User talk:Fvasconcellos/Archive 27

MoS:IMAGES listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MoS:IMAGES. Since you had some involvement with the MoS:IMAGESredirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
I have proposed the renaming of a category, and wanted to know if you would consider commenting on the proposed renaming over at that link. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

São Paulo
Hi Fvasconcellos, I have unprotected the above article per a request at WP:RFPP. If there were any circumstances that required indefinite full protection and that I was unaware of, please let me know or reverse my action. Thanks, Dabomb87(talk) 23:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, just a longstanding content dispute. Thanks for taking care of it and sorry for not getting back to you sooner.Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

An RfCU
An RfC/U about has been filed - I know you have expressed concerns about his conduct at a previous time and encourage you to participate.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Asking for the permission to use the photos in the article
18 Feb 2011

Dear Fvasconcellos,

I'm a year 2 student studying Chemistry in the University of Hong Kong. I'm writing a journal article about the common acne-treating ingredients and I would like to ask for the permission to use the photos in the following article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Salicylic-acid-skeletal.svg

The permission letter is required during submission of the article. Look forward to your kind reply of this message. Thank you in advance for your generous permission and attention.

Yours sincerely,

Luna Chung Ying Ting BSc Year II, HKU 147.8.126.67 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Luna,
 * As nearly all structural formulae on Wikipedia, this image is in the public domain. No permission or attribution is required. If you need any further information, please let me know.
 * Best wishes and good luck, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Liquigen edit.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Liquigen edit.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Saibo ( Δ ) 15:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be great. That's for letting us know the right way. Colin°Talk 18:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where can we see that the author agreed to the lincese (PD)? Cheers --Saibo ( Δ ) 15:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The image was edited on the request of the author—see the original andthis diff. Feel free to contact Colin (the creator) if you would like confirmation straight from the source! Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fvasconcellos improved the image at my request. Would it be best to delete the original or to just update the original with the new brighter version? Alternatively, if both copies are kept, perhaps the edited one could refer to the original and gain Fvasconcellos as an "author". Colin°Talk 16:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the edit should really have been marked as such, and not just in the title—my bad. Colin, I'm afraid I'm not up on current image policy after months away from editing, but I'd be OK with whatever you think is best.Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help! Generally derivatives from files on Commons should be uploaded on Commons. If the modification is minor and it can be assumed that noone likes to use the original version you could just upload a new file version. Or go tocommons:Commons:Upload and select "It is a derivative work of one or several files from Commons" to upload under a new file name.

