User talk:Edgar181/Archive17

Please read before editing:

1. Please add new comments to the bottom of the page. You can use the "new section" button above to start a new topic.
2. In general, I will respond here to comments, rather than on your talk page, so that the conversation isn't scattered.
3. If you want to know why I blocked an IP address, you have to let me know what IP address you are referring to.
4. If you want to know why I deleted an article, you have to let me know what article you are referring to.

---

Archives

2005-2009  • Oct 2005 - May 2006  • Jun 2006 - Sep 2006  • Oct 2006 - Feb 2007  • Mar 2007 - May 2007  • Jun 2007 - Sep 2007  • Oct 2007 - Dec 2007  • Jan 2008 - Mar 2008  • Apr 2008 - Jun 2008  • Jul 2008 - Sep 2008  • Oct 2008 - Dec 2008  • Jan 2009 - Mar 2009  • Apr 2009 - Aug 2009  • Sep 2009 - Dec 2009  • Jan 2010 - Apr 2010  • May 2010 - Jul 2010

Halofuginone Absolute Stereochemistry

It has come to my attention over the last few weeks that the structure of Halofuginone, as drawn on Wikipedia, is incorrect. The CAS number and chemical name are correct (i.e. in the 2R,3S configuration) however, the structure as drawn is 2S,3R. Could you please fix this? Don't worry, the Merck index from years back has the incorrect chemical name! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.104.226 (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Chemical Abstracts listing for halofuginone, I see that the CA Index Name contains the (2R,3S) stereochemistry, but the image in the listing shows the (2S,3R) stereochemistry. So there definitely seems to be a mistake there, one way or another. In my edition of the Merck Index (11th edition), the image shows the (2S,3R) configuration (but the name does not specify stereochemistry). The image at CID 62891 from PubChem shows (3R) stereochemistry, but leaves the 2-position unspecified. So at this point, my image here at Wikipedia matches the structures given by Chemical Abstracts and Merck Index, but I can't say for sure that this accurate. Can you suggest a reference in the primary scientific literature that unambiguously assigns the stereochemistry? -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now switched the stereochemistry to your suggestion based on this reference: J. Org. Chem., 2010, 75 (2), pp 518–521. Thanks for calling this to my attention. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Wildchildberry

How can you call the block edit warring? It is clear unexplained removal of content with no explanation...ie vandalism. CTJF83 chat 22:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Either reason seems to apply. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well vandalism could result in indefinite block, since the user is not productive in their edits, also nothing was done with the IP, that my report said was making the same edits. CTJF83 chat 22:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not all the edits are vandalism, so indef blocking as a vandalism only account wouldn't be appropriate. Also, blocking the user puts a 24 hour "autoblock" on the IP, so both are taken care of. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, CTJF83 chat 23:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

IP address blocked

Hi.

I am an IP user, as they say, and I came on to wikipedia to look at a page. I was met by a 'you have messages' popup, and it said my IP address has been blocked for vandalism of a page on Dave Jones. I have never edited the page, or any page on Wikipedia. I am not particularly disappointed to be banned from editing, as I said I have never edited Wikipedia, and am not planning to in the future. However, I don't know why the IP was banned, was it mistaken identity or somebody else using the IP address?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.15.199 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Somebody using the same IP address as you are currently using vandalized a Wikipedia article. The IP address was consequently temporarily blocked from editing. Since IP addresses often change hands, you can simply ignore the messages on User talk:86.31.15.199 if it wasn't you. If you wish to avoid future confusion with other IP users, you may create an account and log in. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I was just making sure, I'm not very familiar with the system as I don't use Wikipedia very much. Thanks anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.15.199 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Muslimkhan313

Thank you for blocking him,indefinitely.It looks he will never try to vandalise pages.

