User talk:Edgar181/Archive29

Quinoxalinedione planning
Re Quinoxalinedione. What about the idea of making Quinoxalinedione the parent organic compound with chembox etc, and Quinoxalinediones the article about all the drugs of this parent? Alternatively, I guess, we could refocus the current article to be about the parent and have a subsection on all the drug derivatives. That pattern is fairly normal around here.

I just worry that normal organic chemists will not want to be shunted toward quinoxaline-2,3-dione (currently a redlink in Medgirl's new article, an unconventional name. Amusing, Aldrich give it the diol name, although the crystal structure confirms the diamide tautomer.  Eventually, I would like to create the article on the dithioamide, a fairly popular ligand.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless there is going to be a significant amount of new content that would merit two separate articles, I think keeping the content in one would be best. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (witter)  @ 20:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Enkephalins
hi edgar

i was looking at your article about enkephalines and i'm confused about the stereochemistry of the structures (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enkephalin). the structure showes D-tyrosine and D-phenylalanine for both molecules. are these amino acids supposed to be in this unnatural D-stereochemistry?

best regards dominic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdominic76 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... File:Met-enkephalin.png matches the structure given at but File:Leu-enkaphalin.png does not match the structure given at .  The D-stereochemistry doesn't sound right, so I'll take a closer look shortly and figure it out.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded replacements. I think they should be correct now, but could you please check me?  Thanks for catching the errors and letting me know.  (I'll create higher quality SVGs later tonight.)  -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

West Point Grey Academy
Hi Edgar, I was just trying to update the page for West Point Grey Academy, and saw that you undid all my edits. These edits are current and factual, whereas the previous information was outdated and/or inaccurate. Yes, I do work for the school, but my aim is to provide Wikipedia users with current, objective, useful and, most importantly, factual information. Can you please reinstate these edits? Many thanks, Megan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megan76 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the one who undid your edits. Your changes were reverted by User:Drm310 with this edit.  It looks like his concern, at least in part, was that the text is taken from a copyrighted website which isn't permitted on Wikipedia.  You can contact him for the details.  Regards,  -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

4-MeIm
Before I consider changing this image, I wanted to check to see if you agree... your image in 4-Methylimidazole is really 5-methyimidazole, if the numbering starts at NH. If so, I thought I might make images for the body of the report showing that 5-MeIm is actually a different compound but a rapidly interconverting tautomer, or something like that. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, it is the wrong tautomer. Thanks for catching that.  I have uploaded a new version.  A little discussion of the 4/5-methyl tautomers would be good, I agree.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Now how did you do that? Because your have no edit recorded at 4-Methylimidazole. Were you able to overwrite your image file at Commons?  I ask because I am often updating my own flawed images.  Thanks.  --Smokefoot (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The image is hosted at Commons, so when I uploaded a new version there to the same file name, the page here was automatically updated with the new image. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When I try to upload a new version with the same file name, Commons demands that I choose another file name. Sorry to bug you on this but in addition to many good images, I also many flawed ones.  It would be nice to not clutter up Commons with all my crud. In any case I am going to upload a new cyanoform with C-H and showing tetrahedral geom.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I general, I think it is preferred on Commons to upload different images of the same subject as different files (exceptions might be if you are correcting it or making small improvements). For chemical structures, it is a good to have different representations of the same chemical structure because they may be used in different ways in different contexts.  I like the representation of cyanoform that you uploaded and added to that article, and it is best that you ended up uploading it as a different file.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Nxtty
nxtty please i dont know why nxtty is selected for delete i am new here i dont find any help please help me,telling which points i need to change for dont be nominated for delete page.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneu76 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article Nxtty was nominated for deletion by User:Drm310. The reasons for the nomination can be found be found at the discussion: Articles for deletion/Nxtty.  You are welcome to contribute to the discussion there.  If you would like more information about why it was nominated for deletion, it would be best to contact Drm310 and ask him.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User: Liam-dino
Hello Ed, Could I please bring to you attention the recent activities of Liam-dino, a user who you recently blocked for a short period. This user has again made unsourced contributions to the United Airlines Flight 93 article, which I have reverted, but has also left an obscene remark at the top of my Talk page. It appears that the majority of this persons "edits" have been reverted, but they seem to take no notice of repeated warnings. Perhaps further action is required? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * These types of editors, who make some positive edits but don't work well with others, are difficult to deal with. The comment on your talk page is obviously unacceptable so I have reblocked the editor, but not permanently.  Hopefully, he will get the message and improve his behavior.  If not, please don't hesitate to contact me or another administrator and the next block will be much longer or permanent.  Regards,  -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ed, Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