In this case I think it would be okay to just upload the derivative as a new version. If you both agree I will do it and will also do the documentation (author, "retouched", ...). Cheers --Saibo ( Δ ) 17:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hey FV. There seemed to be general consensus to move the history section to near the end. Many of my suggestions have been soundly turned down :-) and I agree some where not that well though out... Will not thus push these further. There are still a couple of things I would like to see / discuss further 1) some further links added to the drugbox (medline plus and AHFS) 2) the possibility of having captions for the image in this box 3) moving the clinical information a little up in said box 4) some consensus on a consistent layout across articles best formatted to reflect the literature and appeal to a general audience Cheers Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW you state here that this ordering of content is already accepted? I guess my further concern is we have two places where the ordering / formatting of drug articles is discussed (WP:PHARM and WP:MED). This has caused some confusion I think.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, see MEDMOS. If memory serves, this ordering has been accepted since 2008(?) or so... I agree that WP:PHARM Style guide vs. MEDMOS can lead to confusion. (I personally think WP:PHARM can do without a style guide of its own, but I've never brought this up—not sure why.)
 * I agree that revamping the Drugbox could be a good idea (captions in particular strike me as a great addition). I think the consensus on consistent layout is already there, at WP:MEDMOS—getting people to follow it is a whole other story (I confess I've strayed from it many times, hopefully with good reason :)
 * Finally, I apologize for any excess on my part. I've been away from WP due to off-site issues and my nerves are a little shot. My number-one issue with trying to implement changes based on the findings of articles such as the Law et al. paper is that none of these studies (there have been others) seem to get the purpose of Wikipedia, and I'm not too impressed by their methods either.Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree and my last desire is to turn Wikipedia into a patient handout. I have informed Dr. Law that faulting Wikipedia for being what it does not wish to be is not really fair. I agree that there should not be two style guidelines for medications and that we should go with one (this was my intention behind suggesting the merge of the two projects nothing further). I do not care where the style guidelines occur just that there is only one to prevent more confusion in the future. I am happy with the one at WP:MEDMOSand the suggestions at WP:PHARM are basically the same thing with a few small changes (adding a section on society and culture, using mechanism of action rather than pharmacodynamics, using medical uses instead of indications to compliment sections lower in the article on recreational uses and veterinary uses). Anyway hope you are able to return from retirement to contribute to this discussion. Doc James  (talk ·contribs · email) 01:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced there is a consensus that the History section should always go last. I think that many drugs/treatments with extensive history might capture the reader best by covering the history first. But equally, many modern drugs have a relatively unnotable history that is only covered for completeness, if at all. Actual WP practice shows there is little consensus on section ordering, which is one reason why MEDMOS doesn't actually mandate any ordering. I would be very opposed to the WP:PHARM styleguide's "with attention to order" decree if someone tried to add that to MEDMOS. Recent suggestions by JFW show that some people have radically different and opposing ideas on what a good order would be.
 * I agree that having two style guides on drugs is confusing. IMO the PHARM project is too small to get that styleguide approved as a WP guideline. If we agree that it is not necessary/helpful, then perhaps we should merge/delete it. I'd like to see MEDMOS's list incorporate a "Research" or "Clinical studies" section, which would help to avoid the OR that happens when such studies appear in the Indications section, where they don't belong. Thoughts? Colin°Talk 12:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The consensus is that it should usual go last. Thus the MOS is a guideline not a policy and thus gives recommendation of usual practice not required practice. There are occasional exceptions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Colin :) There is indeed no consensus that History should always go last—as part of MEDMOS, the section ordering is merely a suggestion for convenience. That's why I insisted so (perhaps a bit too much) on the point that an already established practice didn't really need to be "established" by polls, etc. over at WT:PHARM. As you may remember, I myself placed History last in two of the articles to which I've contributed most, Metformin and Linezolid (which passed FAC without a hitch), and I still think it's a good idea depending on the way the article develops over time.
 * I really do think the WP:PHARM style guide could be dropped. (Not sure what, if anything, can be merged—I'm ashamed to say I haven't had a good look at it since the recent changes.) I'd love to see a Research section established in the recommended ordering; this is one of the content areas in which WP articles can really stand out from other sources.Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in here, but the WP:PHARM style guide (WP:DRUGGUIDE) is far more detailed than the MEDMOS section on drugs (WP:MEDMOS), and in fact the later refers to the former. Given the present length of the DRUGGUIDE, I don't think it is feasible to merge it into the MEDMOS.  Boghog (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hey Fva, long time no talk. How would you translate "[The battleship Minas Gerais] cuja quilha foi batida em 17 de abril de 1907, lançado ao mar em 10 de setembro de 1908, Mostra de Armamento em 26 de abril de 1910 e incorporado à Marinha do Brasil pelo Aviso Ministerial nº 1.827 de 18 de abril de 1910."? Google Translate is confusing me a bit. Is this saying the ship was commissioned on 18 April? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And also, what would you say about "Um encouraçado contra o forte: 2ª Parte"? Google gives me "strong" for "forte", but I feel like it should be "fort." Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... damn. Remember when I ran BRAZILIAN BATTLESHIP Minas Geraes on the main page? Yeah, I asked for 5 January because I thought it was the centennial of the ship's commissioning. Miramar gave me that date, and whoever added the reference to The Times thought it said that too – except I got hold of that article and it only says the ship was handed over to the Brazilians on that day. Sigh. So the official commissioning date should be 18 April 1910?
 * And hahahah no, I don't trust Google Translate except to give me a general idea of what happened. If I ever get serious about this topic, like writing a dissertation, you know I'll be calling you up for professional translating (with pay :P). Thanks so much.Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments
Wondering if you would be able to comment further here Template_talk:Drugbox Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 17:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. Will get to this later today. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Brasil
Vc é o único adm brasileiro na Wiki-en? MachoCarioca (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Que eu saiba, sim. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Awarded Barnstar

 * Wow, thanks! That was over two years ago—that's some memory :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

flag request
hello! i would like to ask you if you could create new national flag of serbs outside serbia remaking this flag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Serbian_Orthodox_Church.svg into proportions of this flag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Serb_flag_with_cross_and_firesteels.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by77.239.11.239 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Is this supposed to be an actual, historical flag, or is it for a Wikipedia project or something of the sort? Best,Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nah its just that first flag isnt made with normal letters C but with stylish byzantine style like on the official church flag and that needed changing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.239.11.239 (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All righty then, here you go. Best,Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much,could you just please add it onto this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_Unity_Saves_the_Serbs —Preceding unsigned comment added by77.239.11.239 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm... sure. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Image Deletion
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ron h jones (Talk)22:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ondansetron
Recently you updated File:Ondansetron skeletal.svg to remove a double bond from the center ring. But based on the ChemSpider and PubChem links in the article, I think it was right the first time. Can you please take a second look? ChemNerd (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The dumbing-down of a medical appliance article with opinions.
Dear Mr Vasconcellos:

