User talk:DMacks/Archive 23

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.

For protecting Thomas Lennon (actor) and releasing us from our watch over the page. My F5 key thanks you as well.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

But Mr. Lennon and his associate, Chris Hardwick both requested that these edits be made. This statement was made on @Midnight, a show which Mr. Lennon produces, obviously he would not allow this request to be aired if he did not wish it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimjongillin69 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipdia is not a spokespiece for subjects to promote their own memes to get the internet buzz going, let alone have any control over their entries. That's why WP:RS requires independent sourcing to attest to encyclopediac value rather than WP:UNDUE trivia. DMacks (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

15:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

DMacks, I have no idea how you could possibly regard a grammatical correction as less than neutral. Frankly, it's absurd. You have studied grammar? Then go back and restore my edit to the Sydney entry. The part I've corrected makes no sense in the original, but my edit fixes that problem.

High-handed conduct on the part of Wikipedia minders could discourage people from contributing. The Sydney entry is deficient in a few ways. If I can't get a grammatical correction through, what's the point of attempting others? You are the judge of neutrality? God help us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocco891 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sydney doesn't do anything, it's just a city. But people go there. And events happen there. And people do things there. Therefore it's not an improvement (grammar or otherwise) to say that the city welcomes people rather than people doing something there. And it makes the city have a motive for its action, but cities are not moral beings. DMacks (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That is, we need to be objective (per WP:TONE and the prime goal of being an encyclopedia rather than sounding at all like a tourism brochure) rather than using anthropomorphism. DMacks (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Rocco891, DMacks is correct. The tone of the change that you keep making is promotional and fails to comply with our requirements to maintain a neutral point of view. It is certainly not a grammatical correction. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

A sort key has been added to {{val}}. Feel free to give me a heads up if it's not working as desired. Jimp 06:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I see you rightly blocked Adeptzare3 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing. I know of another sock of theirs that hasn't been blocked yet - PurpleHexane (talk · contribs). Could you please deal with this account too. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and opened Sockpuppet investigations/Adeptzaire as I think they may have sleeper accounts too. JMHamo (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I added another one. DMacks (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Finally, could you please remove the Talk page access of Adeptzare3 (talk · contribs) for using it not as it's meant to be used. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

15:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

To remove yourself from this mailing list, remove your name from this list. 22:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll personal attack you! BusterBaxter15 (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You do what you feel is best. I would hope that would be helping us write an encyclopedia, but if not, you're welcome to leave. DMacks (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Barnstar Giveaway! Just giving you it to show some thanks! Ryguyrocky (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that in the Kent Hovind article, on the revision history page, you removed my revision of the intro paragraph. I corrected false information, removed a personal bias, and corrected terminology. Please re-post my edit because I only improved the article and did not vandalize it in any way. I cited my sources and used verified information, while staying within the rules of the WP:RS. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob A. Henderson (talk • contribs)

@Jacob A. Henderson: There was no "false information" and your text was unmitigated fringe theory backed by unreliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is important too. I think you are misunderstanding "bias" as it applies to wikipeda articles...we are required to state that his views are universally disputed by many mainstream because that's what sources say (the majority of WP:RS are responses to his position, not take him at his word that his evidence is at all valid). DMacks (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@DMacks: I simply corrected the statement "Hovind has spoken on creation science, aiming to convince listeners to reject scientific theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of his interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative from the Bible. Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by fellow Young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis". I corrected this because his goal is to correct error. He simply uses science to show that the earth is not billions of years old, that life could not have evolved, only micro-evolved, and that the biblical accounts of creation are true (cites are in deleted edit). I also did not use unreliable cites because I had used cites that contain quotes directly from Kent Hovind, and I used secondary sources that criticize Mr. Hovind to show that people highly criticize him. The current article was also lacking cites. Never have I seen any evidence that has contradicted what Kent Hovind has said. Please explain to me what was wrong with what I had previously posted with evidence.

