User talk:Tony Mach

Welcome!

Hello, Tony Mach, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Nauka module is basically a new space station by itself, when OPSEK is commissioned, Nauka is the Service module which does what Zvezda does for the ISS. The 2 research modules are just laboratories, and the node module has little at all inside it. Nauka is the module with all the life support and engines, computer and so on, so a bathroom of similar design to Zvezda is not really controversial (they'd be busting to go in OPSEK without one). Unlike other nations, Russia send their modules fitted out with equipment already, so it's unlikely that the toilet for OPSEK would be sent separately later on, it wouldn't make sense that way.

Please do as you please with the article though, it needs updating and filling in a LOT of information, they all do. Penyulap ☏ 21:06, 28 Jul 2012 (UTC)

No worries. When I read bathroom, I thought of a room with four walls, a bathtub, and tiles and so on :-) But then again, they have something they call a divan in the orbital modules of the Soyuz … Yeah, the article needs some work, and I wasn't aware that that module will be the core of OPSEK (what an AWFUL name compared with ALL other stations so far) – maybe I'll put that information there. Tony Mach (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not so bad really, but it ended up looking like a aluminium cylinder on the older Russian stations, (the shower). it took them ages to get the water hot and go though all the setting up and so on that in the end they now wipe themselves with damp cloths. There are videos on youtube of washing hair in orbit, some chick with really long hair too. But yes, Nauka has the lot, you should also talk to User:Craigboy he has some secret info about the ISS hidden away in a hidden stash. I wish he'd just put a lot more of it into the article, because it is great stuff.

but as ideas go, there are some interesting ones about the ISS, picturing it and so on. I'll go upload an early picture, a sketch that looks like a hotel lobby with someone sitting in a chair reading a book before bed, there is what seems carpet and up and down and all that kind of thing, so it's not like you'd be the first to picture a bathtub :) I'll have to upload that just for you. It's cool. Penyulap ☏ 16:27, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).

JFW | T@lk 18:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, I saw your edits on hypopituitarism. I'm not sure if I agree with the use of italics and {{dfn}} tags, so I was wondering if we could discuss the issue on Talk:hypopituitarism. JFW | T@lk 18:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, no problem, be right there, need to finish an edit to another article. Tony Mach (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Spacecraft docking and berthing mechanisms, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Salvage and Maritime (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) 12:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N2e (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your merger of these articles. Combined articles are the exception rather than the rule, and just because it is done elsewhere doesn't mean it should be done here. Spacecraft are all considered notable enough to warrant their own articles, so if anything, the other article should be split rather than these ones merged. --W. D. Graham 13:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full ack, then Kosmos 186 and Kosmos 188 should be split, as this was the first unmanned automated docking of spacecraft in the history of spaceflight. Don't know to best do a split, though. Tony Mach (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited TKS (spacecraft), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Volkov (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) 18:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Craigboy (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:WikiMed. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tony. I have seen that you have Tidied up the Cause section on this page. (great edit by the way) I have removed your New section on dairy being another cause, because I later mention (in the "Cure" section) Dairy as being a source OF Lectins. Also you say :

Depending on the degree of reaction either a complete avoidance, or a reduction in consumption of dairy is advised.

- I feel this good sentence would be better suited in the Cure section again, but it already kind of IS. - see:

Eliminating all foods containing lectins for a short period (about a week) will allow the skin repair itself. Lectins are found in high concentrations in cereal grains, legumes and vegetables of the nightshade family such as potatoes. However they are also found in considerable amounts in dairy products made by grain fed cattle.

Would you like to discuss this in Talk:atopic_dermatitis ?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laoseb97 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points, but dairy/milk does contain more than just lectins. I think it is a mistake to reduce milk to lectins. Tony Mach (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true and plausible ... doesn't that make it an exclusive milk allergy though - just like you orginaly said, but that doesn't explain why patients react to many foods other than dairy. Te only possible link the "notorious triggers" have in common ( to my knowledge) IS lectins.

