User talk:DMacks

This is DMacks's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63Auto-archiving period: 14 days

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]