User talk:ChemNerd/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Thank you. I see you caught my misspelling at Tolperisone, too.

Removing Categories
Why are you removing all the categories from these chemical compound articles? Silverchemist (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not removing all the categories. I'm only removing the redundant ones.  For example, if isopropanol is in Category:Alcohol solvents, which is a daughter category of Category:Alcohols and Category:Solvents, then Category:Alcohols and Category:Solvents are redundant and should be removed per WP:SUBCAT.  ChemNerd (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why not remove the daughter category? It seems more useful to have the ethers, or alcohols grouped together. Not all alcohols or ethers are used as solvents. Silverchemist (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand you. The categories for ethers and alcohols are daughter categories, too.  So why not remove them?  Not all organic compounds are ethers or alcohols.  ChemNerd (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SUBCAT "Does the removal of duplication affect the reader, making it hard to browse through subjects or spot their target easily? If the answer is yes, you should not remove the duplication." If a reader is looking for a listing of ketones, it is not obvious that they should also look at the daughter category of ketone solvents. Classification by "ketones" is based on composition while classification by "solvent" is based on use. Silverchemist (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess we just see it differently. To me I think it is obvious that someone looking for ketones will look under ketone solvents too, just as someone looking for a list of organic compounds will look under ketones too.  In any case, it's not a big deal to me, so if you want to add the additional categories back, I'm not going to complain.  ChemNerd (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ChemNerd: Please reconsider your recent recategorization. It puts undue weight on one of many (probably even more important) aspects and uses of a chemical compounds. At least reinstate the original general category. Also, in my opinion it does not make much sense to subcategorize solvents by chemical functionalities (amines, ethers,...); other schemes would make equal or even more sense, such as bp, logP, H-bond properties,... Please also notice that the categorization system does not have to be strictly hierarchical top-down. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who created those categories - I just saw, for example, that some alcohol solvents were categorised in Category:Alcohol solvents and some were in Category:alcohols and Category:Solvents, so I consolidated them in the subcategory plus I also removed redundancies. It seemed perfectly logical to me, but I suppose I'm in the minority here. I won't make those kinds of recategorizations any more.  If those subcategories shouldn't be used for the handful of chemical compounds that I moved to them, then I suggest that those categories shouldn't exist at all.  ChemNerd (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Manganese(II)manganate(VI)
Heya

Related discussion at User talk:Itub. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is within the rules to speedy delete it instead, please do. ChemNerd (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for hte note on pyO
I'm not that uncooperative, usually, so I redrew the thing per your appropriate suggestion. Now we gotta get this new troll padlocked, we need to find a grumpy admin with special powers.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And I'm sorry if I came across as demanding.  ChemNerd (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Organocopper cmpds
Organocopper compounds are typically defined as those with Cu-C bonds, not just containing organic ligands (otherwise organometallic chemisty would be even vast-er. So I have reverted some of your recategorizations.  Please feel free to contact me if you want to discuss the topic.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine with me. I left a message for you at your talk page at the same time you left this one.  ChemNerd (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a potentially counter-intuitive classification scheme, so your initial categorization effort was understandable. You'll find that some folks are picky about the distinction between card-carrying organometallic things and other "classical" coordination cmpds.  The Cu(II) benzoate, when heated to decarboxylate, does decompose via Cu-Ph organometallic things, I think.  Keep up the good work.  --Smokefoot (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. ChemNerd (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of pharmacology articles
I started WP:PHARM:CAT in hopes of providing better guidance regarding the categorization of pharmacology articles. If available, I have posted an updated draft at WT:PHARM:CAT, and would appreciate your feedback. kilbad (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Elsevier
"misrepresentation" is not a neutral word, it is a euphemism utilized by Merck and Elsevier. Scientific Misconduct is an appropriate term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.76.159.6 (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As an academic researcher, I have followed this story with interest, but I haven't seen any evidence that there was scientific misconduct. The scientific findings reported in Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine are not faked or fraudulent.  They were peer-reviewed and published in other journals before being reprinted in Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine.  It's the editorial issues that involved misconduct and misrepresentation.  The fact that editorial control was in the hands of the business that funded the journal and that stood to benefit financially from the collection of articles reprinted in it is a huge conflict of interest that was hidden from the public.  Call it misrepresentation or call it misconduct, I don't think it matters much, but the concerns are not really scientific, but rather editorial.  ChemNerd (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Carnosine external links
i saw you moved the smart-drugs.net link to the bottom of the page (you weren't the original editor who put it on there) but i just removed the subheading altogether because the link that was posted was a cleverly disguised order form for health supplements. Ytcracker (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The removal is fine with me. ChemNerd (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hydrogen Cyanate
I see you have redirected this page to point to Isocyanic acid, It looks like it belongs there. Thanks! I added a couple lines to that article specific to hydrogen cyanate to wrap up the merge. I appreciate your help. Daviga1 (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to help. ChemNerd (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Litmus test
i would like you to pleasee give me a reason as to why you always delete my edits on the litmus test page about the nature of litmus solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saran.adios (talk • contribs) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it was out of place and a bit confusing. I have now incorporated it into the article in a more reasonable place.  ChemNerd (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