Either way, since we have both addressed that diet is THE main culprit for eczema, Im quite happy to leave the dairy alone (joke) as another posibble theory.Thanks for your input Laoseb97 (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read the Books & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to ISEE-1 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:

• of three spacecraft: a mother/daughter pair (ISEE-1 and [[ISEE-2]]) and the ISEE-3 spacecraft (later renamed to [[International Cometary Explorer]]. The program was a cooperative mission between

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to ISEE-2 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:

• of three spacecraft: a mother/daughter pair ([[ISEE-1]] and ISEE-2) and the ISEE-3 spacecraft (later renamed to [[International Cometary Explorer]]. The program was a cooperative mission between
• Cometary Explorer]]. The program was a cooperative mission between NASA and 55ESRO#ISEE-2|ESRO]] (later [[ESA]]) designed to study the interaction between the [[Earth's magnetic field]] and the [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eagle (crater) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:

• Eagle crater on the Mars PIA05163.jpg|Click here for a version of this image without annotations.]]] ({{JPL Image}})}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Europa (moon) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Flyby

Europa Clipper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Flyby

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JPL Image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tony. I apologize for the grief my additions caused to your DYK proposal. I will work on it next. See, there is this policy called Public domain#Government works that applies to NASA:

"Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries. In the United States, when copyrighted material is enacted into the law, it enters the public domain."

In similar circumstances and resulting debates years ago, it was decided that the work from NASA is indeed public domain and can be copied with inline attributions, which I did. It is accepted by most administrators, however, there will always be editors unwilling to accept this law, and claim that "plagiarism" applies instead, making it not a legal matter but "moral". I don't debate nor address such complains any more but I will fix it out of respect to you, not to Wikipedia zealots. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that every piece of science that was done with public money should end up in the public domain, regardless if the people doing it are public employees, or "private" employees – it would be the right thing. Effectively, if anybody is getting paid with public money, they are factually doing public work.

However, this is not the law, and AFAIK, JPL is not a part of the government, it is not another part of NASA, it is not some public entity – it is basically a private company. As such (and unless the contract with NASA says otherwise) the private company JPL has copyright on their work (regardless whether they explicitly assert it or not). As I said, I don't like it, but that is how it probably is.

With regards to JPL images: Until NASA officially and explicitly releases the JPL images into the public domain, I fear that JPL Image Policy is binding and effectively their images are not in the public domain. I would dearly love that someone would show up and say "Because of A, B and C, JPL's work is in the public domain." However, I have not seen a proper argument to this point. It would not be a big problem IMHO anyway (only a minor nuisance), because anybody is free to use JPL images, as long as the credit line is included.

Now with regards to text, I don't know if the same applies as with images. Does JPL give permission to use their text, like they do with their images? The Europa Clipper article would be good help to advertise their project, and as such I imagine JPL would be fine with that. Maybe someone should contact them? Is there an official position by JPL on that? So we can use JPL text as well, as long a credit line is included in the article? Tony Mach (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the text and hope the "plagiarism" has been addressed to everyone's satisfaction. Regarding your images, I rather not participate in the debate; I was burned out years out with the convoluted technicalities of NASA/JPL use of their images. Please let me know if more work is needed with the offending text of the article. Again, my apologies of having your DYK rejected because of my additions. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat about the text! I don't know anything about DYK – is that a "Did you know"? I did not initiate such a thing and am a bit puzzled that you mention it. I just want to add information where there is none, but should be. Tony Mach (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should clear something up here, the text I removed was in no way in the public domain; it was not the work of NASA or JPL, it was verbatim text sourced from an NGO, private blog, and news source. The text I removed was clearly not in the public domain, and clearly protected by copyright. Liamdavies (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liamdavies for pointing that out! I have kicked off a rather unpleasant copyright matter (JPL images, and the question whether the JPL images are PD or not), and got those two affairs a bit mixed up. IMHO you are right, the text parts used from the NGO and the blog are not in the PD. Tony Mach (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tony, and firstly my apologies for being a party pooper. Unfortunately the use of File:Internet dog.jpg (a non-free image) in User:Tony Mach/userbox/Dog looks like a violation of WP:NFCCP. This policy states that non-free images can only be used in articles, and then only in an article for which a specific non-free use rationale has been provided. Do you think you could find another image for your userbox? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darn!

And I thought I only used free images for my userboxes! Will remove it, and thank you Wdchk for the pointer!