User:James Stewart Sculpture
Hi, Ed. Please review your actions related to User:James Stewart Sculpture. I was contacted via a different route; he neither understands your reasons nor Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please put a WP:USERNAME block notice or similar explanation on his talk page. I suspect he'll end up an SPA and remain infef'ed indef'ed but I'd like to AGF and perhaps convince him to contribute productively. Thanks for your consideration, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 00:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC) (Reply here. I'll watch for a few days.)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Usually I leave the templated message, but somehow missed it this time.  I have now left them a message on their talk page.    -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try to guide him to productively edit in spite of his stated goal.  Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 14:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:73 (number)
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:73 (number). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Zirconium lactate.png
Hi,

In the commons I stumbled across "Zirconium lactate.png", mentioning you as its author. As far as I am aware the used symbol for the metal belongs to zink in stead of zirconium. I am not able to correct it, are you?T.vanschaik (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a typo. I have corrected it now.  Thanks for catching the error and letting me know.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * Thanks. I'm glad to help.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocks and staleness
We were simultaniously trying to clear AIV, and I noticed you blocked, while I was going to call it stale. Not that I vehemently object or would ask you to undo the block, but what's your reasoning in these cases? For this editor, I see dozens of vandalism edits during the course of half an hour, after which they stopped (which is an hour ago). What's your reasoning for still blocking? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realize that you had declined them shortly before I blocked. I must have been working with a non-current version of AIV open in a browser window.  I don't normally act on reports that have been declined by another admin, and I had no intention of "overruling" your declines. (I removed the one report that I saw that you had declined, rather than blocking that one.)  In any case, in terms of my reasoning, I generally don't think of reports of vandalism that are ~1 hour old to be stale.  In my experience, it is not unusual at all for vandalism to resume after a break that short.  It doesn't make much difference to me either way, so if you would like to unblock those IPs, I certainly won't object.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't declined them yet, I edit conflicted with the bot which removed it after you blocked them, so I was 'late' to the 'party'. I don't often see short bursts of vandalism repeating, but I'll keep an eye out for it. Thanks for the info! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Lazard00d
Thank you for blocking. Can you or another admin keep an eye on him after he comes off block? He alternates between being hostile or confrontational and the even more disruptive attitude that Wikipedia is a big joke and he is in it for his own amusement. If he blows off comments with that viewpoint again, shouldn't he be indeffed as not here to contribute? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * These situations, where you have a user that wants to contribute but isn't able to work well with others, are always the hardest to deal with. With many users, a temporary block will have the intended effect of leading them to the realization that working with the community is necessary.  Unfortunately, based on this user's talk page editing since the block, I fear this will go the other way.  There seems to be a valiant attempt to reason with him on his user talk page, and we'll have to see how that goes.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

TTXCompany
Obviously a good block, but you neglected to drop a block notice on their talk page. I'd do it myself but I don't want to mis-identify myself as blocking admin and I don't want to spoof your sig either. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done now. Thanks for catching that. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism
On January 23rd you blocked IP 89.187.100.76 for six months. He had been engaged in a difficult-to-spot form of vandalism, changing the names of actors or directors, or altering the release dates of films, and I had been following his activities since mid-December.