i dont think you have fully understood my edit.i wanted to state that although litmus is an indicator it itself should also possess a characteristic of being acidic i.e.a ph lower than 7 or basic i.e. a ph higher than 7.

after experimentation it has been found that red litmus solution(used to test for bases) itself has a ph higher than 7 that is it is basic whereas blue litmus solution(used to test for acids) has a ph lower than 7 that is it is acidic.

i therefore request you to review this point and restore my original edit.thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.96.138 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that what you are saying is correct, but maybe it's just a language problem. ChemNerd (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for removing some of the copyright information on some of the chemistry related articles, like you have done to the articles Pelretin and Azosemide. If possible, may you help me out on the Copyright Cleanup page? I am currently copyright-cleaning up articles related to organic chemistry at the moment, which can be found here. Minima c  ( talk ) 05:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll help out. ChemNerd (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

 * About a week late, I'm afraid. :) It closed on the 28th, but due to some very capable clerking at CCI, I didn't notice! Thank you for pitching in to help out with our sad backlog. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like others did most of the work, but I am happy to have helped out. Thanks for the barnstar.  ChemNerd (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Total apologies
Many apologies for not looking at what stub you had removed from the Unicum article. You were quite correct to take it off the page. Now that I've taken the time to look at it I wonder how it got on the page in the first place. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need to apologize. The confusion could have been avoided if I had used an edit summary the first time.  I should be better about that.  Cheers, ChemNerd (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Propylene glycol cocoate
Hi. I see you removed text from propylene glycol cocoate as "incorrect information not supported by the given reference". The text you removed was
 * Propylene glycol cocoate is a chemical compound produced by the esterification of polyoxyalkyl alcohols with lauric acid.

However the reference (the original URL of which seems to be dead, but another copy is at ) says
 * Propylene Glycol Cocoates and PEG Propylene Glycol Oleates are produced by the esterification of polyoxyalkyl alcohols with lauric acid and oleic acid, respectively.

I'm no chemist, but I'm curious how you explain your edit - just for my own information, since I added that text in the first place.

Thanks, — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   20:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC) .

The confusion here seems to be that propylene glycol cocoate is not the same thing as PEG propylene glycol cocoate. The article title is "propylene glycol cocoate", but the reference is referring to the other, PEG propylene glycol cocoate (actually several different types of PEG propylene glycol cocoate). Preparation of propylene glycol cocoate won't involve the "polyoxyalkyl alcohols" mentioned in the article, so that's why I removed the statement as inaccurate.

The term "fatty acids in coconut oil" is nearly the same as using the phrase "lauric acid and oleic acid", because lauric and oleic acids are the primary consituents (but the article referred only to lauric acid, which is only partially correct). Looking more closely, maybe the article should be restored to your version and then moved to the title "PEG propylene glycol cocoates" or to "Polyethylene glycol propylene glycol cocoates". ChemNerd (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's good to know where I went wrong. I'm going to follow your suggestion of restoring and moving. All the best, — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   18:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

.


