User talk:Edgar181/Archive26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

creation of page "Vrishasen Dabholkar

hi my request for creation of a new article of Vrishasen Dabholkar was reject by you.

Vrishasen Dabholkar is a known Actor in India and works in regional Television and Films (Marathi language). you can check out information about him on google with search tag "Vrishasen Dabholkar". would like to know why it was deleted and how can i help creat it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.19.20.14 (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't reject a submission. I deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vrishasen Dabholkar because it was abandoned for over six months without ever being submitted for review (and therefore met criteria for deletion outlined at WP:CSD#G13). Since you are interested in the topic, I have now undeleted it so that you can continue to work on the submission. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

hi have submitted it for review now, is there anything else required to help it does not get rejected or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.19.20.14 (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better to include more references that support the article content and also help indicate how this actor is notable (does he meet criteria outlined at WP:BIO?) Also, it needs to be cleaned up - removing things like "Contents [hide]" which have obviously been blindly copy-pasted from elsewhere. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

hi, i have added citations and removed the unwanted text which as you rightly stated was copy pasted. will you pls check and inform if this would now get approved. thanks for your help and wish you a very happy new year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.19.20.14 (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this subject area, so I don't know if it should be approved or not. I'll leave that assessment to editors who contribute to the Articles for Creation process. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Zark84010

The user blanked his talk page after you left the block notice, which I've since reverted. Just a heads up in case he needs talk page access revoked too. --Drm310 (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

periodic table

Please look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Element infobox and comment if you wish. Petergans (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I don't have a preference on the question, though, so I don't think I'll comment. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hawking's page.

I am very new to contributing in wikipedia. I was going through Stephen Hawking's article and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gross_Witten_Hawking_TIFR_2001.jpg seemed a bit unnatural to me, like it was layered. I went to the talk page and it says that the talk page was deleted by you. And also that the file doesn't exist. I see it very much existing and in a very distinguished page. So... what did i miss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Adhikari (talk • contribs) 18:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The image is actually hosted on Wikimedia Commons, not here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia just automatically shows the Commons page for the image when you look at it here. That's why any attempt to edit the image page here on Wikipedia will be met with the response that the file doesn't exist. As for the talk page, I deleted it in a bit of housekeeping because it contained only content that was unrelated to the image itself (just a pointless attempt to communicate with Hawking). If you want to comment on the image, you can do so at the image's talk page on Commons: here. I hope this helps, -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for blocking the IP. Matty.007 19:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Synsepalum2013

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Synsepalum2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request of Ironlad99

Hello Edgar181. Ironlad99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, - Vianello (Talk) 13:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection if you would like to unblock. Seems like to a good case for a second chance. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Another block needed on User:71.40.58.98

Hi. Since you blocked 71.40.58.98 last May, can you please impose another, longer block on that IP? It's been persisting in vandalism and other non-constructive or disruptive edits after that block, and ignoring repeated warnings, the most recent of which was this edit. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I now have anon-blocked the range 71.40.58.0/24 which covers this IP address because it seems to be a source of persistent vandalism and other disruption. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once again: diimine

Edgar, thank you for once again helping with articles that I edited. I am referring to diimine. I corrected the double directs, I think. If there are other corrective actions that you recommend, let me know. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to help out. Everything looks to be in order to me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 03:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Fluridone

Dear Edgar181

please could you corrected the Fluridone page, the structure is not correct the two phenyl groups are close to the nitrogen and not the ketone (to the best of my knowledge).

Best regards

Pierre (Switzerland) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.87.3.33 (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you are right. I have left a note for the editor that uploaded that image (w:Commons:User talk:Yikrazuul). I expect that he should be able to correctly it promptly, and if not I will upload a replacement. Thanks for catching the error and letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Has been corrected ;)

Nicotinamide riboside

Hi Ed, was above wiki page deleted some time ago? Under commons I have an old image (here) indicating that my picture is linked to this site which is obviously not the case...BR, --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize the page existed before and that there was already a chemical structure image on Commons. It is strange that the Commons page for your image indicates that it is in use. I don't know why. If you prefer to have your image used in the article, I don't object to a switch. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed, maybe somehow commons is bugged. Impo is ok keeping your image in the article :) Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Big shift, advice sought

Hi Ed, I was thinking of combining [[organofluorine co--Smokefoot (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)mpound]] into organofluorine chemistry as I announced here. It does not appear to be controversial and should help the readership. The problem is that organofluorine compound is linked extensively. And linked indirectly via organofluoride and organofluorine. Must be about 50 links. So should I plan on manually going through these links and relabeling them? Its do-able, but the options are (1) tolerate double redirects and (2) find some way to automatically relabel these old labels. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow reply. I've been mostly offline for the past week. Combining organofluorine compound and organofluorine chemistry seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you change the target of a redirect, there is a bot that will automatically fix all the double redirects, so that shouldn't be a problem. I'll be glad to help out if there is any other kind of cleanup needed after the merge - just let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

shifting diarylide yellow into diarylide

Me again, I dont have time for the work on the organofluorine bit right now as I am occupied with the arylide articles. This all started because an article on this topic was AfD'd and then I realized that there is a lot in this theme. Since you have been contributing to diarylide yellow, I wanted to make sure that you were OK with my proposal to merge its content into Diarylide, which seems to be a more general name for the same thing.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The content of those two articles is nearly the same, so merging them is a good idea. At Talk:Diarylide yellow you suggested creating a separate article for Pigment Yellow 12 because of its industrial importance, and that sounds like a good idea to me too. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Well I was slightly hesitant because you made a number of edits on diarylide yellow, so I mess things up, dont be offended. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
When I made those edits, I wasn't aware that there were two articles. Please feel free to proceed as you see fit without worrying about my feelings. I'm not easily offended.  :) -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing user talk access

Just a heads up, you might need revoke talk page access for the user Helloimcoco. They removed their block notice [1] which I have since restored. --Drm310 (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It looks like they have gone away now, but I'll keep an eye on it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Confused by a message

Hi, Ed, I'm completely confused. I hopped onto Wikipedia to do some research on the Old English Rune Poem and I got a notice in the corner that I had a message. I clicked on and was directed to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.7.234.234&redirect=no (I just wanted to let you know that I have removed your addition to 2,4,6-Tribromoanisole because it was copied directly from a website that is marked at copyrighted. Wikipedia simply cannot accept such text. Please feel free to write something in your own words. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC))

I never posted anything or added anything to any page about Tribromoanisole (and don't honestly even know what it is). I'm terribly sorry that someone else caused an issue regarding copyright, but that someone most assuredly *wasn't* me.

74.7.234.234 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Helen Pattskyn

That message was left almost three years ago for someone who was using the IP address 74.7.234.234 back then, the same one that you are using now. Some IP addresses change periodically and some are shared by many users, so if you see a message unrelated to anything you have done on Wikipedia you can simply ignore it. You may wish to create an account to avoid future confusion with other IP users in the future. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

ChoiceMMed America Account

Hi! Couple of things... I noticed that you just username blocked ChoiceMMed America. Another account under the name Thinkpaul, posted the same images, earlier. I don't know if this is an SPI issue, and don't know how to engage if it is. Should I do something... ? Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I blocked ChoiceMMed America for a username issue. Signing up with a new username was permitted (encouraged, in fact). Re-posting of the apparently promotional images should be dealt with independently. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
k thanks. the promotional images were posted earlier, before the creation of the ChoiceMed account... like the user was struggling to figure out how to do it the "right way" (although in this case there isn't one) Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Toxicology

Interesting that you are a practicing medicinal chemist! I don't know if you have met User:Formerly 98, a newish user who is also a medicinal chemist. I pinged him so the two of you could meet. I was chatting with him on his Talk page here about trying to get an essay written on "sourcing and writing toxicology content in wikipedia", based on my bad experience with articles like Bisphenol A where worried lay people pile on primary sources that make inappropriate tox claims. I don't know if such a project would be of interest to you, as well... Anyway, hi. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Jytdog:. Hi @Formerly 98:. I've definitely seen my share of primary sources used make inappropriate tox claims. And, relatedly, primary sources being used to make inappropriate claims of health benefits. I'd be glad to help out a bit with an essay on sourcing toxicology content. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Guys: I apologize for my silence/lack of participation on this, which I fully support in spirit if not by contribution!. Very busy these days with a start-up idea I'm working on. But IMHO, one of the most important issues in science coverage at Wikipedia. Thanks for your efforts here. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thanks, both of you! Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-creating the Television Hall of Fame inductees category.

I noticed that you deleted the Television Hall of Fame inductees category, because it was empty. But, if it's alright with you, I wanted to re-start it, and I'll also make sure it's populated. Mr. Brain (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me. The deletion was just housekeeping. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Vandal user and IP dataset

I am a Ph.D. student in Computer Science at the University of Maryland, and I am working on vandalism detection on Wikipedia. A friend of mine who is an active editor suggested me to ask an Admin regarding the same. I was wondering if there is a list of registered users and IP addresses that have been blocked for vandalism. I am under the impression that there might be a list, that may be accessible to the Admins. If not, then is there any ad-hoc method that I could use to access or know whether a particular user is a vandal. Thanks. Srijankedia (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

There isn't anything that is available only to admins, and as far as I know there isn't any kind of comprehensive list. If there were, it would probably include hundreds of thousands of listings. For some information you can have a look at the categories Category:Blocked Wikipedia users and Category:Indefinitely blocked IP addresses (there are probably additional related categories too). But these don't include temporarily blocked IP addresses which are the most common type of block. Hope this helps, -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps a lot! Srijankedia (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I am a little confused. This link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlockList?wpTarget=Kgaopwns&limit=50 says that the user Kgaopwns is blocked since Dec 29, 2010, with reason "vaublock". But this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Vandalism-only_accounts&from=K does not show him as the same. Why is that? Srijankedia (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know. Any attempt to categorize blocked users is most likely haphazard and incomplete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I will search more. 128.8.120.3 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Future Diary

Hi Edgar181. Can you delete AustraliaExpert and Cantseeshit's edits to Future Diary, and block AustraliaExpert? Their edits are anything but constructive. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted the nonsense. A couple of other admins have handled the blocks and page protection. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Saw this on the block log

I have to concede that I've never seen a block time quite like [2] ... :) Deville (Talk) 15:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I entered 18 months as the block time. I don't know why sometimes it ends up in the log as something so specific like "1 year, 180 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes and 48 seconds". Shrug. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yasmian Al Sharshani

Edgar the new article I wrote about Yasmaian Al Sharshani was an original one from her CV please advise what needs to be done

I deleted Yasmian Al Sharshani and Yasmian Al - Sharshani because they both consisted only of text copy-and-pasted from another website. Using copyrighted material this way on Wikipedia is not permitted (see WP:COPYVIO for details). Based on the content of the article, the subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability so the article would likely be deleted anyway even if it were not a copyright violation. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

revdelete request

Hello Edgar181, Would you be willing to revelete version 598559306 of my user talk page? Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It's done now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Alpnrock

Ed, hope you don't mind, but given the blatantly promotional nature of the article posted by Alpnrock (talk · contribs) about themselves, I 'upgraded' the block to {{spamusername}}. I apologize for overriding your initial block decision, but I felt in this case a softerblock would not prevent further disruption from this user. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't mind. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Swatantra Sarode

Ed,hello.If you have deleted this page than this page should be completely deleted.Why when we type the subjects name on Google this article appears?It is like an insult to the subject that his page is deleted.My point is that it should be totally deleted and not appear when we search in Google or wikipedia.

Kindly suggest what should be done so as to completely delete the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.206.155 (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The page is completely deleted from Wikipedia. If you would like Wikipedia to show something different when you try to access a page that has been deleted, you will have to start a discussion to see if there is support for that suggestion (perhaps at Wikipedia:Village pump). As for what you see when you perform a Google search, neither Wikipedia nor I can control that. It is likely that eventually Google search results will not return any Wikipedia result, but it might take a few days. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Bill Chott

Why did you eliminate the page for Bill Chott? He has credits in 39 feature films and television programs, many of which have entries on Wikipedia that link from his name to a page saying you deleted an entry on him. Users can go to IMDB to find more information about him, but I don't see why you are making Wikipedia users take that step. There was already a page; unless the content was somehow inaccurate or libelous, your taking it down seems gratuitous.

204.145.132.2 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Ted

I'm not sure what you are seeing, but the article Bill Chott was deleted last year by the administrator User:Legoktm. If you have questions about that deletion, it is best to contact him instead. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Question

is it ok if i delete the messages from club 37 on the talk pages and replace them with the proper welcome message? Saturn star (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a good idea. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking the vandal Club 37. He has left that sarcastic welcome message on nearly a hundred new user talk pages - is there a way to revert all his edits? New users may get really confused by his sarcastic welcome messages and will be reluctant to contribute. Thanks again. BigCat82 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it is all cleaned up now. Some were deleted, some were replaced with legitimate welcome messages. Thanks for your help dealing with this vandal. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for getting rid of the talk page vandal and your restless restorations of nearly a hundred talk pages! BigCat82 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi, Edgar 181. I wanted to follow up on a disruptive editor who evaded a 3-day block you placed.[3] It turns out this editor has been involved in a 3-year campaign to add bogus biographical data to BLP articles. I've filed a case here, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention directly. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep the IP on my watch list. Let's wait and see what the SPI turns up. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 March 2014

Why doesn't an article about a man, Thomas H Keating, who is included in the 100 most important people in Automotive history, make it on Wiki? Carrboro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrboro (talk • contribs) 22:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the article Thomas H. Keating because it was essentially empty of content. It consisted of just an external link to another website and therefore met criteria for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD#A3 for details). If you think the subject of the article is notable, you are free to start an article about him (but it must contain some actual biographical content). -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Advice welcome

I moved imidazoline to 2-imidazoline with the intention to create a more general article on imidazolines that mentions all three isomers, the general article being sort of a diambiguation site. In any case, now that I made the move, I find that many, many articles link to imidazoline. I underestimated the significance of this ring to med chem world obviously. If you have any advice, please leave it hear. I could for example go into each of these links and change them to [[2-Imidazoline|imidazoline]]. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think changing the links as you have suggested is the best thing to do. There seems to be currently less than 50 links from articles to imidazoline. It might be a bit tedious, but it shouldn't take too long to do. I'll help out. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. It looks like you have done several. I will tend to these links over the next day or so but it seems that you have done some already. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks for helping me clear out WP:AIV. I was surprised no one had touched it in awhile and some of those IP's were making quite a few edits past their final warning. Mkdwtalk 16:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:151.227.80.29

Is blocking Talk Page edits also a possibility? Not that it really matters, I guess. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Indonesian vandal strikes again, big time.

Hello. Long time, no write. I have been inactive in Wikipedia lately due to my offline time. However, I've noted that for the past few months now, it seems that the IP-hopping Indonesian movie studio/anime vandal has been striking again at least for the past few months. I've only noticed his rampage just these past few weeks. Here are the IP addresses I've dug up so far.

It seems that for the past few weeks alone, it seems that he's operating on the 139.193.10x.x range. So does this warrant a block? He's becoming rampant again as far as I can see. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 19:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

A range block covering all the addresses you've listed would be too large, but I think the narrower range you have suggested is reasonable and would cover the IPs used recently. I have blocked several ranges (139.193.100.0/23, 139.193.102.0/23, and 139.193.104.0/23) which I think covers the appropriate span of IPs. If he returns with different IPs, please let me know and we'll see if there are additional range blocks that might be needed. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Polychlorinated byphenyls

You posted a note to me and kdelay13 about the editing war on the Polychlorinated Bipheynls page (to a lesser extent, the Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma page is also involved). I need some guidance as to what to do.

The edits I deleted (or undid) by kdelay13 concern matters that are the subject of a trial in progress. They were made shortly before the beginning of the trial. The edits were posted by one of the parties to that litigation. Notwithstanding the Court’s instruction to the jurors to refrain from researching issues in the case, the edits were deleted to ensure that the jurors decide the case solely on the evidence presented at trial. Both Wikipedia pages show up high on the first search pages of Google results.

What can we do to deal with this? If I once again undo the edits I will be blocked as an editor.

Glynn Young — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glynn Young (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page and started a discussion pertaining to this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Participants_in_litigation_edit_warring. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Follow up to the Polychlorinated byphenyls page

Following up as well on your note to my talk page. Regarding the comments made by Glynn Young to your talk page:

"The edits I deleted (or undid) by kdelay13 concern matters that are the subject of a trial in progress. They were made shortly before the beginning of the trial. The edits were posted by one of the parties to that litigation. Notwithstanding the Court’s instruction to the jurors to refrain from researching issues in the case, the edits were deleted to ensure that the jurors decide the case solely on the evidence presented at trial."

What he did not mention is Glynn Young is in the PR department for Monsanto, the other party to that litigation. He posted content over a year ago on at 15:22, 23 August 2013 version 569874145 on the [[Polychlorinated biphenyl] page] that is misleading and one sided. I understand you want to improve Wikipedia as a repository of knowledge. Again, the sections that I added at 15:36, 1 April 2014 Polychlorinated biphenyl version 602277736 is a far more thorough, comprehensive, and fair assessment of that scientific literature. All of the references are cited by scientific literature. The version you reverted to is not a fair assessment for PCBs. Yes I am one of the litigants, I do not want to get blocked or the page to get blocked. We need a fair and accurate page regarding PCBs. Will you please revert back to my addition ver 602277736?, if not please go back prior to those edits made by Glynn Young from 2013 referenced above. Thanks for your help. Please advise. Kdelay13 (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed that Glynn Young was also involved in the litigation. At this point I don't think it would be a good idea to revert back to a version from before August of last year because many other editors have reviewed the article and/or made changes since then. The best thing to do at this point is to make suggestions for improvement to the PCB article on the article's talk page. It would be best to be specific about the problems you see. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Not to keep belaboring the issue but when I posted the content at 15:36, 1 April 2014 Polychlorinated biphenyl version 602277736, that was the best non-biasd version based on scientific studies. The content that is up right now, particularly in the first paragraph of Polychlorinated biphenyl and in Polychlorinated_biphenyl#Cancer_link is just misleading. It has to change. Can I edit the article with my previous edits and you review? Thanks. Kdelay13 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it would be a good idea for you to edit the article yourself. It would be best if you made specific suggestions for changes to the article on the article's talk page, Talk:Polychlorinated biphenyl, instead. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Substantial portions of kdelay13's edits are excerpts of reports from paid litigation witnesses hired by lawyers suing Monsanto for money damages in PCB litigation. Glynn Young, April 17, 2014

As far as I can tell, it has been removed. This is why it is best that no one involved with the litigation edit the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice about conflict of interest and the non-Hodgkin lymphoma and polychlorinated biphenyls articles. I have looked over the relevant policies, and am seeking to work in an appropriate way. I do have some concerns that the current text in the articles is not neutral; I will make specific suggestions on the article talk pages shortly, for how to address that in a way I hope will be satisfactory to all involved. -Kdelay13 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To the attention of WhatamIdoing and edgar181 -- We have previously advised Edgar181 that the alleged association between PCBs and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma is a key issue in controversy in an ongoing jury trial. Kdelay13 recently made edits to various Wikipedia entries that have been excerpted verbatim from court submissions authored by a paid witness for the parties and their lawyers claiming a connection between PCBs and NHL. Kdelay13 has acknowledged his or her role as a party to this ongoing litigation, but has nevertheless continued to make and/or suggest edits that further his or her interests in this case, including edits that refer to Dr. Kramer and her paper. Dr. Kramer is also a paid witness hired by the same parties, including kdelay13, and Dr. Kramer has been paid over $1.3 million by plaintiffs in this case. Kdelay13’s attempt to manipulate the content of Wikipedia has persisted, despite Edgar181’s efforts to present neutral, balanced and fair entries. We remain concerned that, although the Court in the jury trial in progress has admonished jurors to refrain from conducting any research into the issues of the case, including on-line research, jurors or members of their families might conduct research on line. The recent edits or suggestions by Kdelay13 can only be viewed as a clear attempt to improperly influence sitting jurors. The Wikipedia entries should be restored to the neutral and balanced approach settled on by Edgar181. (Note: I’ve left this same comment on the page for polychlorinated biphenyls.) Glynn Young — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glynn Young (talk • — Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I should make it clear that I do not endorse the current version of either of those articles as "neutral, balanced and fair" in their current state. I have only removed some of the content which was the source of the original edit warring, but the article(s) contain information added by you (Glynn Young) last year which may or may not be problematic. While I am familiar with the topic in general, and have the background to understand the science involved, I have not done any of the research that would be need to judge the articles as "neutral, balanced and fair". -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The statement as written is simply not factually true. The reason it is not true is that the cited papers are not "studies" or "original research" but merely reviews or summary papers which discuss actual studies done by others. Nor do they establish "cause." The cited summary papers by Kramer and Freeman were paid for by plaintiffs' counsel for purposes of this pending litigation are the only writings on the subject that use the word "cause." Epidemiologists writing the results of their research are generally not medical doctors and therefore do not report the statistical results of their studies in terms of "cause"; rather they report their results as statistical "associations." A true statement would be that some epidemiology studies show an association between PCB exposure and NHL, and others do not show such an association.

I am posting this on the NHL talk page. Furthermore, this comment has been reproduced on the talk page of editor [WhatAmIDoing/Edgar181], both of whom have been involved in this discussion. User:Glynn Young — Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've replied at Talk:Non-Hodgkin lymphoma#New language for the Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, I've asked the WPMED folks to have a go at removing primary sources from that section of the PCB article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but when you say "The statement as written is simply not factually true" I can't figure out which statement you are referring to. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I assume that User:Glynn Young is complaining that Non-Hodgkin lymphoma#Causes includes PCBs in the list of "possible causes and associations with at least some forms of NHL". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That's makes sense. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Your feedback regarding adding information to "Vanillin", "Vanilla" and "Flavor" wiki articles

Hello, I would appreciate your feedback about adding information about biosynthetic companies who produce vanillin and vanilla on their respective pages. Do you think it would be helpful/appropriate to include chemical structure of biosynthetic vanilla? Similarly, I am looking to add producers/companies of biosynthetic flavorings under "Flavor Creation" and possibly "Determination". I would appreciate any insight on how to do this. Thank you. Presto808 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to add information about how vanilla and vanillin flavors are produced. Just be sure base to the information on reliable sources and be careful when dealing with commercial producers to avoid anything that sounds too promotional. -- Ed (Edgar181)

Ok, thank you so much. Would appreciate any assistance on future edits on those pages. Presto808 (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

ThePartnershipAtlanta

Hi. You blocked User:ThePartnershipAtlanta indefinitely. Can User:ThePartnershipAtlanta/sandbox be deleted? Thanks. 49.230.83.117 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect this may be related: User:Alan 1983 / User:Alan 1983/sandbox - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alan_1983/sandbox&oldid=604482094. 49.230.83.117 (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, probably, but I don't think there needs to be anything done about that one. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Just curious - why was User:ThePartnershipAtlanta blocked? 49.230.83.117 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It was a username issue. Usernames that match the name of an organization being promoted are not permitted. It was a "soft block" encouraging the user to create a new account with a different username. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Understood. Many thanks! 49.230.137.47 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your last revision of the Template:Insecticides

Hi Edgar181,
I noticed you did a revision of the said template a few days ago, adding the sub-category Ryanoids and alphabetical ordering, as you put it. This however led to some factual errors within the template. For example, as of now:

  • Carbamates and Inorganics are OK;
  • Insect growth regulators do list the Organochlorides (Aldrin, Dieldrin, DDT etc.) — this category does contain some haloorganics, such as the benzoylureas (Diflubenzuron, Teflubenzuron etc.), however it contains also halogen free compounds, such as Fenoxycarb, Pyriproxyfen, Hydroprene etc. The Organochlorides are distinctive, besides containing chlorine or other halogens, in their primary neurotoxic action (viz axonal Na+-channel activity of DDT and Methoxychlor, or GABA-ergic/Glutamergic action of Aldrin, Endrin, ɣ-HCH etc.)
  • Neonicotinoids do list Organophosphates as of now.
  • Organochlorides do list Pyrethroids as of now; many synthetic pyrethroids do contain halogens (Permethrin, Cypermethrin, Deltamethrin, Fenvalerate etc.), however there are halogen-free pyrethroids (natural Pyrethrins, Allethrin, Prallethrin, Etofenprox, to list a few) and again, the distinctive feature common to all pyrethroids is their neurotoxic mode of action on the axonal sodium ion channel.
  • Organophosphates do list the Neonicotinoids.
  • Pyrethroids do list growth regulators (such as the benzoyl urea derivatives, juvenoids etc.)
  • Ryanoids looks fine
  • Other chemicals, well, could be extended/regrouped (Paraoxon f.e., besides being a Parathion metabolite is an organophosphate insecticide on its own, albeit not practicaly used as such due to high toxicity) but as of now, no big problem,
  • Metabolites: could be renamed to "Biologicals", "Biologic agents" or something along these lines, since many of the agents listed are applied as vegetative, pathogenic microorganisms, infecting the insects as they forage on a crop or the like. Besides, insecticides like the Avermectins, Spinosyns or Milbemycins could be described as metabolites, for they are biosynthetized by fermentation.

I could probably try to re-fix the template, but since you were working on it recently quite a bit and I myself am not that familiar with Wiki, I thought it might be better to bring the issue to your attention.... Cheers and thanks for your contributions! --134.3.105.168 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. You're right. I messed up the syntax causing the lists to be mismatched with the headings. I think it is repaired now. (Can you please double check me?) Thanks for catching the error and letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Seahorse

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Seahorse. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

68.45.208.157

Why did you remove my WP:RVAN entry for 68.45.208.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as "declined or stale" and no further explanation? I reported them after they ignored a level 2 warning from Katieh5584 (talk · contribs) and was declined due to "insufficient warning", so I gave them a level 3 warning which they also ignored. They have made 30 disruptive edits to Volkswagen Golf in the past two weeks, half of them in the last 48 hours, and a similar number of equally disruptive edits to other automobile-related pages. DES (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a situation in which I would normally give a block. I must have misread the date and thought they had stopped editing for longer. I have now blocked the IP. Sorry for any confusion I caused. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Now I just have to find the time to review (and most likely revert) all their other edits :-( DES (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

192.107.141.32

I declined because there's only been one edit in the past eight weeks, and no level 3 or level 4 warning since October 2013. Enigmamsg 16:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If I had seen your comment, I would have left it at that, but I had already blocked the IP just moments before your comment. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my error on Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. I should have read the paragraph that was blanked carefully because obviously it should have been blanked. It's a reminder that every section blanking tag does not indicate vandalism - although the large majority of such tags do. Your edit caused the right result to be reached, albeit several hours later than it should have been but for my mistake. Donner60 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I'm glad to help out. It's an easy mistake to make and one I have made myself. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

fluoromethane

I reverted your erroneous boiling point on this page. Jcwf (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the typo (K vs C), but you also reverted a bunch of useful changes. I restored my changes and tweaked the data based on a reference I added. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


Disambiguation of Quasi-crystals term. Original definition coined in 1978 by Prof. V. Krongauz

Platanium (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

Re. your re-directing and eliminating a completely Separate definition of the term Quasi-crystals. It is earlier and completely unrelated use of the term. It is neither sub-type of quasi periodic quasicrystal nor a more general - it is the Original, INdependent, UNrelated and standalone Earlier dicovery. Thus should be a completely separate and UNrelated Wikipedia article.

The reasons are simple and significant:

1) Originality: V. Krongauz's discovery in 1978 was significant and completely original, as evidenced by being in one of the most prestigious and elite scientific journals - Nature (and in numerous other scientific publications in following years, as well as more articles published in Nature). Moreover it was considered so original and beautiful that its picture was chosen as the Cover image of 'Nature' in one of the following issues.

2) Complete Separateness of the Meaning: The scientific definition and meaning of Quasi-crystals by Prof. Krongauz (as first coined and Published by him in 1978) is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to quasiperiodic crystals and tilings-like systems that were observed by Shechtman in 1982.

2. Original Quasi-crystals are Special Phase of Matter: These Quasi-crystals termed in 1978 are part-crystalline-part-liquid-part-fibers (as is shown in the illustration from the 'Nature' article in our Wiki-article. These quasi-crystals are special organic phase, externally shaped as droplets , and posessing internal crystalline core. They have many properties and variations discovered and published later on. NONE of their properties has anything to do with quasiperiodicity or mathematical phenomena of Shechtman et al. Their name Quasi-crystals describes this amorphous-crystalline phase and they have nothing to do with quasiperiodicity.

2.B Dynamical Photochemical formation: The Quasi-crystals are photochemically created - i.e. UV light here causes transition to a new aggregation state of matter. This is very peculiar and distinctive effect of quasi-crystals discovered by Prof. V. Krongauz. This photochemical DYNAMICAL creation is distinctive photochemical dynamics of original Quasi-crystals discovered by Krongauz and is absolutely independent and completely UNRELATED to semi-periodic crystaline systems of Shechtman et al.

3) First Publication and use of Term : As pointed out above, and as you may have noted in the original pre-erasure article you have erased, Krongauz' discovery and PUBLISHED COINING of the terminology of original Quasi-crystals PRE-DATES Shechtman's 1984 use of the term by 6 years. Thus it stands on its own and FIRST-CREATED term - and bears completely different meaning and information !

4) Record of Scientific knowledge and Dicovery: Science is accumulated human knowledge - and Wikipedia principles and goals are to spread and popularize knowlege , make knowledge accessible, especially Scientific one. The mesoscopic physical Phenomena and Light-induced special phase transition that were discovered, described and published by Krongauz in 1978 and in numerous later articles and studies are such Independent discoveries and phenomena in photochemitry and mesoscopic phases.

Suggestion: There should be created a disambiguation of this significant, distinct and unrelated terminology in Wikipedia. Disambiguation should appear in the existing 'Quasicrystal' article. Similar and mutual disambiguation will appear in the 'Quasi-crystals' article as well.

Sincerely, Platanium Platanium (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Platanium — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platanium (talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Platanium (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Platanium

OK. I didn't realize that there were two distinct topics with the same name. If they are both notable, then they both should have an article. A template such as {{distinguish}} can be placed at the top of each to direct the reader to the correct topic. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Garvey

Hello, Edgar. You may wish to look through the recent edits on Marcus Garvey, as I believe that several may need to be hidden. It seems that it was blitzed by a bunch of vandals. I know for instance that the edits by Special:Contributions/GeorgiaPeach1926 constitute a violation as grossly degrading.Hoops gza (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've hidden the problematic edits. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 12:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Laratadelaciudad

Can you block him? I think he's the one Special:Contributions/Andrewbf. 183.171.179.12 (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours because of the disruptive editing. If this editor is a sock of an indefinitely blocked user, then an indefinite block length would be more appropriate; however, I think it would be best if you filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations to get confirmation first. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edgar181/Archive26&oldid=1142983493"