(And I think a free image of a dog will do just fine for this userbox anyway.) Tony Mach (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Tony Mach: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

WikiProject Mass Surveillance Dear, Tony Mach. We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Mass surveillance, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the privacy and global surveillance. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. -- HectorMoffet (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut WP:SETECWP:SETEC

I like that you cleaned up the wording for the caveat on the Template:Shades of color, unfortunately it changed the meaning. I do agree though that the current caveat needs to be written more eloquently. Any suggestions? PaleAqua (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to know what is wrong with the new wording – or rather what meaning is missing in the new wording. I will then gladly try a second attempt! I was hoping I nailed it, and that I didn't need to make it any longer… :-) Tony Mach (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opps sorry. I put it in the edit notice forgot to here. The issue is that color terms are not precise and don't map neatly to a single coordinate in RGB space. There has been issues in the past where this has caused problems and during one of those discussions it was decided to put a notice on the various shades of templates that the color was only one point out of a region in the color space that falls under the term. ( There is also the issue that some colors are outside of the RGB space and can't be represented fully saturated, etc. ) As one example, there was a debate about the color green and if green was actually #00ff00 or #007f00 ( and that other should "properly" be called office green or lime ) when in fact both colors are green. One of the solutions was for major color terms to include a grid of multiple colors in the info box. To be honest I'd actually like to replace the templates with something similar or perhaps allow for gradients. So green might show lighter greens in one corner, darker ones in another, etc. PaleAqua (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. I'll have to mull over that. Probably best to add a short note in the "color navboxes" and slightly longer explanation in the relevant articles. Color continues to be a can of worms… :-) Tony Mach (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PaleAqua, I made a new version:

A typical sample is shown for each name – however a range of color-variations is commonly associated with each color-name.

Hope this is more to the point. Tony Mach (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PaleAqua (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I saw you experiment with some other changes. The sandbox feature for templates is pretty cool, it lets you preview how the template would look on other pages from the edit page. PaleAqua (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did test some things in my userspace first. Other things I thought they would work great, but realized only after I rolled them out that they didn't quite work as I envisioned – but I try to settle on a good version quickly though.

(On two unrelated topics) I have put some work (into an article and into an navbox) which are now lingering around since months in my user-space – it irks me that I have not rolled out these changes yet. Here I wanted to roll out improvements for the color topic once I thought they would improve the usefulness for wikipedia-users (and not have those changes linger almost finished in my userspace) – even if I had to hone them afterwards… Oh well, I do apologize – though I hope it is a net improvement what I do (and I think I don't leave any construction site open for long). Tony Mach (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that, had a bunch of improvements I wanted to finish for the color infobox and related templates that I just never got the energy to get around to finish. So I'm glad to see others work on them. PaleAqua (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Graphite-moderated reactor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page INES (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) 09:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.[reply]

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this edit, doesn't reference 3 (named "sydney1") establish that it was "shot down"? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Stickee, the reference does not establish any such thing - it merely reports it.

If I am not mistaken, that reference is to a report from July 17th. I very much doubt they could have determined on the very same day, without visiting crash debris, without retrieving the black box, without examining air traffic records, and without evaluating possible confidential SIGINT recordings, the cause of the crash.

I think the most likely cause of the crash was in fact a shot down, but a source of the same day as the crash can hardly establish this as anything resembling a fact – it was merely reported on that day. That is what I changed, to accurately represent what happened: it was reported.

I think there are by now better sources to more definitely report this as a shot down, and if so, they should be used. And BTW: It will be the task of the Dutch investigation to establish the cause of the crash, and I hope the preliminary report comes out soon. Tony Mach (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's 22 other citations that use "shot down" in their title alone, and a lot more would be using that term in their body (but I don't have time to check all 229 of them). As acknowledged by User:Knowledgekid87 who reverted your edit, the sources in the body state it was "shot down", as should the article. Stickee (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stickee, would it be too much to ask to give ONE relevant citation at the establishing sentence, instead of hitting me over the head with "22 other citations" that contain "shot down" in the title? Citations which, by the way, may or may not establish that the airplane was shot down? Tony Mach (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources are saying it was shot down, therefore the article should say it too. The only standard of truth on Wikipedia are the RSs. It isn't our job to second-guess the sources; if they're all saying something as fact, the article does too. Stickee (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tricastin Nuclear Power Plant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valence. 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) 09:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Radar imaging , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tony Mach, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H

Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship

Wuqi333444 (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fukushima MAAP Report Nov2011 – Unit 1.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was my impression that these graphics "from the horse mouth" were not really replaceable, as there is not really much with regards to independent reports and research with access to accident site besides what is released from TEPCO – but I can see your point. If you have free and suitable replacements for the TEPCO graphics, please, by all means replace them! If you think the TEPCO graphics are not necessary where I placed them, then please remove them. I have at the moment not really the time nor energy to argue about what is and isn't fair use. Tony Mach (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any immediate replacement, but the standard of WP:NFCC#1 is that replacements could be created. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this sort of information from Fukushima is unfortunately as of now still on par with tea leaf reading, it is probably best anyway to wait until the location of the fuel in the reactors has been accounted for with some sense of certainty before any graphics will really add something. Once we have some more definitive news from Fukushima in that matter, then it might make sense to have someone interested make a free graphical representation. Tony Mach (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fukushima MAAP Report Nov2011 – Unit 2 and Unit 3.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Comment: Contrary to the provided rationale ("any replacement graphic runs the risk of misrepresenting the report"), the images are not used to illustrate any visual aspect of the report, but the course of the accident. Free diagrams that contain the same information can be produced (Eg. File:BWR Mark I Containment sketch with downcomers.png, File:Reaktor.svg with modifications). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. Tony Mach (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Regarding your revert: Yes, I know the Weston A. Price foundation website is a bit biased – but then again who is without biases? You?

Anyway, there are a lot of references given in the linked article (Are these references all unreliable? Misquoted? Or might it be possible to add from that information? And should one give credit if you one uses references and information from the linked article? Or does that somehow make all the references unreliable?), so I want to know if you can support the addition of "Pyridoxine β-glucoside (PNG), the form common in plants" to the VitB6 article.

Kindest regards," Tony Mach (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: By removing the link (and hence the credit) you effectively make plagiarism out of my additions to the article – please re-add the link, or completely remove my additions. Tony Mach (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: it's not so much a matter of plagiarism but one of no reliable source. This is a spam source. For a discussion of vit B6 as an essential nutrient for human health, we need reliable secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Thanks for the kind inquiry. --Zefr (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed my additions. Tony Mach (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the oldest living persons with disease it is irritating to have someone with absolutely no medical knowledge of this disease continue to edit and delete information. In fact there is additional information regarding adults that should be added because there are misdiagnosis and deaths occurring in adults. I have taught in metabolic/genetics research group doctors university regarding this disease. Quit doing human kind a disservice by editing what you think is unnecessary data. Go play in another sand box — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbydoodle (talk • contribs) 23:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down, I just broke down the long paragraph into shorter ones, and grouped information on female patients together - I did not change the content. Tony Mach (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this:

Infobox nuclear reactor | spectrum_description =

I found a use of this Infobox (on the FLiBe Energy page) which was calling it "spectrum" (as had been documented).

Accordingly I corrected both the FLiBe Energy page and the documentation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1201:7860:BD5C:69D2:FE9:5287 (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film Theory has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

about that source[4] its not a review should you wish to discuss further Id be happy to do so thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know – I hoped I made that crystal clear that it is not a review, but a single study (and unfortunately the most current one on that topic). The problem is, that GSD IXd (which affects muscle) and IXb (liver and muscle) is incredibly rare – so finding extensive reviews is not that easy. I took the information from the OMIM review on GSD IXd, which mentions in total only 5(!) studies on the genetics since the year 1990, with the last study from 2003(!) that I cited; that review mentions these finding from Burwinkel et al. (2003), albeit a bit shortened. Sure I would really really REALLY like to have an extensive review of the genetics of GSD IXd, but I am afraid I will not see one in my lifetime. Tony Mach (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lets discuss and see what is best have posted at [5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what about...*Albash, Buthainah; Imtiaz, Faiqa; Al-Zaidan, Hamad; Al-Manea, Hadeel; Banemai, Mohammed; Allam, R.; Al-Suheel, Ali; Al-Owain, Mohammed. "Novel PHKG2 mutation causing GSD IX with prominent liver disease: report of three cases and review of literature". European Journal of Pediatrics. 173 (5): 647–653. doi:10.1007/s00431-013-2223-0. ISSN 1432-1076. Retrieved 5 December 2017....it was suggested by Doc James[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just used the Template:Infobox nuclear reactor in to create a new page, the template is very nice. I was wondering if you could add an additional parameter to the infobox, one that says "Criticality (date)" so it is easier to compare reactors by date. I could do it myself but I do not know how templates work. Another one for the "Owner" the reactor (or "Owned by") would be nice. --MaoGo (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MaoGo, thanks for the interest! My problem is, I have limited knowledge of templates as well. But I will see what I can do! Tony Mach (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tony Mach, please pop by Talk:Giga_Press#Content_removal when available. It would be great to try and better understand the thinking involved. —Sladen (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]