 * Looks good. Thank you. ChemNerd (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation...
Misrepresentation of what if I may ask? Counteraction (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These studies were conducted on laboratory animals using very high doses. It is not unusual for chemical substances to have beneficial effects at lower doses and deleterious effects at higher doses.  Something that alters the high-dose effects will not necessarily alter the low-dose effects.   The studies that you are referring to are only examining very high dose effects (and only in animals) and they make no conclusions about low-dose effects.  Therefore, it is misrepresentation to suggest that these studies apply to low-dose fluoride levels or to imply that these studies necessarily apply to humans.  ChemNerd (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bivalirudin test
I am a director at The Medicines Company and during a test today you assisted me in making a dramatic point regarding the validity of Wikipedia. I do apologize for the breach of rules regarding my post to Bivalirudin. You made many friends here today. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.143.240 (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you were testing the accuracy of Wikipedia by vandalizing it? If so, I think there are more responsible ways of doing so. ChemNerd (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Define vandalism.

"Willful, wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others" - Was it willful, yes. Wanton, no. Malicious, no.

Take Wikipedia's: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles." Was I undermining the integrity? Perhaps, though I certainly have an interest in not having mis information online regarding bivalirudin so it is hard to see how.

"Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Was it misguided, no. Ill-considered, no it was considered very carefully. Was it an attempt to improve the overall quality of the Bivalirudin article by forcing the worlds experts sitting in one room (at that moment) to pay attention to their moral obligation to providing the world with the best unbiased information, yes.

"Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." - Not done in bad faith and would have been removed had you not.

The point to be made here is that medical information is not black and white in any setting, especially online. And vandalism is not black and white either when you consider the purpose and overall impact. Life is lived in shades of gray. And there are people in this world who care enough about the safety of others lives to take responsible chances. You and I disagree - So be it. Such is life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.143.240 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very mush for removing my addition to "Biochemistry" because as a true chem nerd would know, everything I put such as "cholesterol is a steriod," is as you said "just plain wrong." You might need to check your facts and learn a thing or two before removing accurate and helpful material from Wikipedia. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.93.82 (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The word "most" has important meaning. When you remove it from what I wrote, it changes the meaning.  Please contribute constructively to Wikipedia or you will be banned from editing.  ChemNerd (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Organoosmium compounds
Hi there Carbonyl complexes are traditionally considered organometallic compounds. If they are of osmium, thus organoosmium compounds. I understand that the main article has not been written, but redlinks are okay in Wikipedia. Or do you have another reason for removing those two osmium-carbonyl complexes from this category? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was better to have it categorized in a category that existed rather than in one that doesn't. Category:Osmium compounds is an appropriate category, but maybe it would be better to create the more precise category.  ChemNerd (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ... which I have now done. Works for you?  ChemNerd (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The small barnstar, for gnomish work
Thank you. ChemNerd (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vitexin (data page)


A tag has been placed on Vitexin (data page) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WWGB (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking it for deletion seconds after I created it is not very helpful. It probably would have been better to ask what I was doing.  This type of page is a standard way of handling data for articles on chemicals.  ChemNerd (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Skagee (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)@Chemnerd - I don't understand... Everything I've contributed has been 100% original and informative. It's all posted on my websites, which I properly referenced. Should I not reference at all if I should choose to contribute anything to any related subjects?! --Skagee (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that you are adding references to a website that is clearly soliciting for legal cases. And at least some of the content you were adding was redundant to what is already in the article.  It certainly comes across as if you are just trying to advertise your website.  For medical articles, all content should be supported by references that fit criteria outlined at Identifying reliable sources (medicine).  You should probably also have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.  ChemNerd (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ondansetron
It certainly was. I actually updated the file to convert the text to outlines—I must have inadvertently changed something in the main path as well. Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention! Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That was quick. Thanks.  ChemNerd (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I have no idea what you are asking about. ChemNerd (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Lipokine
Thanks for the edits. It does read better. But the extraordinary thing about a lipokine is that it's a fatty acid. I don't think that really comes across in the definition... plus it doesn't really capture the novelty (this is practically brand new science -- not well known). Is there another way to phrase it?