Today I have been dealing with another vandal, IP 2601:E:CE80:884:6CE9:8A09:AA19:874A, with exactly the same modus operandi, making subtle changes to film articles. He stopped today when given a final warning, but I think it may be the same individual. Would you care to investigate? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From the edits, I can't really tell one way or another if they are the same person. From the IP data, one IP is UK based and the other is US based (but geolocation is not always accurate).  So for now, I don't know if there is anything more to do other than watch the latest IP and I'll block if the vandalism continues.  If additional IPs turn up doing the same thing maybe we can consider other options then.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is probably a different person. Having stopped after a final warning, the IP came back some twelve hours later and made further edits introducing errors into articles. I have reverted most of these, but two I have left, each introducing a new genre into a song article. I don't know what Synthpop is, but judging by the other edits, this information is likely to be false too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not able to judge whether those genre changes are constructive or not either. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Benzhydrocodone
You made the benzhydrocodone 2D chemical image. You might be interested in helping editing the benzhydrocodone article or not. Clr324 (say hi) 23:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't remember why I created the image, but I'll take a look and see if I can find any useful information to add to the article.   -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

C6H12O6
I noticed a few days ago that the C6H12O6 page used the word "sugar" without making it a link, so I made it a link. I see you removed the word entirely, but you didn't provide an edit summary. Could you explain your thinking here, please? I was thinking when I made my change that perhaps the sugar article ought to be moved into the list as a top-level bullet; would that be acceptable? Thanks. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "sugar" can be used either to mean sucrose (table sugar) which has the molecular formula C12H22O11, not C6H12O6, or "sugar" can refer to the broader class of carbohydrates for which specifying the molecular formula C6H12O6 isn't appropriate.  Either way, sugar shouldn't be listed or linked at the page C6H12O6.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, makes sense. Thanks for the quick response. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please HELP
This user Uaat, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Uaat , Vandalism a lot of article for a long time , can you stop this guy ? Thank you very much ViPremierce (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All I see is the two of you edit warring across multiple articles. This is a content dispute that should be settled through discussion.  It looks like you two disagree about which name to use for the country.  You two should determine what the consensus is, perhaps by contacting WikiProject Taiwan, and follow that.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Aplidin
Hi Ed,

Would you happen to have a second to help a fellow Wikipedian with a question related to the Aplidin article? A little while ago i came across an IP editor who was attempting to restructure the content of the aforementioned article in an attempt to rename the compound to "Plitidepsin". I ended up reverting the attempt since it took out half the content and syntax on the page.

Afterwards the editor left a message on my talk page explaining they tried to change the article since "Aplidin" would be a trademarked name for the drug "Plitidepsin", whereas the article describes the generic drug and not the trademarked variety. I am (somewhat) aware of US copyright and trademark laws but i am not well versed in how these would apply to chemical compounds. Aside from this i noted that - i may be wrong here - the trademark application seems to have been refused for the US territory? If you have any advice as to what should be done with the article and its name i am all ears.

Thanks in advance, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, Wikipedia is under no obligation to use trademarked names according to the owner's preferences. As I'm sure you know, we don't use the trademark symbol, ®, for example (Manual of Style/Trademarks) and your revert was entirely appropriate.  On Wikipedia, drug articles are preferably titled using generic names rather than proprietary names (WP:PHARMOS).  A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything suggesting "plitidepsin" is an approved generic name such as an International Nonproprietary Name or a United States Adopted Name (unless I'm missing something), but I think the article should probably be moved to that title.  I'll take a little more time later today to see what else I can find or I'll leave a note at WT:PHARM.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not able to find any document assigning an "official" generic name to the drug, but both the European Medicines Agency and clinicaltrials.gov seem to be using "plitidepsin", so I have moved the article to that title which seems to be most consistent with Wikiproject Pharmacology's conventions. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Space Station
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International Space Station. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Witbier listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ﻿Witbier. Since you had some involvement with the ﻿Witbier redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia 'List of cocaine analogues' article images needed
Hello,

I notice you make a lot of molecular structure 2D images. I am currently restricted to a library computer and cannot make images for upload.

I was wondering if you could assist me in my endeavor of adding certain images for inclusion at the Wikipedia 'List of cocaine analogues' page.

