ramawat (talk · contribs) is blocked as a sock of Shashiramawat (talk · contribs) and this IP appears to be the same, too, but isn't blocked. Shashikanth Ramawat is requesting unblock...but the request seems to be "I want to use the Shashiramawat account (so the one that isn't blocked...)." So...I guess just decline the unblock since he can just use the other account anyway? only (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not a chemist but I plodded through an AfC review of a proposed article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Proline organocatalysis. You were very kind in posting some comments in response to my request a few weeks ago.

The original contributor had made only a few WP edits, and has not worked on the article recently, and has not responded to Talk Page messages. Anyway, I have now modified the article.

I think that the now simplified article might serve as an introduction to this topic for a general interested reader audience, with references / citations pointing to review articles for those readers who were looking for a deeper treatment of the topic. I am close to reintroducing the article to the AfC stream, with the plan of deferring to other reviewers at that point, although I will add (or someone will) de-orphaning links upon AfC completion (e.g. from organocatalysis to this article).

I did not see a pressing need to modify / correct the details of the chemical schemata, given that several sources available as references within the proposed article have extensive treatments of those details. I chose to remove them, and to retain the citations as resources. The schemata could of course be added back by a future editor.

May I ask you to take a quick look at where the article now stands? This request isn't pressing. However, if anything jumps out as significantly "off" please let me know. As I said, I think it's probably ready to go back to AfC. I'll take care of that process, and of any detail work, but I would appreciate you taking a quick preview. Thank you. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, it is Leoesb1032. I am being accused of being a sockpuppet even though I am not because I learned my lesson the 1st time. I know some users have access to technical logs to justify an investigation and I wondered if you, being a successful administrator had this tool, If you could just prove that I and my supposed sockpuppet are not in the same location, I would really appreciate that. You can leave a response here. Leoesb1032 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have access to that technical information. Requires a higher or different permissions than I have. Those who have it will check and follow up on that investigation page. DMacks (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you see my response at Template talk:Convert#Automatic detection value as range? I was hoping someone would test the changes to see if it does what is needed. The module will be updated from the sandbox soon, but won't be changed for perhaps a month after that, so it would be good to work out if anything else is needed very soon. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Been a bit swamped last week. Thanks for working on it! I just posted some test results, and it indeed does do what is needed for the chem data. DMacks (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the page should be kept. I know there's not independent material covering the topic at the moment, but searching on the web, especially in Chinese, the movement appears to be relevant as it has a visible presence in Taiwan as well as in China (it also represents the special case of a non-recognised religion operating in China after an accord with the Henan government). Also, I don't think the page contained the same material of the previous version. --Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've found some independent information. The movement is the subject of a number of lectures (1, 2, 3) of the MingDao University, an article about its activities has been published by Taiwan Broadcasting System, Macroview Television, and another article by Apple Daily. --Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weixinism was closed with a consensus to delete, and a topic for which there is no independent coverage is pretty much the definition of non-notable. You're welcome to file at deletion review with your new evidence and ask if it is sufficiently in-depth and independent/reliable to overcome the original objections. DMacks (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your continued efforts in protecting Tamil film actors from vandals! —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to be of service. DMacks (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, DMacks, next time you file a report at AN3, please list under diffs only the reverts of the editor you are reporting. Even with your comments to the right of each diff, it was a bit confusing to see what appeared to be four reverts listed. The last one in particular shouldn't have been listed (at least not there - you could have mentioned it in the body of the report) as it was a comment on a talk page. I expected to see a revert in which he called you a vandal in the edit summary. Thanks and let me know if Jacob continues to be disruptive after my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. I was a bit confused how to file this one in close to the standard format, since it wasn't just a single article being affected (parallel problem on many but only 1-2 diffs for each). Thanks for handling it. DMacks (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The account is now history based on this. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey!

You are invited to two upcoming events in DC:

• Meetup at Capitol City Brewery on Saturday, January 25 at 6 PM. Please join us for dinner, drinks, socializing, and discussing Wikimedia DC activities and events. All are welcome! RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.
• Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, February 1 from Noon – 5 PM. Join us as we improve articles on notable women in history! All are welcome, regardless of age or level of editing experience. RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.

I hope to see you there!

(Note: If you do not wish to receive talk page messages for DC meetups, you are welcome to remove your username from this page.)

Harej (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It is very difficult to get the message out that dementia is a very serious issue killing millions of people every year. You have the power to force deletion, but in doing so, you are penalizing the health professionals that are having a go.

Now I see that you describe yourself as an academic, so are we. we are also happy to work with you on this one, please tell us what has offended you, and how we might rectify the issue.

You have probably heard of Beta Amyloids, and know how to avoid and reduce them, but most people have never heard of them, and do would not know how to save themselves, this ignorance is killing millions, help us to make a difference, perhaps consider becoming a contributor to this page yourself. the more we delay, the more people die.