A lipokine is a fatty acid that is a new class of hormone, a "lipid-controlling hormone."

Thank you! LesTP 01:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesTP (talk • contribs)

Talkback
Democracy112 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Democracy112 (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Alkanenitriles
Why do you think that they are not alkanenitriles? Isn't it a bit pedantic to distiguish between aminoalkanenitriles, cyanoalkanenitriles, haloalkanenitriles, hydroxyalkanenitriles? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any reason to distinguish between different types of alkanenitriles. I made that change because most of the compounds in the list (hydrogen cyanide, thiocyanic acid, cyanogen iodide, cyanogen bromide, cyanogen chloride) are not alkanenitriles.  An alkanenitrile is R-CN, where R is an alkyl group.  If R is a halogen or another non-alkyl functional group, they are not alkanenitriles.  ChemNerd (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * An alkanenitrile is R≡N, you're confused with cyanide, which is R−C≡N. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As an example, another name for hydrogen cyanide is: methanenitrile. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Most commonly, nitrile refers to the functional group R-CN. The term "cyanide" is used almost exclusively for the anion -CN and its salts or metal complexes; rarely for R−C≡N.  "Methanenitrile" is an obscure synonym, at best, for HCN.  ChemNerd (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That would depend who you ask, another example that I found is: another name for acetonitrile is 'methyl cyanide'. Moreover, What you're suggesting has some strange implications - formonitrile (hydrogen cyanide) could be called 'hydrogen nitrile'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In substitutive nomenclature, there is a distinction between 'nitrilo-' and 'cyano-', such as the name 'nitriloacetonitrile' for cyanogen or 'cyanoformonitrile' for the same. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. You can come up with rules to justify any name.  It doesn't make sense to use obscure nomenclature on Wikipedia.  We should call things by names that other people use.  We should call things by names that other people understand. We should use common sense.  I don't understand why you continue with your eccentric and persistent use of rarely-used nomenclature, while at the same time putting citation needed on even the most frequently used synonyms that others put in chemboxes.  ChemNerd (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Alkanenitriles' is just used here as a broad umbrella term, it is easy enough to understand - if you know what an alkane is, and you know what a nitrile derivative is then it's not hard to put A and B together. It is better than calling it nothing. Google gives a couple thousand hits, so it's not really that obscure.
 * Citation needed templates are a result of the Chem Project kicking up a fuss over uncited names. How frequently used a synonym is not common knowledge. I don't always see the wisdow behind the decisions made by the Project, but I follow it in any case. One of the strangest decision is that IUPAC is not a reliable source for IUPAC names.
 * So far, you're the only one who disagrees over the use of the term. It's not as if I invented it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Minoxidil deletation
Can I ask you why did you deleted the portion, I added with authentic references, in Minoxidil? Something "off topic" to you may not really an off topic itself, when there are authentic citations. There are such other topics there, why don't you remove all of 'em? I'm not arguing to get the texts back, I'm just asking for an answer. Please explain the reason, why did you omitted the texts? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.18.231.29 (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

TCPO
Hi,

my name is Tony Iliev and thank you for informing me for editing the page TCPO. I agree that my editing was not-how-it-has-to-be, but my only concern was the wrong information about TCPO. Now all the page looks fine.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunzbg (talk • contribs) 13:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Etilamfetamine/Ethylamphetamine
Can you tell me why you changed the redirect on this page? In English, it makes much more sense to use "ethylamphetamine". Thanks.