What I need is mostly those from Singh's SAR of Cocaine paper (45 pages in on the page finder; pg. 970 or so as enumerated on the paper itself: the chemical structures 183a-(through)-d, 184a & b, 185a-d, 186-188 on 'Scheme 42', on pg. 50 (974) structures 196a-o, 197a-g, 198a-e, 199a & b, 200 & 201a-e ... and more down to page 61 or so; namely N-modified analogs & such.)

Any help making these would be greatly appreciated. Nagelfar (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be happy to help out. I should be able to start on them later today.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have created some and uploaded them to Commons in w:Commons:Category:Cocaine analogs. I'll have some more tomorrow.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletition of the article "Stormy Atmosphere"
Good Day,

About the copyright violations - It was a huge misunderstanding actually. The text in the link http://progresja.com/events/mike-terrana-usa-2/?lang=en was actually taken from the original biography of the band. The owners of the website were the ones who copy-pasted it when making the advertisement for the bands' tour with Mike Terrana in December 2014. They don't own the copyright on that text, it's the band's original bio text. I thought it's okay to citate few words from the original bio of the band, when I write about the band. Hope that this explains the issue, therefore my article can be brought back from deletition and resubmitted. Thanks in advance,

Silverray Silverray123 (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is strict about copyright issues. Text used in Wikipedia must be public domain or written in your own words.  Whoever originally wrote the band's biography owns the copyright to that text unless they have explicitly donated it into the public domain.  Even if that text has been used by a website somewhere, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia can use it or that it is not copyrighted.  If you want to use that text on Wikipedia you must first present unambiguous evidence that it is in the public domain. 13:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

103.233.123.211
You could’ve been putting a block notice at User talk:103.233.123.211. — Nick the Red37 (talk &middot; contribs) 16:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done now. Sometimes it takes a few minutes. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Dorchester Baptist Church
Please can you send me the source from this deleted page. It is work in progress. I will move it to my sandbox until it is ready for publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanGenieGreen (talk • contribs) 07:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. It is now located at User:JeanGenieGreen/Dorchester Baptist Church.  Regards,  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia chemical structure explorer
Hello! Thanks for giving me the chemistry star :)

I would like to present you how I could find and fix so many SMILES. I am part of a team that developed a tool to explore the chemical structures available on Wikipedia (http://www.cheminfo.org/wikipedia/). We extract all the SMILES that we find in pages that contain a Chembox or Drugbox template and parse them to regenerate the 2D structure. The tool allows to search by substructure or similarity. There is a second page that lists the parsing errors with link to the related article for correction. The dataset is automatically updated once a day.

It is also possible to link directly to a structure by putting a SMILES in the URI like this: http://www.cheminfo.org/wikipedia/#N%23CCCCC%23N We wonder if it would be possible to add a link to this tool in the chemical templates ?

Mzasso (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a great tool. The idea of enabling structure or substructure search on Wikipedia has been discussed before, and I'm glad that someone has actually done it.  I would recommend announcing this tool at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals, and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology to get suggestions on how and where the tool could be linked.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BIM-1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DMSO. 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) 08:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI Close
Thank you for closing the ANI Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. I had proposed a boomerang there Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents for a block on BigBaby for COPYVIO and NPA. I believe (for what that is worth) that there was consensus for it. Even if you don't think so, I would appreciate it, if you would at least include a warning for BigBaby - those are both serious issues. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Will you please explain why you decided to close the incident? You quoted my edit saying there was no consensus but that wasn't really the case. If you read through the discussion you will see several editors were opposed to formerly 98s style of editing with only jytdog offering a defense. My plan was simply to move the discussion to the more relevant forum once I figure it where that is since the issue was getting quite long and there was minimal feedback in defense of formerly 98.

Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, I will continue to keep an eye on Bigbaby23. The personal attacks are definitely a concern (though my impression was that Formerly 98 is more than mature enough not be bothered by that childishness) and the copyvio issue seems to have been unintentional at first and then just stubbornness later, rather than a real lack of understanding of the problems with introducing copyrighted text.  Overall, maybe this is more an issue of competence than anything else.
 * Doors22, I don't think WP:ANI is the place to address the types of concerns you have. It is geared toward incidents that require rapid administrative action and I don't believe there was consensus for any such action against Formerly 98.  Your last statement suggests that you agree, and there are other outlets as described in Dispute resolution.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks for your reply! makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for closing. My personal perspective is that while the personal attacks by a single editor are not troubling, it does get a bit tiresome to deal with it coming from multiple sources on a regular basis. Shooting from the hip, I'd estimate that the words "shill", "COI", "POV pusher", "biased", and "liar" appear prominently in roughly half of the Talk page discussions that I find myself involved in.  As noted by  in the ANI discussion, there is a contingent of editors here who regard corporations as evil, and who start every Talk page discussion by accusing the editor they differ of being a shill. On many pages I think the "big bad corporation" viewpoint has dominated for many years for the simple reason that many editors who might want to see a more balanced POV simply don't want to deal with the personal attacks and lengthy ANI sessions that potentially follow any removal of negative material, no matter how WP:UNDUE or poorly sourced.


 * I realize that you have been here much longer than I, and in many ways see things from a higher perspective. But from where I sit, it would be very nice to see a more aggressive enforcement stance against editors who persistently engage in personal attacks and insinuations. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll chime in and say that in my experience, behavior like casting aspersions about COI, schilling, etc. rarely seem to be taken seriously at ANI. It seems rare to even get a warning for the user(s) in question, but often the common response is just for the person to deal with it or ignore it. Without a warning, the users casting aspersions just seem emboldened and continue on sniping or halting discussion with the accusations and it just poisons the well. I've had an entirely unrelated case of a single user hounding me with very similar issues, so I can definitely see Formerly's frustration when multiple users are doing this and there ends up being nothing more than a close rather than a warning. Ed, do you have any suggestions on how to get these matters taken more seriously when the problem becomes persistent and disruptive to the pages in question?


 * It's obviously tough because ANI posts can get long and sprawling when trying to describe WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior rather than very isolated diffs in addition to drama kicked up by the troublesome user. I can't really fault uninvolved editors and admins with that in mind, but any advice on getting such behavior to actually stop and getting the point across that it is problematic is very appreciated. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, everyone, for doing this and then not being around for a few days (family medical emergency). Regretfully, it will still be a awhile before I have time to give the kind of response everyone deserves. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Best wishes Ed. Thoughts are with you. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98, Kingofaces43: the personal attacks Formerly 98 experienced from Bigbaby23 were unacceptable. As far as I can tell, they haven't repeated them since the ANI discussion, so I don't think that there is anything further that needs to be done at this point. But I will continue to watch and block as necessary if the problem returns. Unfortunately, there doesn't currently appear to be any good way of handling problems caused by disruptive editors (ANI tends to inflame issues, WP:RFCUC is no longer active, ArbCom is too busy to deal with anything but the largest issues, etc.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am back at ANI again just one week later. As the admin who closed the last ANI complaint against me, your input would potentially be helpful to the community in providing some feedback on the appropriateness of my actions as well as deciding on any sanctions. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks like it has now been amicably resolved, so well, "never mind". Thanks.  Formerly 98 (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

ACH-3102
Ed Are you sure that ach-3102 is Odalasvir?? I found one refrence, but I'm not sure is it accurate Odalasvir Do you have more references??? Thank you. talk   Drsciencewiki (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't recall at the moment what source I used to make the connection between ACH-3102 and odalasvir. It may be wrong.  Please feel free to revert my changes if you think they are inaccurate.  I'm sorry that I don't have time at the moment to investigate more thoroughly but I will do so when I have the chance.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find any reliable source that makes the connection between ACH-3102 and odalasvir, so I have restored ACH-3102 to its former state and converted odalasvir to an article containing data for that compound. If at some point we can find a reliable source that confirms that they are the same, the two articles can be merged.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Cassandra Leah Quave page undeletion
It seems that this is where I'm supposed to reach out for an undeletion request, with regards to item 3 on the Deletion Review page: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page"

We would like to point out some things which may warrant review or undeletion:

Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc.

also, Quave has two published works we would like to add:

Quave, C.L., Editor (2014) Innovative Strategies for Teaching in the Plant Sciences. 312 p. Springer Press, New York, NY, USA. ISBN 978-1-4939-0422-8 Pieroni, A.