I understand your typographic intent, but your inaccurate textual corrections have dumbed down the article. In medical writing, my field, "accumulate" is not synonymous woth "build up", "placement" is not synonymous with "emplacement". Your identity as an administrator is fine with me, but, you do not know medical writing. The excuse about Wikipedia style is a non sequitor, given that you identified your changes as typographic, when, in fact, you are inserting editorial opinion. "According to the study" is an opinion, yours, whereas the original reports "the study indicates". Is it all right with you, may I have your permission, to correct your inaccurate substantive changes. The titles of studies quoted and noted are necessary to make the MEDICAL point; this is not a newspaper, nor a magazine article, where. . . surprise! surprise! surprsie! the writer inserts his opinion about the subject.

I reverted your sneaky substantive dumbing down, because this is a medical article, albeit one about which most everyone has an opinion, but, said opinions belong in the CRITICISM section, not snuck in throughout the TECHNICAL MEDICAL explanations. Please, remember, the article is about the Breast Implant MEDICAL DEVICE, not the sociology of the subject, that would be elsewhere.

I shall follow up, upon your kind reply. 99.88.108.102 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the breast implant "medical device" exclusively. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedia entries. They are not technical reports or regulatory documents. Liken them to a review article or a textbook chapter, if you will—but one that is directed to laypersons and can be clearly understood by a general reader. As such, they should most certainly include the sociology and history of the subject as well as its technical aspects—and, yes, interwoven (not "snuck in") throughout the technical content as appropriate.
 * "Dumbing down" is an unfortunate term and is not the objective here, but some measure of simplification is not only acceptable but desirable, as is some editorialization, as long as accuracy is not sacrificed and no personal opinion is introduced (see, for instance, the guideline and essay MEDMOS and WP:MTAA).
 * I can't help but find your statement that I "do not know medical writing" somewhat surprising and amusing, as I am a professional medical writer and translator. If your field is indeed medical writing and you are a native or near-native speaker of English, I am sure you will understand (i) the pearls and pitfalls of translating "technical medical explanations" for a general audience; (ii) the difference between "placement" and "emplacement", and the inappropriateness of the latter in this context; and, finally, (iii) the difference between hyphens and dashes, between quotation marks and italics, "per cent" and "%", etc., and the finer points of when and where to use each. Furthermore, you will also understand that there is absolutely no need to mention, in the body of the text, the titles of articles you are citing in the References section.


 * I am sure you will realize that my "sneaky, substantive dumbing down" was nothing of the sort.


 * Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dengue
Hello F, hope all is well. Thanks for the image on dengue fever. Unfortunately there have not yet been many responses on the FAC page, and I was wondering if you might find a minute to offer any remaining comments, and support if deemed appropriate.

It seems thyrotoxic periodic paralysis is on the main page tomorrow!JFW &#124; T@lk  19:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely—I actually got a chance to read most of the article this afternoon and compare it against some external sources. Looks excellent so far, although I will have some suggestions.
 * I see TPP on the Main Page right now :) Must help patrol the article, after I get some sleep, of course...Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Aspidophytine
OOps, I am sorry, didn't know that you are talking over that structure...Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: And the funny thing is that the commons machine didn't recognize that we both were uploading the structure for the same time...--Yikrazuul (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, I didn't notice either! :) Don't worry about it, it looks great. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Temazepam
The forgeries by former "Goodson" are back in the article. I have no tool and not the nerve to track that back manually. Example: My recent two edits. Suddenly the KGB used it, suddenly temazepam was the most smuggled benzo, where in fact ref says diazepam. Can you take a look? Looks like a sock puppet of Goodson. 70.137.150.206 (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Long time, no see; I hope everything is well. A quick look at the edit history confirms this is most certainly the same user. I'm not watching the benzo pages anymore, but will keep an eye out for this. Best,Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this is the guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temazepam&action=historysubmit&diff=413576942&oldid=413576799 70.137.150.206 (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked.. Am working on reverts now. Won't be easy. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Its 24.57.69.193, he has done a whole lot of edits, essentially restoring the old version of Goodson, including all forgeries, which have been taken out in tedious work. This guy must not be playing with a full deck. I do not know why I have spent time on this, long time ago. Wiki is just a pile of junk with that kind of edits. Forget it. 70.137.150.206 (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you reverted the changes to Temazepam by this IP yet. I am disappointed by the perspectives of WP, there is probably no cure for this misrepresentation of sources, and I believe few people are willing to check against the refs. I feel the project is doomed for that reason. All the best, hope you have been well. 70.137.150.206 (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe I've got them all. There were some edits to unrelated articles I haven't reverted. I've also blocked another old sock that had recently returned to activity.
 * It's not so much a question of "willing" as "able". Few editors can spare the time to do this sort of thing—and, worst of all, it sometimes goes unnoticed, as in this case. Still, we've stepped up our curation efforts significantly over the past two years, and accuracy has improved quite a bit. I won't give up just yet. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 09:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Here another one, benzos, zodiac, nazis etc. That also a sock of the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=24.57.149.85