Exercisephys (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses the internationally standardized generic name for pharmaceuticals (International Nonproprietary Name). ChemNerd (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Dy11111
Hi there

Would you like to take a look, and comment? Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:GHS04
Hi ChemNerd. I just deleted this as it was making articles like 2-Butene show up in SD. I'm not exactly sure how they contain the template when you haven't edited the articles since you made the template, but now there are four articles with redlinks to it. Can you take a look and fix them appropriately? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The template was added to those articles by someone else. I saw the red links and created a redirect to the template that I thought was the intended one.  Then I realized that it didn't seem to match each use, so I requested that my redirect be deleted.  Sorry for any confusion.  I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals and we'll see if anyone else can figure it out.  ChemNerd (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

" little flags within the text are unwanted "
Well done! On your edit on Piroxicam (yes, it was a long time ago, I was just curious to see who is the type of person who goes around putting around names of countries and saw your edit and comment). Give some people a tin of crack filler for wall hairline cracks and they will use it for everything - including their grandmother's laugh lines! Some people just have no idea of the meaning of the word overkill. After you removed the flags, not to be outdone, some smart alec went and wikified all the contry names where the drug is available ... like, "well, I would like to read about Piroxicam, but I am here, let me quickly read about Italy and Portugal for my next holiday ....". Obviously it makes perfect sense!, .... right? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Taxagifine
Hey thanks for your work on Taxagifine. How did you get a chem diagram for this one? Also, if you have time I was looking for some help. I created a few new taxane pages, but some user went though and deleted them all. Also threatened me to "not even think about reverting" the deletion. If you could help me to create images for these pages it may protect them from deletion. Thanks! Jatlas (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not deleted, userfied - check Special:Contributions/Jatlas. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I created the image using Chemdraw. I can create more images if needed.  Just ask.  ChemNerd (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

certificate of analysis
The article is about a chemical compound, not your company's product. I don't see how specifications for the particular product you sell have any relevance at all to an encyclopedia article. ChemNerd (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing my error on the BHT page, and my apologies for the inconvenience. Still learning :-/ Zarkme (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Fatty acids
You've recently highlighted 4 fatty acid pages for deletion, the original author User:Jatlas has created perhaps 300-400 similar pages. There's a list on his Userpage. I have tried to bring him to the attention of WikiProject Chem but it didn't generate much interest. Project Osprey (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Project Osprey. It's obvious I've created no where near "300-400 similar pages". These 4 fatty acid pages should be deleted. I apologize for the failed attempts. Jatlas (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jatlas. I like the fact that you are creating new articles for chemicals, but it might be worthwhile to be more careful and to take a little more time with each to avoid these types of problems.  Thanks.  ChemNerd (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=582044072 your edit] to Bilastine 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * States. Bilastine meets the current European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)

Imposter?
Is this you? DMacks (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I misread the links and thought his talking to/about you was a forged signature of being you. DMacks (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is clearly an IP sock of the indefinitely blocked user:Riccione, evading his block. ChemNerd (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright stuff
Hi. Can I draw your attention to the need for notifying the poster of the material about the violation? The other CSD categories don't have this requirement, but copyvio does. It's a good idea to notify any CSD tagging (except page blanking, where it can be assumed that they know they've done it...) as it covers our backs by giving a chance for users to object. The other categories 'suggest' using the template, but I still make it a rule for myself when tagging. Peridon (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I thought the Twinkle gadget that I used made the notification automatically.  I didn't notice that it didn't do it this time.  I had a quick look at Criteria for speedy deletion, but didn't see anything that points out this requirement.  Can you provide a link to somewhere that does?  ChemNerd (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It says it on the template (OK, who ever actually reads the templates unless there's a battle going on over something?). Usually Twinkle does do the notification - I can't see why it didn't. As most of the people who tag copyvios use Twinkle, I only looked after deleting to see if there was a spam username to deal with. Peridon (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits to a Preservative page
I noticed that you reversed all edits to the Preservatives page since May 12th. A number of my students took on the task of editing the Wikipedia page using peer reviewed sources. I noticed that you disagreed with some of their edits but I don't understand why you removed ALL of their work. user:Lovittc.seattleu I will remind you of the revert policies used for Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary All posted information has gone through extensive classroom review before being posted. If there are significant issues, I ask that you contact the user user:Nicolaellen26 who made the edit so that they may have the ability to address the edits.
 * To be blunt, the errors in the content were frequent and egregious enough that it is clear that the students don't even understand what a preservative is. Frankly, I'm very surprised to hear that the information went through "extensive classroom review".  Was there no one reviewing the material who understands, for example, that a aspartame is not a preservative?  Even though the article was poor in quality before the students edited it, on balance I think the added content lowered the quality of the article due to the errors and reverting to the older version was reasonable.    ChemNerd (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Will look to
the school project to assist, but you are likely "a better man than I, Gunga Din." Certainly call in me in case of reversions. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks like Smokefoot has already worked extensively on the article, though.  ChemNerd (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Copper reaction for acetophenone
In this edit, you wrote "the dehydration step to 1-phenylethanol is done over a copper catalyst." That doesn't make sense compared to the previous reaction in that section, which involves reduction to 1-phenylethanol and then dehydration to styrene. Could you double-check and clarify which of those two stages is copper doing? DMacks (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was my mistake. Thank you for your attention to detail.  ChemNerd (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And thanks for your quick-fix, and extensive work on this and other chem aricles! DMacks (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Userifying deleted 1P-LSD article
I was looking to userify (or put it under a Draft: prefix) and clean up the 1P-LSD article that was recently deleted after a AfD Articles_for_deletion/1-propionyl-lysergic_acid. However I don't want to copy-paste the old one and lose history like this guy did (User:Muchotreeo/sandbox). Since I don't know the process for recreating removed articles in appropriate namespaces and you offered to help find an administrator willing I thought maybe you could help me with it. I'm semi-new to editing Wikipedia so if you think this is inappropriate please let me know. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I will email an admin.  ChemNerd (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is now here: Draft:1P-LSD. ChemNerd (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