Our book is being recognized around the world, it is being featured on a coast to coast talk show in the USA, it is being considered for national distribution by the NHS, this book is notable, and will soon have the fame of books like "Gone with the wind" that does feature on wikipedia.

Please, cut a bit of slack, help us guide us if you like, but please add rather than subtract on this one.

This is the copy we currently have on wikipedia, feel free to edit, and email to me [email protected] where I will change the copy online, you might like to remove the last sentence as it reflected our feelings at the time. By late 2013, in excess of 44 million people worldwide had dementia, and this figure was set to rise, on the 11th Dec 2013 the G8 thought the situation so serious that they met in london and set the challenge to delay dementia by 2 years, it was believed that this would save uo to 22 million lives worldwide and in the USA alone 1.6 trillion dollars

"Sing, your way through life" Was the response. The book written by health professionals in the UK, USA and Australia, setting out a program to delay and deal with dementia by avoiding substances that promote the growth of Beta Amyloids, whilst increasing the use of natural foods to reduce the amount of Beta Amyloids in the brain, to this was added a program to delay dementia using music therapies and advice and reassurance for those for whom dementia is a reality.

Beta Amyloids are a naturally occurring plaque, much like the plaque that can form on teeth, Beta Amyloids are known to be a major cause of Alzheimer's

The Authors Dr Doris Bersing Phd Dr Elizabeth Barnes Mr Greg Woods Dr Ethelle Lord Mr Peter Gooley

The Three Point Plan Beta Amyloids are a major factor in Alzheimers, although naturally occurring, Alzheimer's patients cannot control the levels of plaque on the brain. Sing, Your way through life proposes a three point plan 1. To avoid products that cause or aggravate beta amyloid growth, these include aluminium and Corn Syrup 2. To promote foods that control beta amyloid growth 3. The use of music to stimulate the brain The authors challenge the right of the elitist who keeps trying to remove this article.

Yours sincerely

Greg Woods Director of Music and Therapy Therapeia (Cornwall) cic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therapeia cic (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The topic itself--this book--fails multiple standard guidelines for existing as an article. Wikipedia is for topics that are already actually notable themselves, not that are merely associated with notable topics, no matter how worthy the cause might be. I recommend you read WP:CIVIL before you attempt to have a discussion with others in public. Millions of people have heard of amyloid betas because they are widely discussed in relation to Alzheimers. A self-proposed WP:ALTMED remedy is completely outside the realm of useful information. DMacks (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

My company? what part of isnt only from colombia dont understand guy? Have personal problems with me or my country? --Juancameneses11 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your pattern of editing appeared to be tending to promote this company rather than remain truly neutral for an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well be careful what you think, because apparently you think is not what it seems. And thank you very much for showing that you have a personal problem with my country. Fqiu --Juancameneses11 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi DMacks and thanks for your comment. I merely uploaded to Commons a file in a better resolution and - after a comment from another editor - left in an aspect which is closer to the original. Also, what you are referring to as an original print is actually a negative which does not give any indication on period prints. Happy editing, — Racconish^Tk 16:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. After looking further, I did find that negative, which I carefully called an "original", not a "print". In my first edit, was trying to note that we (as editors) need not use any particular print of it (tweaking ourselves as necessary to adjust the sepia-color or exposure, for example) but can go back to other high quality copies (for example, someone else's print) before I had looked more deeply. Personally I don't think sepia adds anything, compared to a sharp b&w. Your most recent one looks fine too. DMacks (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I reacted to the fact your were comparing the tone of a negative and the tone of an albument print. As you know, these are not really black and white and it is always delicate to decide whether to keep them in their original tone or make them look more 'natural'. Cheers, — Racconish^Tk 16:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sam (koala), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackout (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This is about the most underhanded act that I have witnessed on Wikipedia, and I have been contributing since Wikipedia's beginning days. We know that, on the societal level, a so-called researcher or scientist involved in or acting as agent of tainting, skewing, concealing, and even destroying evidence in order to force a biased outcome is reprehensible and, to perform the very act on a world-stage in plain view, even certifiable. If I wanted to put the energy into moving or renaming the above-referenced page, I would be able to resource the adequate number of true academics motivated by their cerebrum and not their lowest-level neural tissue. However, I abandon my intention to do so with the satisfaction that your deviant and despicable act has evinced your true character. Brainiacal (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EtymAesthete (talk • contribs)

Hello Sir :)

You may know me, i am Raghusri :) My humble request to you is :

If you have Free time then please see the Contributions to the 1: Nenokkadine article. Because so many new users (May be 20 New users) are using the page for the Sake of Testing, Sir. So, please Protect this article with Semi-protection for, at least One week (or) Ten days, so that only Autoconfirmed users can Edit it. Thank you so much for Reading this, Sir :)

