Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

• Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
• To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
• You can experiment in the Sandbox.
• For help, see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.
• Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk 04:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that Heathfield was the main hospital for the area until the construction of the present Ayr Hospital. In Ayr you had Seafield (childrens hospital), Heathfield, and Ayr County. Ayr County sat near the railway station and had a working A&E unit until it was closed. I'm not totally sure of what function Heathfield served, perhaps it had a lot of day clinics in the same way that Irvine Central did. Douglasnicol 18:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just remember that years back, my mum was in a car accident and she was taken to Ayr County and that would have been about 1981. The seperate villas of Heathfield seems to suggest a fever hospital originally, Irvine Central was like that, with a lot of seperate lodge type buildings. I think that although Irvine has scaled down, many of the small buildings are still there. I'll confess to not knowing very much about Ballochmyle. Incidentally, there were plans to close the A&E at Ayr hospital and make Crosshouse the sole one for the area and build 'cottage hospitals'. This seems for now to have been stopped. Douglasnicol 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in graduate school and post graduate school, psychologists are taught that it is ethically wrong to publish psychological tests. It is not a question of copyright. It invalidates the test. That is the problem. But, of course, I do not expect wikipedia to respect this sort of thing. But it is unethical for a psychologist to publish a Rorschack card. And that is an actual card, one out of ten. So 10% of the test is invalid for all who see that card. Is it worth it, do you think? I know wikipedia is not concerned with ethics, but.....? --Mattisse 01:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters very much, but all ten Rorschach cards are already available on-line on a Spanish website linked to the Wikipedia Rorschach article. I have seen them on the web before, many times. Clinical secrets like these have brief lives. NRPanikker 01:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't expect you to understand. It has to do with the ethically standards of a professional, licensed psychologist. Perhaps you belong to a profession that has ethical standards, that although violating them is not against the law, you as a professional could not ethically condone. It is an ethical question for psychologists so it will make any psychologist queasy to see that done. I know what you are saying is true. It is easily available in unauthorized places, so is pornography and I guess wikipedia has no standards about that either. People differ. --Mattisse 01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the name of full disclosure, I added links to the official name change / ursurpation process to my userpage. I hope this further relieves any concern about this name change. Cheers! User:Hopping ^T 22:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your new content to the osteopathy article. I gave an explanation here. User:Hopping ^T 03:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your latest concern on Talk:Osteopathic medicine (U.S.). I wondering what solution you would find satisfactory. User:Hopping ^T 01:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The is the hatnote from the top of the Osteopathic medicine (U.S.) article.

This article is about a branch of the medical profession in the United States. For the form of complementary medicine practiced worldwide, see Osteopathy.

I would think this would address the concerns you are making. Do you feel this statement is misleading or inadequate? User:Hopping ^T 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen to have separate U.S.- specific articles about everything, but where the U.S. does things so very differently I agree that it makes sense to split the topic that way. NRPanikker (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but Panikar is closer to the original Malayalam than Panicker, especially the "ck" which is not the standard translation for "ka" or even "kka". The "er" is also incorrect since it is supposed to be "ar". The only problem is with the hard "n" sound, which can be shown as a either a double "nn" or the "n subscript dot" (as in Pāṇini). Transliteration is also Wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28people_of_India_and_Sri_Lanka%29#Naming_and_transliterationHijjins (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia has a policy of transliterating foreign names, that must be "a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance." It would be a licence to vandalise for every opinionated ignoramus, of which we have not a few already. NRPanikker (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really agree with your statement "The contradiction seems to lie in the American DOs' idea of themselves and their position in relation to the rest. I have suggested before that there are elements of self-hatred and cultural cringe involved."

You can see this played out in the very robust debate seen within the osteopathic physician community today, as in this recent publication discussing eliminating the MD/DO split in the US altogether, which is hardly a new idea.

Though I agree with your analysis, I don't see an easy way to represent these elements (self-hatred and cultural cringe) into any specific article, without violating WP:OR. I don't agree however, that these facts obviate the need to eliminate the term "allopathic" from Wikipedia. We are not resurrecting an outdated term, the term is in active usage in the US.

Thoughts? Bryan Hopping ^T 18:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing that we should eliminate "allopathic," and merely assert that it is being grossly overused. It is perhaps not coincidental that this term has become more prominent at a time when integation versus separation has become a live issue in American medicine. Regarding the debate within the American DO community, it will no doubt take place mainly in the osteopathic journals and their on-line counterparts, and I doubt very much whether anything would be gained by encouraging everybody and his uncle to contribute their two cents-worth in a forum such as Wikipedia. NRPanikker (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Licensure, as you can see from the comments above yours there has been some problems with a lack of discussion in this article, please feel free to improve this and add some more sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently renamed the article about the "Oxbridge and Dublin" MA to refer instead to "Oxbridge, Cambridge and Dublin." Isn't the insertion redundant? NRPanikker (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Maybe I was tired. Anyway thanks a lot for pointing it out. If no one's done so already I'll restore the proper title. I think I misread it as Oxford and Dublin. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? kilbad (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reversed my edit to the talk page, which I have just undone. I archived the talk, as is normal practice. You may find the old talk by clicking on the Archive link in the banners at the top of the page. DionysosProteus (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Residency (medicine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Resident. 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) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NRPanikker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NRPanikker. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NRPanikker. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm PhilKnight. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! PhilKnight (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bio-Rad Laboratories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Cooke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bidhan Chandra Roy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark E. Silverman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. --Michail (blah) 16:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop doing vandalism on panicker page. I may need to ping admin to ban you