English
There is one English language. It is the one used in England. In both American English and English, 'an' does not precede a noun beginning with an H (unless it is silent).
 * Please read WP:ENGVAR. Please do not make changes related to regional differences in English if you do not know how words are pronounced in American English.  In American English, the H is silent in herb, herbicide, etc.  ChemNerd (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikiproject Research
Hello ChemNerd,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects Ryzhou (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Anethole
Although I am not a huge fan of these molecular graphics, what was the problem with the one with anethole? BTW, thank you for all you do around here. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A benzene ring should be drawn either with alternating double/single bonds or with six dashed bonds as in the image to the right. File:Anethole Ball and Stick.png has three dashed bonds and therefore has incorrect valency for the carbon atoms.  ChemNerd (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, didnt see that aspect. Thanks. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Harran page
Hi ChemNerd, Seeing as how you've edited the recently published Patrick Harran page, maybe you can help me with the follow: Do you think this page is necessary? I get the feeling folks only want it to connect him to the Sangji case - the page for which also seems rather problematic at current - and not for any real research accomplishments of his. I'd be willing to expand the research portion, but I'm really not sure his contributions are sufficiently noteworthy. Obviously the case has attracted lots of attention, but it never even went to trial... Also not convinced that page isn't just trying to be slanderous. Thanks for your input --Pepe.king.prawn (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked closely at Harran's research, but I would be surprised if he didn't meet the notability requirements listed at WP:PROF - his research group's page at the UCLA website lists plenty of papers published in top-tier organic chemistry journals. Although his Wikipedia page was almost certainly created because of the news events related to the fire in his lab and his subsequent trial (contrary to what you've said above, the case did in fact go to trial), I don't think it was ever slanderous or intended to be so.  I'm not sure if there is much I can do to help expand the page, but if you can get access to this article in Discovery Magazine, it might be helpful in expanding or fixing the two articles Patrick Harran and Sheri Sangji Case.  ChemNerd (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted references
When removing &lt;ref&gt;s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind&#32;(e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 22:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I was doing that. I just missed it on that page.  ChemNerd (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment request: methylphenylpiracetam
If you'd like, please comment briefly at Talk:E1R. --IO Device (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Helium
Can you explain why you think I'm wrong? TekIonRLP (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what you wrote at Talk:Helium is incoherent. ChemNerd (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Heptachlor
Why does this page have only one page Heptachlor/Heptachlor Epoxide?