Kent Hovind also requests that either the information about him is corrected or that the article is removed in this video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8a8yknuc3I>

As I said in my edit-summary, take it to the article talk-page. While you're there (actually before you post) read the dozens of previous discussions about exactly these same topics that all essentially fail to go anywhere at all. There was also apparent consensus (in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines) that nobody should give any weight to how the subject feels he is portrayed here. There was clear consensus that the article is not to be removed, neither because he wishes it (for whatever reason) nor because it meets and wikipedia policy/guideline basis for deletion (i.e., Hovind raises zero valid points for removal). DMacks (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I had added one reference link to page Бесхвостые , tutorvista had added its 4 links, then why not i can add one more reference link from other website. Its not promotion, but the page which i have, also tells about fron digestive system. So is that bad to put a reference link on that page. Please guide me.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samtutor (talk • contribs) 07:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Oddjobbondfan999. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done DMacks (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

15:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, DMacks

As you're a chemist I thought I'd ask you if this page should be renamed 4-nitroimidazole and occurrences of 5-nitroimidazole be replaced with 4-nitroimidazole. The reason why is that the skeletal structure shown in the Chembox is 4-nitroimidazole and the PubChem CID is for 4-nitroimidazole. The ChemSpider ID is for 1-nitroimidazole, as are the SMILES and InChIs. If this page is renamed 4-nitroimidazole then I guess that articles for other stereoisomers of this molecule (e.g., 1-nitroimidazole, 2-nitroimidazole, 5-nitroimidazole) will need to be created. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 09:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

We definitely need to disentangle the different isomers (1- vs 2- vs 4-/5-; these are actually structural isomers not stereoisomers), as they are obviously different chemicals. For 4- vs 5-, being tautomers, I'm not sure which is the "best" canonical name to use for it, and I doubt there is enough about each individually to merit individual articles. You're right that the PMID 18208 entry is titled "4-Nitroimidazole", but then the IUPAC name on that page is "5-nitro-1H-imidazole" (annotated as being generated from the structure). The skeletal structure File:4-Nitroimidazole.png would seem to be technically 5-, since the formal name is 1H- (which seems correct from a systematic perspective), which means that the nitro is on position 5 around the ring from it (per File:Imidazole 2D numbered.svg in our article on the imidazole parent structure). I'll check SciFinder later today and see whether it has alternate entries or more strongly supports one or the other as the canonical structural form. DMacks (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

2-Nitroimidazole would also deserve an article. It was originally known as "azomycin", and appears to be the first of the nitroimidazole antibiotic natural products to be identified.^[1]

DMacks (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting ref:

• Diagnostic agent for infectious diseases

It's a patent, so not a WP:RS itself, but some cited refs might be useful for the idea of radioisotopic labeling/imaging to locate cancer cells (the chemicals localize there). Haven't traced (ha!) yet to see which specific ones, and whether it's mentioned in their specific articles. And also:

• Wiebe, Leonard I. (1999). "Radiohalogenated Nitroimidazoles for Single-Photon Scintigraphic Imaging of Hypoxic Tissues". In Machulla, Hans-Jürgen (ed.). Imaging of Hypoxia: Tracer Developments. Developments in Nuclear Medicine. Vol. Volume 33. Springer. pp. 155–?. ISBN 9780792355298. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

of that same idea and also use as a sensitizer for radiotherapy. DMacks (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The 1- isomer does not appear to be known experimentally (only studied computationally for substituent effects, etc.). DMacks (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

All individual structures and the tautomerization equilibrium reaction with matching style/layout are now in Category:Nitroimidazoles. DMacks (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Corona treatment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plasma. 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, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi DMacks,

Thanks for your feedback on Zathura (document viewer). I think I've addressed your notability concerns. Would you mind having another look now and let me know on the talk page if you think more needs to be done?

Cryptarch (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Still fails WP:GNG. No independent in-depth reporting. DMacks (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello member of Category:Wikipedians who use IRC! You are invited to join an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help aimed at defining a policy for prerequisites to being a helper in the "#wikipedia-en-help ^connect" channel in a section titled "New helper policy".

To prevent future mailings about IRC, you may remove your user page from Category:Wikipedians who use IRC.
Assistance is available upon request if you can't figure out where it is being added to your user page.
This message has been sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)

15:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta. 09:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there,

I noticed this block from yesterday. I'm a little unclear as to the details but it doesn't look like you left a message on the user's talk page. I'm not asking for justification or questioning the specifics of why it happened; it just seems like it would be helpful to leave a message there with specifics about why the block happened (in addition to the mention on the article talk page) along with the usual links to information about being blocked.

