User talk:DMacks

Youvan v Tsien Patent References

Please see the Roger Tsien article for the support of claims about patents: "Tsien is also a notable biochemical inventor and holds or co-holds about 100 patents till 2010. In 1996, Tsien co-founded the Aurora Biosciences Corporation, which started its public commerce in 1997. In 2001, Aurora was acquired by the Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Similarly, Tsien was also a scientific co-founder of Senomyx in 1999.[7]" Why target Youvan when we have so many problems with citing patent references in WP? Do you plan to go through all the biographies with such stringency? Frank Layden (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I got emotional. This place is full of paid editors. People trash Youvan because he is a Creationist. Would you help me insert some secondary references? Frank Layden (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm on semi-vacation for next few days, will take a look when I get back. DMacks (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll make a "to do" list of references but it might take longer than your vacation. Frank Layden (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Youvan's article is being attacked apparently because he is a Creationist. I don't know if I want to be involved any longer. Here is what I have for you on secondary references:

1. Reaction Centers of Photosynthetic Bacteria Michel Beyerle, page 307.

2. Diesenhofer and Michele's Nobel Lecture on reaction centers

3. Chalfie and Tsien's Nobel lecture on GFP

4. Not in hand, but a paper including Bylina and Norris wherein the heterodimer mutant was remade in a species crystallized and diffracted to atomic resolution.

5. Numerous other labs still studying his mutants and recreating them in their favorite species for PChem studies. This would include J. Thomas Beatty (Canada), Neal Woodbury (ASU), Mel Okamura (UCSD), Steve Boxer (Stanford), and continuing work by Holten and Kirmeier(WU of St. Louis).

Deletion of the Zeiss reference and the Biotechnology et alia reference leaves WP with no reference to the best of the FRET corrections employed on the Zeiss Axiomat. Having established himself in the field, I thought we had a WP rule for minimal use of self publication - if you consider his et alia paper self published.

Notable students: Adam P. Arkin, Simon Delagrave, Edward J. Bylina

Spouses: Mary M. Yang, Oranan Archariyaporn, Jessica Pringle

Please take care of this article. I see this as an embarrassment for WP, as a Creation debate has spilled over into the man's science and math. Frank Layden (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Frank Layden (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

D: There are a couple other things I should tell you. It appears someone split up the Genetic Code article simply to get Youvan's figure off the main page. It's now fixed - you have to look at the history. But the subsections remain a mess. We need to turn everything back. That was a well written article. Also, a few months ago, the "Manage Your Reputation" people offered page protection of Youvan for $200 / month, apparently because I am writing a book that includes him. I declined. Things will go downhill quickly if Admins, such as yourself, don't act to counter these deleterious edits. Frank Layden (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I do realize that what you see on youvan.org is abrasive to the point of deserving excommunication from science, but that is not our job.

Also, the FRET paper you removed was not self-published. Court records show Mary M. Yang as holding 100% shares of Karios (administering Biotechnology et alia). The paper was edited by "Ad Hoc Editor: Professor George Phillips". Additionally, I do not understand why the Zeiss publication was removed. It has great FRET images using what they call "Youvan's Method" which I also see on their drop-down menu. You have deprived microscopists of the source equations; they are likely to look to Youvan's bio for details. Frank Layden (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Just as an example to illustrate my point: WP has an article on Chromecast. I picked a random number: 38. Look at reference 38 for Chromecast. It's basically a commercial ad complete with reader comments and ads up and down the sides of the pages. Why can that be used as a reference while the deleted Zeiss article (very academic) can not? Frank Layden (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your deletions on Transformers

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)

Dear Sir / Please Remove my Account Or Unblock It

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)

Convert ranges

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)

Weixinism

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)

Accusation of Sockpuppetry

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)

Follow up request to look at an article that may now be ready for AfC resubmit, please

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)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

AN3

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)

Meetups coming up in DC!

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)

Sing, Your way through life

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 greg@therapeiacic.co.uk 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)

Orbitel

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)

Tesla

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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

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)

Request for the 1: Nenokkadine Article Protection

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)

Your recent removal of "environment-friendly" from the page devoted to the nonsensical term Environmentally friendly

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)