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=135

Do you think that there should be a page created on Wikipedia for Heptachlor Epoxide and that the current Heptachlor page is not sufficient?

If not, why didn't you edit the article instead of reverting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.175.169.128 (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, see this http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/heptachlor_epoxide

"HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE is an oxidation product of HEPTACHLOR formed by many plants and animals, including humans, after exposure to HEPTACHLOR. It has been shown to remain in soil treated with HEPTACHLOR for over fifteen years and is toxic to animals and humans." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.175.169.128 (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide are different chemical compounds. The sciencedaily article is conflating the two, I think. I haven't looked closely at original paper to sort it out, but it is quite possible that they were measuring heptachlor epoxide in people's bodies as a surrogate for exposure to heptachlor. But that part is a minor concern to me. In general, medical claims (such as a connection between chemical exposure and disease risk) should be sourced to review articles, not primary studies (or popular press descriptions thereof). It is best to wait until there is a peer-reviewed scientific publication that reviews the primary work before such claims are included in Wikipedia. Medical claims need to be referenced to sources that are compliant with WP:MEDRS. In this particular case, the text that I removed claimed the brain effects were "because of the high level of heptachlor in cow milk", a claim the cited article does not make. They claim an association, not a causation. The association shouldn't be reported in Wikipedia because to assess the relevance of the association to the topic at hand, one would have to resort to original research or synthesis which isn't permitted under Wikipedia policy. We must wait until a qualified source (a WP:MEDRS-compliant source) assesses the relevance of that association for us before we report it. ChemNerd (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.175.169.128 (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ajuga genevensis
Am I missing something here? You removed a clearly reliable source which has stood in an article for years to leave material completely uncited. From your contribution list, it seems that this is something you do a lot. What's going on? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is one particular researcher that has spent years (literally) adding links to his own research to hundreds of articles, without making any other contributions to Wikipedia. It is quintessential self-promotional WP:REFSPAM.  When he started he was warned about the conflict of interest issues, but he has persisted, now making just one edit per IP and then changing to avoid scrutiny.  The list of IPs just above are a partial list of those involved.  I have no objection whatsoever if an independent established user such as yourself finds a citation he has added useful and wants to add it back in.  ChemNerd (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case at least, that seems to be an inaccurate description. The user in question added sourced information- if they were adding irrelevant material to further reading sections, or spamming unreliable sources, then yes, "LINKSPAM" would be the appropriate hammer. However, adding relevant and useful material sourced to peer-reviewed research articles seems to be an excellent thing for a researcher to be doing (even if they happen to be one of the authors). Perhaps you could take a more nuanced approach to the additions, rather than simply assuming that they all need to go? At the very least, you should remove the information the user added, rather than leaving it unsourced. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Yes, maybe I should be removing the added information too.   Adding one individual's research (who doesn't appear to be that notable in his field) to hundreds of articles probably creates situations of WP:UNDUE and/or systemic bias.  ChemNerd (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sarin
Sorry for making edit-conflicts (and thanks for the edits themselves, and figuring out how to get the N-prime typography to work)! I'm off for now. DMacks (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. And thanks for your improvements to the article too.  ChemNerd (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Why am I getting like 7 messages?
All about the same 2 articles? Over and over. From Multiple users. What are you people like moderators or something?

Once was enough, I got it. Now I keep getting spammed to death by multiple users, It's like get off my back already, please. I'm not gonna make any more pages for ages, OK? Now will yall leave me alone?

ChemNerd left a message on your talk page in Deschloroetizolam. I wanted to let you know that it isn't a good idea. Well why not? You don't have an article on it now, and I have valid info on it. I spent a day putting that article together and some nazi took it away.