I think I am in a mental institution. Orderly! Some Haldol for me please. Cheerio! Glugluglug! Aaaah, now I feel better. 70.137.150.206 (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Another one

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-term_effects_of_benzodiazepines&diff=prev&oldid=425074011

IP 24.57.7.132

Changes nitrazepam to temazepam. This is also a restauration of old forgery. But it is a different IP. 70.137.150.206 (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Another one, different IP, same nonsense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.57.77.186

Is this maybe the mental institution in Windsor, Ontario? And they have a lot of computers in the day room? With this kind of insiduous sabotage I have little hope. In particular I cannot see how to prevent it, except by really checking every edit against refs. And as you say, nobody except us poor old nutcases is willing and able to do it. If I only had work, I wouln't have the time to do it either. 70.137.150.206 (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Lucky you, my intelligent friend, if you have work. I envy you! 70.137.150.206 (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Mbsetv15
Sorry to disturb you, but can you check on ? There was already a concern about this user over at the talk page atWP:TAMBAY due to him making articles about TV shows that turn out to be hoaxes. Already reported this user at WP:UAA due toWP:CORPNAME. Please see the user page to know what I mean. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan)| talkback | contribs 07:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User blocked and all offending pages deleted. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Best wishes and keep up the good work,Fvasconcellos (t·c) 08:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Artemisinin structure
Hi! I was working on the artemisinin article and noticed that your structure differs from ; the latter is confirmed in other sources, e.g.  and. Do you think we should delete your structure so as not to confuse other users of Commons? Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Both structures actually represent the exact same molecule—they are simply in different orientations. Feel free to use Lukáš's in the article, but I will update mine anyway, because it is compliant with WP:CSDG (unlike File:Artemisinin.svg). Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In your structure, the peroxide bridge and the nearby methyl group are shown on the same side of the rings' plane, while in the other structures they are on opposite sides. Also, in your structure only one leg of the bridge points away from the plane while the other seems flat. Are these not important? AxelBoldt (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that was a poor representation (having the wedge bond on only one leg), which really does suggest that the bridge is "staggered", although the stereochemistry was correct (and remains the same). The peroxide bridge pointing up vs. down is not an error. In my original structure, which I have since corrected and now matches Lukáš's in orientation, the entire molecule was flipped "upside down", so naturally the peroxide bridge would appear to be on a plane above rather than below the backbone of the structure. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that your original structure was flipped and that therefore the bridge was above rather than below, which is fine. However your methyl group at the base of the bridge was also above, and I think it should have been below. In any event, that has now been corrected. There's only one difference left between your structure and the structures in the books: the books show one bond of the lactone ring as a wedge going inside, whereas in your structure the lactone ring is shown to be flat. I don't know whether that makes a difference or not. AxelBoldt (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that does make a difference; this structure (the one in the books, showing one bond of the lactone as a wedge) is not compliant with IUPAC rules—and is probably inaccurate. See page 300 ofarticle for a 3D model of the crystal structure of artemisinin, showing its absolute configuration: the D ring is flat. (If we wanted to be fully compliant with IUPAC rules for representation of stereochemistry, the methyl group adjacent to the peroxide bridge should not be shown as a wedge either. See this articlefor the most accurate structural formulae of artemisinin I have found so far.)Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