Also, if you run into trouble with student edits, you can always bring them up at WP:ENB or WP:ENI or even ping anyone signed up as an "online volunteer" for the class (Ian (Wiki Ed) and myself in this case). I've emailed the instructor to let her know about the block and explained that while I don't know the details, it was likely not the result of one particularly problematic edit but rather the common scenario whereby a new user makes mistakes (which is ok), but continues to make mistakes without communicating with editors who try to address those mistakes. Is that about right? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, thought I left a message on the student's talkpage in addition to the one I left on the relevant article-talk (Talk:DL-Phosphinothricin). Added now (with timestamp detail). Thanks for catching it. Indeed it's a bad situation with that editor and article on which she is working. Multiple editors have left her user-talk and article-talk messages. The edits progressed to become worse (or "differently as bad" from policy perspective). Tons of details in my edit-summaries and article-talkpage. Let me know if someone wants more clarification. DMacks (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Could you clarify why you went to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Russian and removed a huge chunk from the list of notable Afro-Russians? Did you feel they were not notable enough or was it something else? You didn't leave an explanation in the talk pages. ThanksDanJazzy (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I had previously noted "WP:WTAF" in the edit-summary, but will certainly leave a talkpage note to make it clearer. DMacks (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see the talk page for the article. ThanksDanJazzy (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

15:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You changed 0.7 to 0.8,

This ref says 0.7 [69] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Page 2 says that nearly all used 0.8 as the minimum, with "fewer than 1%...at 0.7". That whole paragraph seemed like it's getting skewed a bit to make it seem like F is lately realized to be a problem rather than than added to water is in excess due to modern changes in other sources. DMacks (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

15:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying - albeit unsuccessfully - to update my company's Wiki page. Under Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound "History," the existing text makes reference to events from 2002 to 2012. I simply want to add what has occurred in 2015. "Cape Wind has had a series of setbacks in 2015: NStar and National Grid terminated their contracts with Cape Wind; Cape Wind’s leases with Quonset Development Corporation (for a port facility), Falmouth Harbor Marina (for headquarters), and New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal (for staging and construction) have been terminated. Additionally, Cape Wind was suspended by Independent System Operator/New England from participating in New England’s wholesale electricity markets. [83]" Thank you, EdithJaquith (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying Cape Wind, Cape Wind, Cape Wind. Sounds like it's about Cape Wind. Before you make any other edit to any article remotely related to these subjects, please read WP:COI. DMacks (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi DMacks,

I have updated the article and within a months time more content will be added filmymantra media manages more than 60+ Bollywood Celebrities Which we can Link back to this Wikipedia page, For any further query feel free to contact us at - twitter.com/ifilmymantra, facebook.com/filmymantradotcom Thank You,

Kind Regards,

Abhijit (Editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijitwgh94 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

On wiki is how I communicate about wiki. I've said what I have to say (several times) regarding the suitability of this article based on Wikipedia policies/guidelines. DMacks (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

15:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sir I am S.C Williams Please Move Protect by User Page (S.C.Williams 02:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC))

This would be a good time for you to demonstrate your ability to make constructive edits towards building our encyclopedia instead of consuming everyone's time with your userspace. DMacks (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Biblical account of "Adam" is not a myth; it is an account. You may not believe it, but that does not make it a myth anymore than Evolution is not a myth to those who believe it. Deshonj (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read the actual definition of creation myth rather than mis-understanding what that term really means. Conversely, just because you do believe it doesn't make it any better than anything that someone else believes but you don't. Feel free to read the miles of talkpage discussion on that and related articles to see that nobody has yet found WP:CONSENSUS for a better term than what academics and cited reliable-sources call it. DMacks (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

16:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your recent edits and behaviour in the topic, and I find them duplicit (and repulsive, really, by my first reaction). Please think again. Are we loosing cooperation? -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you did not find this pre-existing work that takes a different approach before you working for a while on the other idea we had discussed a few weeks ago. I refuse to feel sorry for finding it myself—less than a day ago—or making you and others aware of it. I'm sorry you feel poor for now learning that yet a different editor's work has existed for several years. DMacks (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"this pre-existing work" - you could have told me, not? In your May 9, 2015 request [95]! There since 2013! And please stop telling me "I'm sorry you ...". It is you who makes this mistakes. Also, I don't believe your cheap I'm-stupid "huh?" responses. btw, you did not answer my question. -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Try asking again without the vitriol...it's clouding my ability to understand what you are asking. As I said, I didn't find this thing until a day ago. I didn't look because I at the time I was only brainstorming. Then you were working on it, so I did not even look further until now that I had a few minutes to think about it at all. Feel free to keep digging that WP:CIVIL hole for yourself...I won't be responding further until you climb out of it. DMacks (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Understand that I fell off my chair when, after a load of hard work in this, I discovered it was to be surpassed this way. This surprise I experienced can be read in every early response I wrote. Now after some good nights rests I am sitting back on my chair and I'm looking forward. In short, given the status of both our developments, I think we can deploy my proposal these days (being tested &tc), and later when your module is stable it can be deployed as an improvement. This is the wiki way. -DePiep (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I completely understand your initial reaction. Sounds like a good way forward. BTW, it's true what I said earlier...this isn't (or originally wasn't) actually my module at all and it's not yet to a state that it's ready for general use. DMacks (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I really took some energy from you. The module's ambitions look like an improvement indeed, once stable. -DePiep (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

15:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

15:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. User Shehzad Uddin is a new sock of the banned user Saqraat that you banned recently. He is active vandalizing some of the same articles as he did before with his previous socks. Yesterday his dynamic IP range that includes 42.83.85.167 (talk · contribs · 42.83.85.167 WHOIS) and other IPs was blocked for vandalizing Kashkar but today he is able to vandalize again using a registered name. His copy-paste moves at Kashkar and Kohwari etc are especially disruptive. Khestwol (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Indef'ed, and I see another admin has protected some more of the specific pages where ohe has been a problem. DMacks (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Malik Mubashir Awan is also a new sock of him I just noticed. Same behavior as before, like nominating whole articles for deletions as he did at WP:Articles for deletion/Saraiki diaspora, and requesting to edit articles (Hindki, Chitral, Hindkowans) which have been semi-protected because of himself. Khestwol (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wikimandia. Khestwol (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed you blocked Shehzad Uddin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for block evasion, so I thought you might be interested in Fahaam Uddin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Faham Uddin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) too. Thomas.W ^talk 17:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

15:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best_Major_League_Baseball_season_won-loss_records#Season_records

The link to the 1886 Chicago White Stockings season is incorrect on this page.

In 1886 there was only one Baseball team in Chicago: The Chicago White Stockings. This team later became the Colts, the Orphans and finally the Chicago Cubs. The Chicago White Sox were not established until 1894.

I corrected the link, but you reverted my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.210.153 (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Re-fixed. Thanks for letting me know! I only knew the later Chicago White Stockings (which became the Sox) but not its time-frame or that there had been an earlier one. DMacks (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

www.oxygenmanchesterpiccadilly.com is my webpage for Oxygen Tower. I am a direct developer representative for the development, Oxygen Tower Manchester.I thought it will be nice if I could provide first hand information on the development. If the content sounds too promotional, please advise and I will edit accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OxygenManchester (talk • contribs) 06:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The content was highly promotional in addition to being a copyright violation. You might want to read WP:COI before you edit any further, to avoid having future edits be problematic. DMacks (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

15:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to cite the New York times, in article which cites the Wisconsin State Court of Appeals, for citing Urban Dictionary in an appeals court decision.

Maybe it's not a Wikipedia approved source, but there is precedent in the US Court System, so I stand by its validity.

"Last month, Urban Dictionary was cited in a financial restitution case in Wisconsin, where an appeals court was reviewing the term “jack” because a convicted robber and his companion had referred to themselves as the “jack boys.” ^[1]

^[2]

~Derek Linz - 6/26/15 Aidanlinz (talk • contribs) 05:16, 26 June 2015‎ (UTC)

You can state that the court accepted its purposes (whatever they were) in some situation, as cited to the NYT, but that is the court for its purposes and in some situation. As far as it being generally accepted by WP for direct use, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 37#Urban Dictionary is.2Fis not a Reliable Source. is unambiguous that it's not viable and contains clear evidence why not. And Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 181#Spurious claim from Urban Dictionary makes its through Wikipedia into The Guardian is an even stronger example of the mockery that can come from it. There are multiple comments about UD on WP:RSN discussions, feel free to start a new one if you like. DMacks (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

May I know why you reverts my edits? All the data provided are genuine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmoy705 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation (copy'n'paste/close-paraphrase), "instruction manual" type of writing inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and there actually were unsupported factual details included. Finally, it was a bunch of edits all relying on a single source, one for which you seem to have a several-year-long unusual affinity for using (borderline refspam). DMacks (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

15:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hallo. about Gassman indole synthesis; It sounds like the reaction is used to synthesize "a ketone that has a thioether substituent", but the text says its added in the second step. Christian75 (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I just adjusted the wording, let me know if it is better. DMacks (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Its much better :-) Christian75 (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)