Eatl33t1111 (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I see a welcome message and two polite comments from myself and another user. I don't see how anyone could view this as "getting spammed to death", requiring a response like "get off my back already".  Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so when I made an edit that affected something you had done, I gave you the courtesy of informing you.  I didn't have to do that, but it was the right thing to do.  If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, then I would suggest that you will simply need to find a way to be able to have these types of polite interactions with other editors without resorting to calling them Nazis.  If you would like to have a further explanation for the edit that I made at deschloroetizolam, please let me know.  ChemNerd (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping edit orgo pages
It's such a difficult, dry subject but wanted to say "thanks" on behalf of people like me who are trying to learn orgo. Wish me luck on my exam tomorrow night! Cheers, Adwctamia (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. ChemNerd (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Venlafaxine edit war
Dear ChemNerd, I'm puzzled as to why you deleted my recent edit on the Venlafaxine Wikipedia page. You mentioned that you deleted the entry due to lack of references, however references to primary literature have been included in the text (see below), so it is hard to understand why you would delete the entry. Many thanks, Christine

"Patients should be aware that these withdrawal symptoms during discontinuation of treatment with venlafaxine may include: Anxiety, confusion, or agitation. Lack of coordination or vertigo. Nausea, diarrhea, or vomiting. Sleep disorders or nightmares. Headache. Dry mouth. Fatigue. Brain zaps (electric-like shocks) [32] [33] [34]"

32: Baldwin DS, Montgomery SA, Nil R, Lader M (February 2007). "Discontinuation symptoms in depression and anxiety disorders". Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 10 (1): 73–84. . 33: Fava M, Mulroy R, Alpert J, Nierenberg AA, Rosenbaum JF (December 1997). "Emergence of adverse events following discontinuation of treatment with extended-release venlafaxine". The American Journal of Psychiatry. 154 (12): 1760–2. . 34: Zajecka J, Tracy KA, Mitchell S (July 1997). "Discontinuation symptoms after treatment with serotonin reuptake inhibitors: a literature review". J Clin Psychiatry. 58 (7): 291–7..


 * I think you are mistaken. The one edit I made to venlafaxine (here) removed content that was added without a reference.  It looks like you added a reference in later edits, and those edits were removed by someone else.  You will have to contact those other editors to get their reasoning.  ChemNerd (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

IP sock tagging
Hi ChemNerd. What's with the Le Prof IP sock tagging? --Neil N  talk to me 18:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that this user is currently being disruptive in ways that he has been cautioned for multiple times at WP:ANI. His common use of editing while logged out appears to be a reason why he has avoided consequences related to this disruptive behavior.  ChemNerd (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Where, precisely am I being disruptive? Perhaps you just wish all Profs to leave. Please, in future, invite me to venues where I am being accused. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of having all professors leaving. I don't see how a reasonable person could come to that conclusion.  I have no intention of having you leave either.  My intention is to help other editors recognize that edits from these IP addresses and edits from Leprof 7272 come from the same individual.  If someone is looking at the history of an article, the fact that you usually include "Leprof 7272" at the end of talk page comments isn't going to help them.  Other users have found this behavior, editing while logged out, to be disruptive and evasive (Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive944) and you have been asked to stop.  This evasive behavior allows you to persist in doing other disruptive things, including the persistent "tag bombing"  as was addressed at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive922. ChemNerd (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice try, having a discussion, and not inviting the person being discussed. Note, I always indicate I am Le Prof, and there is no chance whatsoever that I am guilty of being a sock. I edit as time permits, my sec systems log me out quickly, and I do not bother to log back in if logged out in the midst of editing. I also tend to continue as I start, so there is no back and forth, as any check of records will show (i.e., stretches of IP, and stretches of logged). Argue, claim, accuse, all you wish, you will find thousands of IP addresses with "Le Prof". Formal plea is not guilty. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * PS, see the very, very long ongoing discussion about image uses at WikiProject Medicine, if you want a clear case of me going back and forth, with both (IP and logged) work. I am guilty of being annoying, disagreeable, contrary, obstreperous, etc., but not of being dishonest, and disruptive, as you insinuate/claim. Otherwise, the ANI links to no actual Noticeboard discussion, and there is no other link here to give any indication of an ongoing issue, so I (a) remain clueless as to what you are on about here, and (b) am ignoring this unless something clear is brought to my attention. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)