re Alprazolam
Thank you for looking at it. I am convinced, that almost every psychoactive article is full of misrepresentations of the kind of old friend. I am under the impression that almost every controversial topic on WP, like any abusable pills, is falling apart under the pressure of 1. zealots, e.g. anti addiction etc. 2. vandals for the fun of sabotage 3. idiots and dumb kids e.g. look mommy I'm high I snorted powderized pills from Grannies medicine cabinet and inserted them rectally. The same is the case with other controversial subjects like middle east politics. WP as a model experiment of gras roots amateur science shows a tendency towards political distortion. I believe no amount of policing can help that. Can you proofread Alprazolam against refs? I am only doing it as a mental broadband exercise, as long as I have no work. At least WP offers an opportunity to talk to intelligent people. Maybe it helps me to keep my mind flexible. 70.137.154.88 (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at Alprazolam. This has been disrupted by 67.x.x and others and is now locked. The admin seems not to understand, 70.137.134.251 (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Alprazolam now in dispute resolution at here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

could you take a look and maybe contribute? 70.137.159.49 (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

temazepam misrepresented refs
69.165.139.174 is misrepresenting refs there. Please take a look. I think this has been reverted 100 times. 70.137.158.132 (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

benzodiazepine overdose
In Benzodiazepine overdose 69.165.139.174 has replaced "nitrazepam and flunitrazepam" from the ref by "temazepam", and "benzodiazepines" by "temazepam". Ref says no word about temazepam. This is insidious vandalism. Please proofread the statements against references in his changes. It was exactly cited to the reference before, he has done exactly the same before. It was reason for a deep revert. 70.137.158.132 (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

temazepam
A good deal of the material, misrepresented refs, KGB has been reinserted in a bulk edit without discussion. I give up. 70.137.128.154 (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly our old friend. Long-term protection might not be a bad idea, but it would keep productive edits (including yours) from coming through. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Still found this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temazepam&action=historysubmit&diff=446793168&oldid=446345021

and same in Convention on psychotropic substances. Wiki is infested with disinformation by this guy and others. 70.137.141.220 (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Production of oil shale.svg
Hi, Fvasconcellos. In 2008, you assisted by converting the diagram of the oil shale productioninto svg format and loading it to commons. I has been contacted by the oil shale expert Alan Burnham (occasionally editing in the English Wikipedia as User:Akburnham) who has updated this diagram by adding data for 2000-2010. Unfortunately, this is not in the svg format and I myself don't have any knowledge how to convert this file and upload into Commons; therefore, I kindly ask your assistance. May I send this file to you (e.g. by e-mail) or maybe you could recommend somebody else who may help with this matter? Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Feel free to upload the updated diagram to Commons and I'll just convert it to SVG (that would be best, to leave a "trail" of attribution). Otherwise, feel free to email me (through Special:EmailUser/Fvasconcellos). Best wishes,Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I uploaded the file as File:Production of oil shale.png. I also updated the copyright information to emphasis the fact that the file was updated by Alan Burnham. I hope the provided information is sufficient. In his he e-mail he stated: "It is not copyrighted—I made it specifically for wide use.", so I hope I marked the copyright information correctly.Beagel (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll have a look and create an SVG version as soon as I can. Best,Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

commons talkpage
Would you prefer messages here on en.wp talk regarding commons concerns or on your commons talkpage? Seems like you're more active here, not sure if you like keeping topics localized. DMacks (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there. I do like to keep topics localized, although I was away from Commons for quite a while. To avoid any misses, I've set my preferences to notify me by email if any messages pop up on my Talk page over there, so feel free to post wherever you feel is best :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nimetazepam
Have done a cleanup of misrepresented refs, please take a look, help protect brutal edit from reversion. 70.137.144.56 (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thegoodson
is back and changed convention of psychotropic substances and temazepam to bullshit. 70.137.131.90 (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

VeronicaPR
is back. Himmler, Heydrich, Nazi, Taipan, Temazepam. Now name= Sebastian80 or Bastian. See edits benzodiazepine misuse and benzodiazepine overdose continues where goodson/blocked left off. See talk:Sebastian80 70.137.158.141 (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A new medical resource
Please note that there is a new freely accessible medical resource, MedMerits (to which I'm a medical advisor) on neurologic disorders. I sympathize with your being swamped with work. Check it out when you're back. Presto54 (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If possible
Hello, Fvasconcellos. You helped me quite a lot before when I made Pedro II of Brazil a FAC. Since you're Brazilian and can write in English well enough I thought you could help once more. If you're interested, could you take a look at Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias and help me improve the article's prose? It is now a FAC. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas...
and great holidays. Enjoy those free days :) Best regards, --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)