C.L. Quave, Editors (2014) Ethnobotany and Biocultural Diversities in the Balkans: Perspectives on Sustainable Rural Development and Reconciliation. 255 p. Springer Press, New York, NY, USA. ISBN 978-1-4939-1491-3

Please let me know if this is even the proper way to go about this? Thank you!!

Miremory (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have restored the text at Draft:Cassandra Leah Quave. Please feel free to work on the article there and then when you think it is ready, you can submit it through the Articles for creation process.  Regards,  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing edit summary
Without an edit summary, it is difficult if not impossible for me to know why a particular edit was made. It is outright rude to not include a sufficiently descriptive edit summary given that someone else may be left wondering why an edit was made. This matters especially when content, i.e. one or more statements, is removed from the article. Wikipedians apparently have yet to adequately adopt the concept of a descriptive commit message; one that the revision control world unquestionably adopted decades ago.

Yes, I can probably put in the effort and take the time to work out why the entirety of an edit was made, but there are times when I will disagree with the editor; it is this which makes edit summaries even more valuable. --IO Device (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I almost always leave an edit summary and I'm sorry that I missed that one. If you have specific questions about the edit, just let me know.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ashbogtoast
Turns out these are coming from a school. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really a surprise, is it? :)  -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, looked likely just from the actions and names. Anyway, I've blocked the IP address and account creation. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That sounds like the best way to handle it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of a page
Could you please let me know why the page we tried to create was deleted? Also, can you please give us any feedback as to how we can avoid our page from being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourceComm23 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are referring to User:SourceComm23, I deleted it for several reasons. Your user page is for information about yourself related to your work on Wikipedia, rather than for information about a company (see WP:UPYES for details).  Also, the content was highly promotional and met criteria for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD for details).  A second copy of the page is still located at User:SourceComm23/sandbox/SKySaver Inc. where you can work on it.  At the very least, it would need rewriting to remove the promotional tone and content before it would be acceptable as an article.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you please review a revised version of the webpage? We'd like to know if we are on the right track before posting the page. We'll save revised page in the Sandbox for your review. Please let us know if we need if there is anything we need to revise. Thank you. - SourceComm23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourceComm23 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see three versions of the page: User:SourceComm23/sandbox/SKySaver Inc., User:SourceComm23/sandbox/SkySaver Inc. and User:SourceComm23/sandbox.  I'm not sure which one you would like to have reviewed, but each one contains content that I would consider promotional (for example, "global leader in multi-story rescue and evacuation solutions").  Those drafts are unlikely to be accepted as articles unless they are rewritten to remove the promotional tone.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you please review the revised version dated May 7th in the Sandbox? We revised this version with your feedback in mind. We would like to know if this version can be posted on Wikipedia. Any other feedback that you can give us would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourceComm (talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to follow up on the message above. Could you please review the revised draft dated May 7th? We saved it in the Sandbox. We would like to know if this version can be posted on Wikipedia. Please let us know your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourceComm23 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to follow up on the message above. Could you please review the revised draft dated May 7th? We saved it in the Sandbox. We would like to know if this version can be posted on Wikipedia. Please let us know your feedback.