_Contribs Muslim Editor ^Talk 07:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:99.155.53.32

Recommend fully blocking User talk:99.155.53.32 so it cannot edit its talkpage. Seems like it doesn't like you according to the last edit summary. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. For some reason Wikipedia vandals don't seem to like me. :) Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, there's this article called Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear which makes sense to this bear. Wonder what part of "Don't poke an admin" is not inherently understood on Wikipedia? ----moreno oso (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess if they had any sense, they'd have better things to do than vandalize Wikipedia anyway... -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, who you preaching to? Or are you saying I lack oxygen? Grrr! ----moreno oso (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:194.7.44.220

Thanks for blocking him. Apparently he's too stupid to know that even if he mimics other's signatures, we can still know by looking at the page history. TEK (talk • e-mail) 00:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you would like the attacks removed from your talk page history, please just let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You can do that now? Please! Thanks, TEK (talk • e-mail) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But those on my talk aren't the only ones. If you look at his "contributions", he also attacked Will Beback's talk. And possibly someone else's. TEK (talk • e-mail) 00:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but are they just hidden, or are they removed? TEK (talk • e-mail) 00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The edits to your talk page are deleted. They won't show up in the page's history anymore so no one can tell that they were there. Only administrators would be able to see them. The edits to the user's own talk page have been hidden using Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Placeholders for those edits show up in the page's history, but editor's can't see the content. The other edits from this user were to Will Beback's pages, and since he's an administrator he can take care of them himself if he wishes. Cheers, -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please revoke his talk page access, as he is now blanking the warning notices. TEK (talk • e-mail) 21:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, users are allowed to removed warning messages from their talk pages. Edit warring with them to restore the warnings just exacerbates the problem. In any case, since this editor seems intent on being disruptive, I have removed talk page access for the duration of the block. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What next? He's an IP, so unfortunately we can't permanently ban him. TEK (talk • e-mail) 22:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As with any IP address, if vandalism again occurs after the block expires, the IP address will be blocked for a longer duration. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Indian soap opera

Hello Edgar. I've added prod deletion tags to some articles about Indian TV Programs like Woh Rehne Waali Mehlon Ki and C.I.D. (TV series),which does not cite any reference and contains loads of original research,and they are very deformed articles,specially the first one.Fans of the series have repeatedly removed {{prod}} tags.I don't want an edit war,so please will you help me there? Coercorash^TalkContr. 05:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles do not meet criteria for either speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Proposed deletion is only for uncontroversial situations - if you add a prod tag, and someone else removes it, you should not re-add it. If you think the articles do not cite enough references or contain original research, in my opinion the best thing to do would be to make improvements to the articles to fix those problems, rather than to delete the articles. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Chemical structure of nisin, nisin.png

Hi, I'm doing some research on nisin and I was looking at the chemical structure you posted. I was especially interested in the stereochemistry of the Methyl-lanthionine bridges since I didn't noticed it in other publications.

Then I noticed that in my opinion the stereochemistry of al Ca's of the amino acids is inversed. They are mainly L-amino acids so S-configuration and for instance the first Isoleucine has R-configuration in the picture. Maybe you should have a look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punicajack (talk • contribs) 08:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to have gotten flipped somehow. I have now fixed it. Thanks for catching that and letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Jan Brewer

I am strongly against your edit block on the Jan Brewer page. Travis in travisland (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been a little while and the block is still in place. I am sorry if you are busy and havent had a chance to rethink this issue, but I would like to say again: Adding a block to this page will do no good at all Travis in travisland (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering the history of abuse that has taken place at that article, and in particular the recent highly offensive attacks including death threats, semi-protection of that page is necessary and supported under Wikipedia's Biographies of living people policy and the Protection policy. Registered editors such as yourself are unhindered from editing the article. Unregistered editors are still free to contribute at the talk page to discussions about improving the article. And contrary to what you suggest, the semi-protection has helped. There has been no further vandalism or attacks against the subject of the article since the semi-protection was instituted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There might, I emphasize might, have been a reduction in vandalism but there is also a reduction of useful contributions. Could you please bring up a verifiable source on the death threats on her person? I have only been able to find vague hints online. It would make a wonderful addition to the article. Travis in travisland (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism and threats I was referring to were made in the Wikipedia article. That's why the article was semi-protected. -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So people were actually threatening her via the article? Travis in travisland (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have to take your word for it. I cant seem to find it in the history.Travis in travisland (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Viva Pinata Species List Page Deletion Argument

I don't know what happened, but I strongly disagree with the deletion of the Species List of the game Viva Pinata that you commited. I don't know if there was graffitti and proffanity on the page but i don't agree with deleting it all together. If you could do anything like recreating the page, I would appreciate that. If there is anything that happened that made you decide to delete the page, please tell me why. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.243.199 (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know why I deleted an article, it really helps to let me know the title of the article you are referring to. If you are asking about List of Piñata species from Viva Piñata, the entire contents of the article were "this dum with a Sqauziil", so I deleted it because it obviously meets the speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#G1. According to the deletion log, an older version of the article was deleted by User:Closedmouth. If you have questions about that deletion, you can ask him. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for rollback rights

Hi Edgar181. I saw you were on the admin list to give rollback rights to users and wanted to ask if I could be granted them. I am currently doing a lot of counter-vandalism work with wikiguard but am finding twinkle's rollback feature quite slow, especially since my internet connection is not the fastest. Thanks for your time. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. Please just make sure you understand the situations where use of the tool is appropriate and where it is not. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollback Rights

Hello, I too noticed that you're willing to consider granting rollback rights, and I was wondering if you'd grant me them. I'd really like to get involved with fighting vandalism, as it is ubiquitous on this website. If it's not a problem, please respond on my talk page. Thanks, MR. PreZ 19:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The answer is yes, I have read Wikipedia:Rollback feature. No, I did not know that administrators remove remove rollback rights like this, as it is not stated anywhere that I've read about the latter. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is anything said about this in the article about the rollback feature, nor the first part of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Also, like I said, I wish to get involved in fighting vandalism. I am perfectly aware that I haven't done so too much in the past. MR. PreZ 20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have given you rollback access. (I didn't mean to imply anything about you, just wanted to be clear.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. MR. PreZ 23:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Broad use of G11

In light of your deletion of Harvest Technologies Pvt. Ltd., you might be interested in this discussion at the CSD talk page. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I do find that discussion interesting. However, I don't think the Harvest Technologies article I deleted was the type of article being discussed. To me, the promotional language used throughout the article clearly fit the deletion criteria of unambiguous advertisement. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Help?

Hello Edgar, can I ask for your help here? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks but you left out this and this. =P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about to post this reply, but got an edit conflict: I'll help out if I can. I have reverted some of the recent edits, removed from view some of the more disruptive edits in the IP talk page's history, and blocked the IP. Since I'm not familiar with this apparently ongoing problem, if this is not sufficient for now, please let me know if there is something else that might need to be done. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've gotten the other two edits now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks again Ed, this guy is a pain in the ass for me and PMD with his continued posting of that phone number of <removed> spread across a range of IP, which he has been at it for months already. What we are doing now is whack-a-mole... I really wish that there is more that can be done to stop his persistent patent nonsense/silly vandalism. Do you think it is too tall an order? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If this person is persistently posting the same thing, I would recommend requesting an edit filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested to catch and block each edit before it is saved. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm... Will it be too much to ask you to help make that request? *grin* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I'll need some information first. Have there been identical (or nearly so) edits at pages other than User talk:218.186.8.233 that contain the telephone number, etc., or was it just those edits that I deleted? If the offending edits are different each time, the edit filter won't help much. And if it's confined to just one page, it can probably be best handled by protecting that page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Basically, it has always been the same MO for this anon editor, it's always the same <removed> (note the way he spelt out 1 instead of i) and that same cellphone number which he would plaster over that IP range. Hope this help somewhat. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have filled out an edit filter request here: Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Personal_information_of_specific_individual. Please correct it and/or expand upon it as you see fit. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the conversation there, it seems like an edit filter won't be much help. So if the problem persists, please contact me or another admin to delete the edits. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Noted, so basically I'll keep you updated whenever the pesky bugger strikes again. Cheers. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

help needed removing a scammer

Hello Edgar181!

I am new to Wikipedia and in fact the only reason I signed up for an account now was because I got so terribly mad over the misinformation posted here by a user called Dolomin. I was doing some research about Omega-3 fatty acids and got very puzzled over a "special novelty" called E-EPA. I was left with the impression that this E-EPA is something very special and much better than EPA. So I googled it and it turned out that this E-EPA is a product of a company called Biovita. Now since this is a Finnish company I also stumbled upon a Finnish forum where I finally realized that this is all a very well orchestrated scheme to convince users such as myself that E-EPA is something very special with science to back it up. So I started to look up who created all of these entries to this page - the user is Dolomin. He has changed EPA to E-EPA (whereas in the original research only EPA was mentioned) and also made numerous additions to other wiki articles, all of which correspond with the products this Biovita company is selling.

Can you please help me with this thing? It just seems Dolomin is here to distribute misinformation and to help fool us into buying his or her special E-EPA and other products.

--Mmeir (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

PS

I now looked at the whole history of his existence here - turns out he's the one who started the whole E-EPA page by himself. --Mmeir (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also it seems that the Finnish wikipedians have kept him out of here. Most of his claims have been discredited. All in all I suggest you delete the enitre page of E-EPA as the only purpose it seems to carry was to promote his products that have no special benefit when compared to regular EPA. --Mmeir (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look at the article, but I don't see the same problems that you do. I don't see either direct advertising for Biovita or any "scamming". For the article to be deleted, it would have to be blatant advertising. Most of the article is well-referenced to studies published in the primary scientific literature. However, it seems that much of what is claimed in the article about E-EPA actually pertains to EPA, a different chemical compound. Also, the article relies quite a bit on research that may not translate to human health (such as preliminary animal studies). I have noticed that this is a common problem with many health-related Wikipedia articles. I'll see if I can find the time to take a closer look and see if the article can be trimmed down to some of the more significant research that directly relates to E-EPA. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thought ... if you feel this issue would benefit from a wider perspective, you could post a message on the talk page of one of the relevant WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, or maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request, problem

The unblock request of Nycapple123 you granted, but he was never successfully unblocked. Hes now requesting it again. I'm keeping a close watch on his articles. — raekyT 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look and reply there. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk

I believe that revocation of talk page privileges may be warranted here. WuhWuzDat 15:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Looks like User:Kuru has already taken care of it. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

IP 94.219.198.90

Do you really think his edits are content dispute?. Here is a list of his edits [1]. Apart from pushing ethnic-pov, the user is insulting users as well. Pashto language is spoken by around 27% of Balkh Province's population, but the ip removes Pashto from the list of main languages spoken in the province from the infobox while leaves Uzbeki language which is spoken by 10% of the population. it clearly indicates that the ip is anti- Pashto language and Pashtun people. All his edits clearly state that he is pushing ethnic-pov and bias against pashtun people. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

dear Edgar,

This Ketabtoon is well-known here by many wikipedians and writers. Specially when it´s about Iran-Afghanistan-Tajikistan related topics, he push his own POVs or deletes informations. Many writer know him as an uneducated Pashtun, because he do not respect reliable sources but uses whatever he gets to underline his own bias POVs. He is actually a sock-puppet of banned User:Alishah, Khampalak, Afghan4Real and others but he again come and come and push his ethnocentric and to a certain rascist POVs. Dear Admins, don´t get fooled by him. He uses possibly a IP-Program that provide him every hours with new IPs so he can come under different names. Just take an eye on him. He is a vandal account only. The rest of his claims are just pure BS and lies. He also asked me if I had vandalized the article about his Pashtun hero Sayaf. Of course, I didn´t.

Ps: His newest mode is to use own-made references from his own websites best regards--94.219.198.90 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest whatsoever in getting involved in this dispute. Both of you, please seek dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If there are issues of sockpuppetry, a report can be filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello dear Edgar,

I got it but I just want to give you just one proof more to understand who Ketabtoon is and why and how is is falsyfying/vandalizing articles and even uses own-made sources. Just read it a last time. Thank you brother.

The best proof is to see by yourself, dear Steve, how this boy Ketabtoon play with facts and falsify them for his own Pashtun ethnicity. Just take a look on the following click here. Please compare the two different versions with eachother and the number of the ethnical composition. Here is the original more and lesser authentic source the original source that he exchanged with with this and used the numbers of a language´s speakers not underlining that the population of Badghis are tri-lingual and speak, no matter to which ethnicity they belong, where they live either all three languages or forced, when they live among a dominant Pashtun group, to speak in Pashtu and thus are counted by the sources, as in the past of Afghanistan politics happened many times, as Pashtu-speaker and thus make 40% while their ethnical composition make only 28%. That´s how Ketabtoon fool people and vandalize articles. Nearly all his edited articles are falsified, just ask some Users like User:Tajik, Nepashgarsalar, Inuit18, Persian and some Pakistani User. They all will tell you this banned user ketabtoon who is als a sock falsify and vandalize everything--94.219.198.90 (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)