@Sitush Kalangot (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Panicker, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Syrian Catholic and Mar Thoma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse article talk pages with internet fora where individual responses are encouraged. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Reginald Dyer. Ongoing forum posting on article talk pages. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a repeat slasher to call a contributor a vandal is a curious inversion of normal English usage. But I should have known that Englishmen (or anglophiles) were patrolling the articles on Lord Dowding and General Dwyer. This whole business of zealous deletionists slashing talk pages as well as the main articles is what made Wikipedia what it is today. NRPanikker (talk) 18:36, 3 October 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

A while back, in Talk:Paywall, you wrote:

 Only this year, I have noticed that following a link from a news story may lead me to a local newspaper site which detects that I have an ad blocker in use and asks me to disable it.  There may be a notice covering part of the screen that I can still scroll the article past, or the whole screen may be grayed out.  Previously they just asked for permission to insert cookies.  These are non-monetary payments, but I am concerned that, if they can detect that I have an ad blocker, they may be able to do other kinds of snooping.
 NRPanikker (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The above is off-topic for that talk page, I think. Rather than add to that, I am responding here.

The news website's detection consists of them simply noticing that you downloaded a web page but not its ads. Depending on how much bandwidth you are willing to waste, you could download the ads, but not display them. I don't know whether any ad blockers have this feature but, from a technological perspective, it would not be difficult for an ad blocker's author to implement this. No doubt, the websites will then begin to check whether an ad was displayed, which is also feasible, just not common practice, currently.

As for other kinds of snooping, you are right: there are many additional kinds of snooping and they continuously improve and evolve. The most disheartening one is that a large majority of today's web pages make calls to JavaScript files served from Google. They do this in order to use Google's free of charge analytics service, instead of reading their own web server's logs. Consequently, Google knows which websites you visited and when. Over time, this builds a very accurate picture of one's interests and personality.

Ultimately, the problem's core is that we allow website authors to execute code on our own devices (JavaScript). This began from a desire to make web pages respond dynamically to the capabilities of the device on which they were displayed and to increase interactivity. JavaScript execution can be turned off. This breaks most websites but it is an option. There are browser plugins that facilitate controlling this setting on a per-website basis. If you want to pursue this yourself, look into plug-ins with names like "noscript", "yesscript", "disable javascript", "toggle javascript", etc.

— Black Walnut ^talk 06:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Aclub.biz. I noticed that you reverted my change to an article Neurology, adding "Vandalism". Can you explain why you did so? Thanks. Background to my change: I got the information from medical doctor/surgeon that Proctalgia fugax may have a neurological reason. On Proctalgia fugax wiki page one may read, among others, "it is a neuralgia of pudendal nerves" - confirming this reasoning. I thought the "See also" section will be the best place. Aclub.biz (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2021 (CET)

The article about proctalgia fugax already says that it may be a muscle or nerve disorder: I don't think anything more precise than that has been confirmed. A casual remark by a doctor (not even a neurologist) is hardly sufficient to add this symptom to a list of neurological specialists. It would be like adding "common cold" to a list of surgical specialties. NRPanikker (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FORUM. Talk:Reginald Dyer is not the place to rant against the Americans or anyone. If you feel strongly about it, please post on the appropriate wikiproject talk page of MOS:SIR

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable says "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." Venkat TL (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dormskirk The comment was removed following WP:TPO @NRPanikker is welcome to post again, if he wants without ranting against Americans, and keeping his comment focussed on the article subject and ways of improving it. Venkat TL (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are now edit waring as well - completely unacceptable. Dormskirk (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please read

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable

and

TPO first. Venkat TL (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NRPanikker I see that you have been warned in #October_2019 by @Drmies for similar behavior of WP:NOTFORUM on the same page. Please do not repeat this. Venkat TL (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dormskirk, the editor has a point. Panikker, your comment is not as blatant a violation as the one I warned you about, but I still see this weird ranting against ... against what? presumed American editors? "US constitution bans the use of titles of nobility" is complete nonsense of course. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am sorry I restored the comment. I did so in good faith and had no idea that this issue was so incendiary. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:37, 16 November 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) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]