 * I'm sorry I've been busy lately and haven't had time for Wikipedia. I'm confused about what version you would like to me have a look at.  All three versions of the article that I see (User:SourceComm23/sandbox/SKySaver Inc., User:SourceComm23/sandbox/SkySaver Inc. and User:SourceComm23/sandbox) haven't changed since you last asked me to have a look and none of them are dated May 7th.  Can you specify the exact title of the page?  Alternately, instead of waiting on me (I'm unlikely to be spending much time on Wikipedia in the near future) you can follow the process outlined at Articles for creation where other Wikipedia editors are involved.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've re-posted the revised draft in the Sandbox dated May 20, 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SourceComm23/sandbox) We would like to know if this version can be posted on Wikipedia. Please let us know your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourceComm23 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC) I wanted to follow up on the message above. Could you please review the revised draft dated May 20th in the Sandbox? We would like to know if this version can be posted on Wikipedia. Please let us know your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourceComm23 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the subject of the article does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. See WP:CORP for details.  Specifically, the article does not include any references to reliable, independent secondary sources in which Skysaver is the subject.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Lester Aldridge LLP
Hi, Can you please reinstate the article deleted in 2009 named Lester Aldridge LLP. I am now managing the brand and will only add facts that other reparable websites have: lawcareers.net, lex100.com and thelawyer.com. In 2009 there was know one specifically available to manage the page, so some content might have been seen as advertising. This will not be the case again. I am looking to do similar to this article but with more facts and figures:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Law.

Regards John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjones86 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the deleted page should be restored. The text was highly promotional in tone and content and therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia.  I would also recommend against creating or editing a page about your employer.  If you are assigned the task of "managing the brand" by your employer, you have a clear conflict of interest.  Please have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy for details.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have not seen the original page so cannot comment. All I can say is that it will be fact only. I am happy for someone else to write it (but its already been written) or you reinstate it and I edit it completely and you can sign it off? Thanks Ed, John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjones86 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A prior deletion does not prevent the article for being recreated, so there is no need to restore the former text. A new article can be created with new text at the same title at any point. But again, I would strongly recommend against someone representing the company having any involvement with it at all.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Atorvastatin
Could you look in when you have a chance? We have a newly registered SPA account that is attempting to edit war in the claim that atorvastatin causes Alzheimer's disease. The sources merely state "mild and reversible cognitive problems" Thanks Formerly 98 talk  01:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with you that the changes by Oceanlike were inappropriate. I'll help keep an eye on the article.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. So far the edits are spaced pretty well, but s/he seems determined enough that it seems likely to go beyond something I can keep a lid on by myself. Formerly 98 talk  14:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brown rice
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brown rice. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of a page
Cooroll Mills was deleted without any good reason. The content is well documented in the world wide literature. I added the coo before roll mills since the persons from catastrophe theory wanted that I distinguish my interpretation from theirs. My model is in many articles of recognized international scientific journals, several books and in my new book Gudrun Kalmbach H.E., Quantum Mathematics, rgnpublications, Delhi. India. You don't delete Catastrophe theory only since these are several authors. See also the PJAAM, open access for my articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHEname (talk • contribs) 10:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Cooroll Mills was clear that the article should be deleted. If you think that was the incorrect interpretation of the discussion you can file a request at Deletion review (but in all honesty, I don't think it will be worth the effort because the consensus for deletion was so clear).  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

New message for two complains, Cooroll Mills and MINT Faecher: the company which is not granting money is called Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Wissenschaft BMBF, Arbeitgeberverband NRW and the Universitaet Ulm blocks off my applications. I am a former full war orphan and poor and nobody here around fosters my research. This is my invention as well as MINT (Mathematik, Informatik, Naturwissenschaften, Technik) for which the persons associated with BMBF violate my copy right, in German Urheberrecht. No lawyer takes up my case, instead also you as Wikipedia is not reacting neutral. I asked that the violation of my coparight has to be deleted as an article MINT Faecher which means the same as my above invention and makes a description. I asked that the history as my invention is quoted and got the same reaction as in earlier times an Emmy-Noether under a dictartorship. You from the English Wikipedia react no similar. I have apllied for the Emmy-Noether Association and my company, the MIT Verlag (publisher) Bad Woerishofen to get patents for both, my educational and scientific work. The answer until now is negative, as you react. <No rights for those whose two lifetime works are stolen by the ruling political parties. Gudrun at MINT Bad Woerishofen PS: The article in question cooroll mills was already a cartoon used by Google recently, and has been visited by thousends of interested scientists, teachers, students around the world since Tchernobyl. I gave at least 50 talks and demonstrations to this, more public presentations than String Theory which you list. I invited Wikipedia Muenchen to visit my huge Archive KHE and let rewrite the article MINT Faecher with my historical documents added.