Regards,

Raghusri (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done 10 days. DMacks (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for seeing the Article's Contib's., and Protecting it Exactly as per my Request. Have a Nice day, Sir :) Raghusri (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, I know what you mean, I changed them under the direct instruction of Walter Lewin himself because he wants to update his videos to better quality recordings. It would help if we can figure out a way to make the target more specific, thank you for your help! --RexRowanTalk 20:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I did a little tweak, hope it looks more relevant now. What do you think? --RexRowanTalk 20:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, much better. I'm not sure we should be linking to specific lectures at all (guidelines such as WP:NOTDIR), but your changes now satisfy my original concerns. You might want to declare your connection to the subject on the article talkpage (the {{connected contributor}} template is commonly used)...will help others recognize that you likely know what you're talking about with regard to facts and prevent others who from being as likely to blindly reject all your edits as spam if they uncover the fact before you reveal it yourself. DMacks (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello DMacks. I notice you made this reversion: [2], which included reverting an intermediate edit and several edits to punctuation/grammar, on the basis of a 'presumed' (albeit unproven) copyvio. Is there an investigation going on into the user at question? I notice that one edit was indeed a copyvio, but why was it necessary to revert all edits during that time period? I am unhappy because of the removal of the accessory edits and the presumption of guilt on the part of that user (although this may be reading too much into the matter). Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have flagged this on the administrators incident/noticeboard in case the user reinstating the content is a sockpuppet of the original user. --LT910001 (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed a discussion at WP:ANI#Strange business mentioning that you'd reverted and later blocked an editor for copyvio and a new editor that to me is an obvious sock. As no one else had followed up with an SPI I raised Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jwratner1. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

the Basic information provided is wrong! mumbai and India are the same, I am also entitled to make changes, so please let me make some

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikki2177 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Mumbai is just one city in the large country of India--they are definitely not "the same". But India is just a more general location. When you go home from work/school, you can say you went "home" rather than specifying "house front door" and it is not incorrect.

When editing wikipedia, you are required to follow its rules (you explicitly agreed to do so when you save your edits). There's no "entitled" status...if you do not follow the rules, you lose your privilege to edit because you would be wasting the time of others who have to fix the problems you were creating. DMacks (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the explanation of Yobol's cryptic remarks. I've added a section to the page's Talk tab, looking forward to you reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudemarstar (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=583846001710485&id=100002552718654&set=a.199297356832020.45222.100002552718654&source=46&refid=17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishad Pkn (talk • contribs) 19:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That link does not work. You said that you yourself took the picture with your own camera or that the person who did explicitly released the image under a free license. Things you find on the internet are almost never free to use in that way. I can see from your edit history that you have a years'-long pattern of not following our copyright policy...please take some time to fix that problem if you wish to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Macks, We've talked before on the subject of people at the Groton School looking to white wash their history or delete a student that offends them. Recently, Jan 14th, 2014, one of your revisions was edited out completely. The IP address in question (173.48.176.66) is from the school area, whether faculty, student or someone associated with the school. Your assistance regarding the vandalism is appreciated. If no longer you, please let me know where to refer this concern. All the best, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeabody (talk • contribs) 03:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No one is trying to whitewash anything, DMacks, regardless of what Epeabody is trying to sell here. I gave him a detailed response at my talk page as to why the individual in question should not be included in the "Notable alumni" list at the Groton School article. Feel free to refer to it and add any comments you may have there. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I responded at your talkpage. DMacks (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, would you consider dropping the protection of Phil Lester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to pending changes and seeing if that works? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Please let me know how it goes...I don't have it on my watchlist. DMacks (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for answering to my problem of {{Infobox hurricane}} last month. I found a solution to it and I think you may be interested to know more about it at Template talk:Infobox hurricane.--Quest for Truth (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: your removal of External Link. This article is 100% accusatory of Dr. Das. The video in the external link that you deleted showed the late Dr. Das himself defending himself. I believe it should be considered Reliable Source (RS) under the Wiki "common sense" guideline. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.116.238.232 (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, sure. DMacks (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The name, Kerala was never derived from "Khair Allah" as it was mentioned as Keralaputra by King Ashoka in 3rd century BC. In 3rd Century BC, the religion Islam neither even existed nor the god, Allah. It is merely a religious comment. Remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokakshemam (talk • contribs) 19:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The statement is specifically identified as a single opinion (among at least two others given) and cited to the published reference that supports it. It may be nothing but fiction, but that's okay...Wikipedia isn't saying it, it's just saying "someone said it", and not even providing any further confirmation. Your understanding of the origin is given there as well, with lots of explanation and citations. And another origin is also mentioned briefly. It's obvious from reading the full paragraph that these ideas are contradictory. The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy is that articles can include contradictory ideas and brief mention of minority ideas as long as they are well-cited and written clearly as such (rather than simply stated as fact). DMacks (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Belt manlift, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)