User talk:Edgar181/Archive19

• Please add new topics to the bottom of the page. You can use the "new section" button above to start a new topic.
• In general, I will respond here to comments, rather than on your talk page, so that the conversation isn't scattered.

---

Archives 2005-2018 2019  • Jan 2019 - Apr 2019  • May 2019 - Aug 2019  • Sep 2019 - Oct 2019

Block request

Hello. This is not related to the Indonesian vandal, but can you block 68.39.208.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? This vandal's MO is putting ridiculous Dragon Ball and weapon-based info on Sanrio-related articles. He comes in sporadically, but seems to have done so long-term since last April. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the IP address. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Protected page

Ed, Yesterday (August 1st) at 12:36 you protected the page Trevor Hemmings, there is a profanity on line 1 in the brackets. As you protected the page I am unable to edit the page to remove this profanity, could you please oblige.Paul1909 (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like User:Topher385 has already removed it. If you encounter this type of problem again, you can place the template {{Edit semi-protected}} on the talk page of the article and explain the problem, and someone should help out more quickly. Thanks for helping to spot the vandalism. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Judas12345 Block

Although I understand why you blocked the user based on WP:BLP however the user made three edits, was warned for all three, and stopped editing at that time. Your block (coming as it did ~9 hours later) seems punitive rather then preventative. I'm not saying that Judas would have come back today and decided to actually constructively contribute... but it's possible. Crazynas ^t 22:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should have any tolerance for individuals who are only here to attack people. It is not unusual for administrators to block such editors on sight, and that's what I regularly do. It's not punitive, but rather prudent action to prevent further violations of Wikipedia's BLP policy. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose, and this really has nothing to do with you specifically but, I'm trying to figure out in my own mind where BLP and not biting meet, and where the happy medium is. I wonder what the false positive rate is on blocking users that made apparently unconstructive edits but would have returned to the project as a positive contributors. Although it was a different time, my own start to Wikipedia was a bit rocky and if I had been labeled I might not have stayed around. (Note that this isn't, at this point a request to unblock the user or commenting on anything specific on that block, but an attempt to clarify/understand and put my two cents in).
Crazynas ^t 18:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a lawyer, I would note that BITE is a behavior guideline while BLP is a policy. BLP is in fact one of the policies that the Wikimedia Foundation takes most seriously. See for example Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. Therefore whenever BITE and BLP are at odds, BLP should take precedence. From a purely ethical standpoint, I believe that because Wikipedia has such a prominent online role and consequently has the power to do real harm to individuals when negative material is present, Wikipedia has an obligation to minimize that potential harm. Being firm (even bitey) in dealing with individuals who violate our BLP policy is entirely consistent with that view. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Trump vandalism

Hi, I found your id associated w/ the recent deletion log for Donald Trump; I assume you were an involved Admin who dealt w/ recent vandalism?

I have a related question, perhaps you can help me... Several months ago Bearian took off protection level from Trump (out of spite no doubt – he's a liberal who detests Trump, which isn't a personal attack I'm sure he would agree if it is not plain to see. Since then there have been hundreds of IP valdalisms to the article. And not even one valid contribution (if I'm off, then it's not by much, maybe only one edit was not reverted due to vandalism).

Bearian's action to de-protect was after failed attempt to have the article deleted, calling it "hopeless mess". His request was rejected ala SNOWBALL. His justification to de-protect was stated as allowing more input to clean up the article by attracting "more objective" editors.

I hope my question is obvious. Since nothing positive was achieve by his act to de-protect, and there isn't any reasonable expectation for something positive (if history is any gauge at all), then why hasn't his act be reversed by a conscientious Admin?

A separate issue (but one I'm not asking you), is why isn't Bearian's act seen as vandalism itself? (I think there is every reason to conclude that it was done out of spite. For example, he doesn't bother to doubt his decision based on the results, and revert the de-protect himself.)

I would like to get some understanding of this, right now it makes no reasonable sense to me. Can you help me? Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are being too harsh on Bearian and making unfounded accusations. I would encourage you to read the guideline at Wikipedia:Assume good faith and tone down your accusative attitude. The article had been semi-protected for three years, and was apparently forgotten about by User:Acalamari who had protected it (see User_talk:Acalamari#Change_protection_level_for_.22Donald_Trump.22). That's a very long time for an article to be protected and articles tend to stagnate somewhat when they are protected like that. I think it was perfectly reasonable for Bearian to remove the protection at that time to allow more potentional improvements to the article. Having said that, and looking back at the article's history, it seems to me that edits from anonymous and unconfirmed editors have been almost universally unconstructive and commonly in violation of our BLP policy when the article has been unprotected. Therefore, I agree with you that it would be a good idea to reinstate the semi-protection, so I have now done so. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me understand the protection history, and for action taken! Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Why you deleted a page

Hi There, my name is Zina Nelku and I'm trying to create a bio page for a notable professor, scientist, doctor and researcher Dr. Abdallah Daar. His bio is also on the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health and he has received numerous awards and recognition in the Global Health field: http://www.mrcglobal.org/abdallah_daar

I'm open to suggestions on how I can improve this bio so that it can be published on Wiki, as I think it would be a valuable bio to have on your website. Would referencing his CV help?

This is the page that was deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdallah_daar&action=purge

Many thanks, Zina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.199.114 (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I deleted Abdallah_daar because it was taken word-for-word from a copyrighted website. Wikipedia simply cannot accept such material (see WP:COPYVIO). If you think that Abdallah Daar meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:BIO), please feel free to recreate the article using text written in your own words. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

additional question

I work with Dr. Daar and so I could remove the (c) off the bottom of the website, would that help? Or is there a disclaimer we could add to his page to give wikipedia permission to use content on this page? I really don't want to re-write it, because it's accurate and perfectly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.199.114 (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Try having a look at this page: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The section titled "Granting us permission to copy material already online" seems to answer your question. I hope this helps. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

u deleted kalika mandir named page

hello chemist do not again delete that page

Articles with no meaningful content are detrimental to Wikipedia and routinely deleted under speedy deletion criteria (see WP:CSD#A3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Thanks for responding so helpfully to my request for your help with recent vandalism to my homepage. It is really appreciated. Thank you again. Elland1 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Article: Jatindra Kumar Nayak

I started the article Jatindra Kumar Nayak. Even if I had given proof of notability, reference and ext. link User Eduemoni added the Speedy Deletion tag. You joined and deleted the tag for obvious reasons (Edgar181 (talk | contribs) (speedy deletion declined - cited translation/academic works are indications of notability).

Now after that I find another tag has been added for Speedy Deletion by RHaworth (Latest revision as of 19:58, 7 August 2011 (edit) (undo) RHaworth (talk | contribs)

What is the purpose of this latest Deletion tag?

Is there anything I can do to save the article.

The subject is of course notable, with Translation awards (two) at National level and a host of translated books to his credit.

Please guide.

Wikipedia requires that biographies of living people contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. The article has been tagged according to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. You simply need to supply a suitable reference within ten days; otherwise the article will be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Requests

Edgar181 - Thank you so much for rescuing the deletion request, by Alan Liefting. He has nominated 15 pages in the last 2 hours for deletion that I have contributed to and are on my watch list. I am looking for assistance in making the pages better, to rescue them. Geek2003 (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think I can help much. I don't know much of anything about these types of products, so I don't think I could do much to improve them. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion requests

Hi there, I saw that you speedy deleted File:Tuiflynordic.gif. I have replaced other logos in .SVG format that are still awaiting speedy deletion. Would you be able to delete these for me?

File:Jetairfly.png File:Corsairfly.png

Thank you Thesimsmania (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK,  Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Thesimsmania (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

caldachaeol user:bgabler

dear edgar, i uploaded a picture name: caldachaeol.png. I think this is clearer, and the configuration ist korrekt. I don't know, who to substitute the old against my picture. Mybe you can do it, if you agree with me. Thank you, regards 95.208.60.210 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC).

Can you please be more specific about what you think is wrong with File:Caldarchaeol.png? There is no file named File:caldachaeol.png for me to compare with. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Edgar, as you may be know, the C40-Caldarchaeol has a C2-Symmetry. Honestly I am to lazy to prove, all configurations of the carbon atoms in your picture according to the CIP-Rules. There are one up to four cyclopentane rings in the lipid. The number of cyclopentane rings depends on the temperature, the organism growing.

Publication: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.200250629/abstract If you will tell me your email address, I send you the paper from the link and my picture. Best Regard Bert Gabler bert.gabler@web.de Bgabler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

I have checked all the stereocenters in my image and they are correct. But I don't understand the point you are trying to make about other lipids. If other lipids have different chemical structures containing cyclopentane rings, what does that have to do with the image for caldarchaeol? (I like the modular approach to the syntheses in your paper - that's a good way of accessing multiple stereoisomers.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hello Edgar181! I hope you enjoy this yummy treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletions

A nice cold beer to wash down the brownie and say thanks for those userdels. If you are a against alcohol don't worry - pretend it is alcohol free :¬D Chaosdruid (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. (Especially in exchange for beer.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Camphorsulfonic acid

Hey Ed

Could you take a look at this article, see if the latest addition is appropriate, and perhaps rephrase it? Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The recent addition was too detailed, in my opinion, but not entirely inappropriate. I toned it down and generalized it a bit. Let me know what you think. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I think it's great. I didn't have the perspective to phrase it succinctly. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

James M. McCanney

First, I am appalled that you deleted James McCanney from Wiki. As an Administrator, your job is to remove offensive materials or inaccurate information. As an Organic Chemist what makes you an authority on Astrophysics or Plasma Physics, especially the Alternative Theories of Solar System Electrical Phenomena. I have a BSEE and firmly believe and agree with James McCanney in his theories on the Electrical nature of our Universe. Wikipedia is obligated as a free exchange of data and information on the Scientist and their theories, whether you agree with the Theory or not! Wiki and yourself, sir, should be deleted from the Internet. This is nothing more than Censorship of Alternative Theories of the formation of the Universe. As far as I am concerned you have lost your objectivity foremost and secondly, have conceded your ability to administrate anything with fairness.

M.Porch BSEE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.2.36 (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have serious misconceptions about both Wikipedia and role of administrators here. I think you will find these two pages helpful: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Administrators. I find your suggestion that I am involved in some kind of censorship to be just plain silly. The article James M. McCanney was most recently deleted as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James M. McCanney. If you wish to contest that result, you can follow the directions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I hope this helps, -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bioinformatics page: Evolutionary and Neural computing

Dear Edgar,

I had incorporated the the terms evolutionary computing and neural computing (and some other relevant edits) on the "Bioinformatics" page of Wikipedia. I would agree that some of my edits that you had either deleted or modified, are not popularly known, even by people who have made a career in this field. In my next edit I would probably move the less known facts to a new section in the bottom of the page under some kind of "Advanced topics" section.

But, neural and evolutionary computing are being continually and rapidly improved by the incorporation of the newly discovered facts of genetic and genomic evolution, and results from omics and system approaches to cognitive and neuroscience. Innumerable research papers are being published in computer science journals whihc either in part or in full develop new algorithms/methods by incorporating new research results from biology (molecular evoltuion and neuroscience).

So, I would be reintroducing the neural and evolutionary computing terms next to DNA computing. Do let me know if you dont think that this would be appropriate.

Unfortunately, wordlwide there is a lot of misconception about what bioinformatics actually is. This is primarily because those who are seniors in this field have only worked on an aspect or two of bioinformatics. Now, as a few people who have their entire education in bioinformatics are getting into the field, hopefully the general defintion and parameters of the field will be more accurately represented on world-forums.

Thank you for your attention. SM

- Shangaheen Madhyam, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.80.88 (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, the purpose of Wikipedia is to cover material that is notable. If something is new in a certain field and unknown, Wikipedia isn't the place for promoting it. Wikipedia should wait for it to become known and part of the field first. But that's not really why I reverted your edit. I was mainly concerned that the changes you were making the the article were non-constructive; for example, changing a link from data mining to two separate links to data and mining is not helpful at all and actually damages the value of linking. Furthermore, providing a links to non-specific targets, such as to the main page of Nature as a reference is completely useless - there is no relevant information at the targeted page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Edgar,

Yes, I agree with you on what you say regarding my edits on linking and providing non-specific references. Well, I had my reasons for that. But, now that you have said it, yes, I feel I can improve upon my edits. I agree, to some extent with your first point too, but not with respect to neural and evoltuionary computing. This is because, unlike some of the other fields e.g. pyschosocial computing and parallel and distributed amorphous computing, it is routine for computer scientists, for the last 10 years or more, to incorporate facts discovered in experimental neuroscience and molecular evolution, in the design of genetic algorithms and artififical neural networks. You need not take my word for it, you may wish to verify the authencity of this statement from any senior computer scientist. After reading your message I feel I should change "discover" to "improve and discover". