User talk:Fvasconcellos/Archive 18
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
RE: Missing IUPAC names
Hello. The next time you edit a new pharmacology article created by me, you should also include its corresponding IUPAC name. The IUPAC names are described here as follows:
- camostat - [4-[2-(2-dimethylamino-2-oxoethoxy)-2-oxoethyl]phenyl] 4-(diaminomethylideneamino)benzoate
- arotinolol - 5-[2-[3-(tert-butylamino)-2-hydroxypropyl]sulfanyl-1,3-thiazol-4-yl]thiophene-2-carboxamide
You should further edit these articles to include their IUPAC names. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I did add the IUPAC name to arotinolol :) And that IUPAC name doesn't correspond to the structure of camostat, but to a tautomer. I'll try to track down an accurate name for it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for July 2008
 Issue 16 - July 2008 | |
|
Arbocalaviv, Samushi101, Carbonrodney, Red157, and dmodlin71 joined the alternative music fold during July.
|
SoxBot II (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Strange, Piperidine
After being reverted by Dr Carebear several times, the article is now locked. The there present Admins treat everybody like an imbecile and do not respond to discussion. wtf? Not everybody is a Dr Carebear. Are these Adminazis? Or are they proud that they can read and write and don't talk to ordinary people any more? I think I had that before in my discussions with Goodson. Is this a WP-disease? 70.137.164.136 (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Most Wikipedians, myself included, don't really think highly of editors whose first impression includes sarcasm and a somewhat confrontational attitude :) Give it time, and a productive outcome will ensue. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry man, after being reverted 20 times in a row without discussion or comment by Carebear, and then additionally by well meaning Admin(azi)s, I plain wigged out, see here.
Much the same as with Goodson. Thank you for your kind understanding of the situation and your support in many difficult edits. 70.137.164.136 (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Just found the last occurences of "anticholinergic blocking" linking to "acetylcholinesterase inhibitor" by Carebear. Also numerous redirects in the framework of neuroleptic bugspray theories. fixed. But too much is too much. See link above. 70.137.164.136 (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
A few more weeks of this, and I need an institutional size package of these pills myself. I have noticed that the Wikipedia is being copied proudly by pharmaceutical information pages for patients to inform about drugs. Same for "ask.com", to name examples. This is going to be fun. I will immediately buy some neuroleptic pills and dissolve them to spray my potted plants against spider mites. I just will explain this purpose to my doctor, and he will insist to prescribe a supersized package, essentially a trash bag full pills, I am sure. Or he will push the red mushroom button on the desk, and two huge orderlies will come in and take me away, haaaa, haaaa! 70.137.164.136 (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Alkaloids
Removed Isopapa-dimethoxy-aniline. (You reinserted it, after somebody else removed it) This is a hoax. Careful: A google search delivers it in a scientific call for contributions, together with disinformation listing morphine, codeine, thebaine as isoquinoline alkaloids. (They are not, they are phenanthrene alkaloids) They also list Chenopodium alkaloids as opium alkaloids, etc. They have copied this from Wikipedia!!! So damn not cite them, or we have the circular citations bullshit I have always warned of. Have corrected it. Needs more work. Take a look. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Colchicine has been removed from alkaloids, because it is an amide. I propose to reinsert it, piperine and capsaicine are amides too, and if we don't have them there they are orphaned. Also the "modern" classification by metabolic pathway is better left out, because it is completely unintuitive. Phenanthrene alkaloids do not belong into isoquinolines, as they don't even have a remnant of the isoquinoline structure etc. If we have isoquinolines, not even looking like one, we have overdone it. (Maybe it still makes sense to a few plant metabolism specialists) 70.137.149.127 (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
But if colchicine is erroneously there, because it is an amide, then piperine is also erroneously there. I think we should not be too strict. Most of the literature about alkaloids (outside molecular biology plant metabolism experts) is dated. If we list one too much by not being too anal, we have it practically still where a reader of e.g. pharmacological or medical literature can find it. Even if his book is not from 2007, but before the reformation. If we want to rewrite everything of the past 150 years, ok. Thats the problem with creeping changes of nomenclature. (Reminds me a bit of the "Grammar reform" in Germany. Since then all Goethe, Schiller.... is all written wrong. The only true version is the "newspeak" as taught in school. It looks like written by an illiterate but is allegedly easier to learn. (for that reason)) You mean in 3-D the phenanthrenes look like isoquinolines? 70.137.149.127 (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the isoquinolies side by side with the morphinanes, that is a difference. The aminoalkyl bridge links to the wrong atom, or I am senile. Also the isoquinolines have a clearly visible ring joined to the aromatic ring and are planar. The morphinans take on a rolled leaf structure if I remember correctly, more cylindric, and are not easily planarized. That is why they fit in the receptor, the others are not opioids. So from a pharmacological standpoint the distinction makes sense. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Look here, isopapa! What do you say! (the first hit, the scientific call for papers)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=isopapa-dimethoxy-aniline&btnG=Google+Search
I have always waited for that! I will immediately cite it as much as possible in wikipedia! The end of wikipedia as we know it. In our village we have so much incest, that I am my own grandfather. This would be the analog in the world of citations. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Besides, some computer freaks have written a gibberish-generator, which writes seemingly scientific papers, with diagrams, in true academic language, like a thesis. Only it absolutely makes no sense, (computer science thesis, besides. I hoped they make a medical version too) The diagrams have "cache hit rate (lightyears)" vs. processing time (Joule)" etc. But it looks pretty genuine. They have even submitted such paper to a symposium, and got accepted after proof reading. Then one of them presented the material, and only after long silence somebody asked "I don't completely understand the concept, could you explain...." I will see if I find that. I have used it immediately to generate several scientific papers, with co-authors like "Francois Duvalier" etc. and sent them around to friends. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Planar means in this case even topologically planar. The morphinans are not. The others yes. You need to cut the alkylamino bridge to planarize. That is the distinguishing feature. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
No I am wrong, you can draw it on the outside around. But then it links to the wrong C atom still. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, for morphinans you can draw it on the outside along, but for morphine you can't, because it crosses the oxygen subring. So for some synthetic morphinans I am wrong (levorphanol), but for the natural ones I am right. Similarity, yes, but wrong C and pharmacological difference. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 70.137.149.127 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's why I (a) called it a resemblance and (b) did not object to your correcting the classification in the Alkaloid article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
What about the exclusion of colchicine for being an amide? Piperine is too. I would be in favor of including substances, even if they are amides only, for reasons of historical classification, practical reasons and close structural similarity with the amines. (So to say, if the amine is acetylated, who cares) And if piperine is in, then capsaicine belongs there too. Propose to put colchicine back in. Generally I propose to make classifications, which are historically compatible, and make the reader find things where he expects them. Also for the educational value for non-specialists. (No, not dumbing down) What is your opinion? 70.137.149.127 (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've always seen colchicine classified as an alkaloid; oddly, I'd never seen any mention of capsaicin as such, or forgot it if I had, so I went and did a little digging today. This made for a very interesting read—and it seems I've been hanging on to an antiquated definition of alkaloid (i.e. one requiring the nitrogen atom to be in a heterocycle or heterocyclic system). Nice to have old concepts shaken up every now and then. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No, heterocyclic can't be, because then the phenethylamines, Anhalonidine etc. wouldn't be in. It is more the nitrogen containing small molecules with the toxic, medicinal, physiological activities, developed by nature to the purpose of defense etc. and I propose much to follow historical and conservative principles. The concept is a practical one. And the book is very interesting. Maybe I'll buy it.
The download from the piperidine talk site is also interesting, look at my link posting there (the mad scientist site). "Henry, The plant alkaloids, 1949" earlier editions back to the 20s. Downloadable pdf of a 824 page book for free, public domain, copyright expired.
http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/books/the_plant_alkaloids.pdf
Also more lovely old books to download free. Look! Thats peoples education! A whole library for mad scientists.(Scanned by some university in India) http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/index
And a whole lot from Los Alamos press too. (very educational) Just look at sciencemadness.org
Besides, my first reading book on electronics was the "Elmore and Sands, Electronics, Los Alamos press, 1947". A whole book of Geiger counter and pulse circuits with electron tubes, including such as the "Phantastron" (no kidding) Plus the WW2 instruction books for German Army communication technicians. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link—very interesting. The "Library" link wasn't working, but I managed to find it within the website.
- By the way, have you thought about registering that account? (Doesn't hurt to ask...) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
registering what account? I don't understand. Mine? You mean to evade suspicions as an insane vandal neurotic senile anon stalker? 70.137.149.127 (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Or am I missing something? You mean I shall get a username? Or is something wrong with the link to sciencemadness which I posted here? Please explain. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed that. Yes, I meant get a username; won't evade suspicions of being "an insane vandal neurotic senile anon stalker", but at least you'd then be "a registered insane vandal neurotic senile anon stalker" ;) Still, you seem pretty adamant on remaining 70.137.xxx.xx—nothing wrong with that. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Look at the following site: (Digital library of India)
I did not yet find out how the "mad scientists" pulled pdf from there. But take a look.
Anon status: With the prevalent paranoia in the US you may understand that I want to avoid free "proctological exams" at the airport etc. for some maybe misconstrued contributions. I know that the anon status doesn't reliably protect against such free health services either. See here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/05/immigration_search/
Comment: It could have been worse. They could have lighted the fuse and stood well back... 70.137.149.127 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for answering kindly. I didn't dare to ask you directly, as it could maybe be misunderstood as another rude remark. Life as an immigrant is hell. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fvasconcellos. Can you please replace http://redpoll.pharmacy.ualberta.ca/drugbank/cgi-bin/getCard.cgi?CARD= by http://www.drugbank.ca/cgi-bin/show_drug.cgi?CARD= (as I made it in de-WP), because the site has a new URL? IMHO that makes sense even though the old one is redirected. Thanks. --Leyo 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Done :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. BTW: I changed your user rights on de-WP to “Editor”. --Leyo 16:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks! I guess I should learn German ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. BTW: I changed your user rights on de-WP to “Editor”. --Leyo 16:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Christopher Taylor (musician)
Is it worth keeping Christopher Taylor (musician) as a redirect rather than deleting it outright? It is not a likely search string. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Dibenzocycloheptenes
I ask myself why nortryptiline, amitryptiline are mentioned as dibenzocycloheptenes. In the structure they have no double bond in the ring. Their name is given as dihydro-cycloheptenes. Aren't this the cycloheptanes? Is this pidgin IUPAC? Besides, you forgot MK-801 and another one, see your ref. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- You know how it is—compounds are often grouped by structural similarity. Amitriptyline, nortriptyline, and protriptyline (the latter a "true" dibenzocycloheptene) are considered part of the "dibenzocycloheptene class". IUPAC would have them as "dibenzo[a,d][7]annulene" derivatives, and that doesn't quite roll off the tongue, does it? :) As for MK-801, I was just rearranging the images that were already in the article—I didn't add that MeSH ref. Remind me to redraw its structure if I don't get around to it soon.
See above for digital library of India and some antics. What do you think? 70.137.149.127 (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Very interesting (Digital Library of India, not the TSA antics). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Alzheimer's Disease
It has been a long time since we got the MS treatment article to FA. For almost a year I have been working in the Alzheimer's Disease articles and it is almost ready for FAC. We were thinking if somebody who had not worked directly in the article could take a look at it, say what he thinks about it and do some copy edit. It would be perfect if you could review the article. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Alzheimer presented his findings at a meeting of psychiatrists in Tübingen Germany on November 3, 1906. So Nov 3 would be another suitable date, but since we just got the FA level, this seems like a good time. --Chrispounds (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Canvassing
Thanks for correcting my error. I don't believe I am violating WP:CANVASS because the posts and feedback are not related to any current FAC nor would I solicit feedback for a FAC in this way in the future. It was merely a comment to frame the intent of my solicitation/spam, namely to garner specific feedback on what changes are necessary to make MIT not just a decent or good article, but potentially a featured article in the future. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Propranolol
Did two deletes there. Look like subtle vandalism, misrepresentation of ref. Please confirm. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems I have looked at the second ref twice or so, and missed the third one. Thank you. Good that I asked to confirm. Reverted. What about the wolf-etc syndrome? Rxlist FDA sheet says, it causes life threatening side effect, requiring a pacemaker. Didn't sound good. Same for the wiki entry of that syndrome. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Structure in Azorubine
Hello Fvasconcellos, I have a question regarding the structure of Azorubine. Your pic contains a hydroxyl-group at pos. 4 in contrast to that displayed in PubChem (4-oxo). I know that the one is the enol, the other the keton form (Keto-enol tautomerism), but which of the structures is more likely under normal conditiones?
Thx a lot and cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Survey request
Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.
Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!
The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.
Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Memantine-3d-sticks.png
A source for the image in the Alzheimer article has been asked in the FAC. I know you are not the author of the image, but could you find one? Best regards --Garrondo (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Medicine Featured Topic Task Force proposal
Hey Fvasconcellos, I've just set up a proposal for a new task force in the WikiProject Medicine called FTTF, or the Featured Topic Task Force. We aim to create a featured topic for medicine, most likely to do with an infectious disease of some form (the proposals so far include polio and bacterial infections in general) and become the first medical featured topic. The proposal can be found here and further discussion can be found at the bottom of the WikiProject Medicine talk page. I've very much appreciate your comments and possibly support of such a proposal, if you'd be willing to take part! —CyclonenimT@lk? 13:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you :) —CyclonenimT@lk? 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Rescinnamine.svg
Hi Fv, Do you think you could add stereochemistry to your image Image:Rescinnamine.svg? The stereo structure is on PubChem, if you need it for reference. Also, thank you for your support of my RfA on Commons. It is appreciated. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Poliomyelitis project
Hi Fvasconcellos, you're getting this message because you have expressed interest in developing poliomyelitis and related topics into a Wikipedia Featured Topic.
The project has gained enough support and so the project page has been set up here. Comments regarding the project should be left there, article comments themselves should still be left on the individual talk pages of the articles included in the project.
Thanks for your interest in the project! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 19:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi FV!!! Based on Sandy's comments here I had a quick run through Chagas disease. I thinks it is in much better shape now, although I doubt it would stand up too well at FAR... ack, I do what I can. I thought maybe you could take a quick peek too, since you probably know a bit more about this disease than I do for obvious reasons (and no, I'm not implying anything about your socioeconomic standing :P). --DO11.10 (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you!! And yes, I have even typed most of my thoughts up... got distracted though. I think I'll have time to finish it this afternoon/evening. Thanks again, and cheers!--DO11.10 (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Shoo.. I read a bunch of those this morning without making that connection, duh. Thanks> Hey can you see if you can find a citation for the "X number of states in Brazil" statement? I think it might be out of date, but I keep running into the "Great Portuguese Wall".--DO11.10 (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Fv, why don't we have the Spanish and Portuguese names, as they can be useful on search? For example, in Venezuela, it's called mal de Chagas (scholar.google yields 700 hits on "mal de chagas"). I think I fixed all the apostrophes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Apricitabine
|
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
| Thank you for my very first DYN nomination! Anyway, it is due to your message on WikiProject Pharmaology that I got aware of the deletion request for Apricitabine. And it isn't as if you didn't contribute to the article... ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC) |
Nothing to forgive
There is nothing to forgive. We all have our life and always I have asked you for help you have been there :-) Regarding the AD article... I am very proud since it has been almost a year working in it: very complicated article to get to FA due to its length.Best regards... --Garrondo (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for August 2008
|
Issue 17 - August 2008 | |
|
Corythepaperboy, Hiram111, Yozzer66, and Lugnuts joined the alternative music fold during August.
|
SoxBot II (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Phenyl cuprate is real
It is real. I'm sorry but it is. Search it on google. Nothing ABOUT it comes up, but it is real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syntheticalconnections (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Mecillinam
|
On 7 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mecillinam, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
9/08/08 DYK
|
|
On 8 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Apricitabine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Congratulations! -- RyRy (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just wrote an article on cardanol, which is obtained from anacardic acid. I used your figures as a template. However, I just noticed that this book has the structure of cardanol with two cis bonds, as opposed to the structure of anacardic acid with two trans bonds that you drew. Where did you get the structure of anacardic acid? Was it from PubChem? I think I'd trust the book over PubChem, but I haven't found any more authoritative sources. CAS gives no structure, presumably because it is a mixture. --Itub (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- It appears you're right. Yes, I did get the structure from PubChem; that was before I started checking my structures against PubChem and looking elsewhere for actual sources. Thanks for the heads up—I've fixed it now—and I'm glad the images were useful! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for redrawing the cardanol figure too! --Itub (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome :) I hope the orientation is OK. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for redrawing the cardanol figure too! --Itub (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there
Hi, I thought I'd let you know that I just reverted four moves you made back in June/July (Ioflupane (123I), Technetium (99mTc) pintumomab, Technetium (99mTc) nofetumomab merpentan, and Technetium (99mTc) fanolesomab).
According to WP:MEDMOS and the WikiProject Pharmacology Style guide, drug articles should always be named after the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) of the drug, and the INNs of radioactive drugs must always include the isotope number and element symbol (see page 10 of this document). I hope that's not a problem—I'm not picking on you, just making sure pages adhere to the Manual of Style :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- If the (123I) is truly part of the drug name and not just information about the drug as I had thought, then that's fine. Thanks for being nice about it :) —Remember the dot (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fv, Someone asked on my talk page if I could add the chemical structure to fusafungine. I have been unable to find the structure because Chemical Abstracts refers to it as having "unspecified" structure and it is not present in other public databases I've looked at such as PubChem. In one journal article I found, it is referred to as a mixture of cyclic peptides, but you added a specific molecular formula and molecular weight to the article in May of last year. So I'm wondering if you may know where to find the structure(s) or at least more information about it. Thanks, -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Chagas
I probably should, yes. That article and the other trypanosomatid diseases have been on my watchlist for ages, but somehow I've never done much about improving them. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for dealing with those pesky citation issues and all the other changes. I've been out of town for the last few days, or I would have helped out. Cheers--DO11.10 (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Anytime :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fvasconcellos. I don't get the reason why you included the structural formula of roxatidine acetate in the article. Is that the form used in drugs? --Leyo 21:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it is—see the prescribing information. I'd be happy to create one for roxatidine itself, though :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I think it would be a good idea to include the structural formula of roxatidine in the article as well (for non-chemist readers). --Leyo 00:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Here you go. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I added it to the article. --Leyo 11:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Here you go. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I think it would be a good idea to include the structural formula of roxatidine in the article as well (for non-chemist readers). --Leyo 00:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Adrenergic Agonists
Template:Adrenergic Agonists has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Alkaloids
Could you please take a look at Talk Alkaloid. I have an argument there with cacycle, who finds that I have very special ideas, what an alkaloid is. 70.137.143.23 (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll have a look. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You made a little mistake on the alkaloid talk. Actually you told me you have never seen *capsaicin* mentioned as an alkaloid, not piperine. For piperine the situation is historically clear
"Pictet, The vegetable alkaloids 1906" and "Henry, The plant alkaloids 1947" both count it as an alkaloid, it is weakly basic, more so then caffeine, it forms salts with strong mineral acids and "double salts" e.g. with platinum hydrochloride. (Pictet) I think it was just a typo of yours. Thanks for the help. We have now to work on the definition, to be not too anal. I hate it when I bring in 3 books and two articles, and people tell me these are all arbitrary and confused, and I am also confusing everything, like salt formation and hydrolysis. Where do they get their self confidence? Is there something wrong with me making them think I am an idiot? 70.137.143.23 (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a typo; I also forgot to include the page number for the quote I provided. I guess I've had too much on my mind lately. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)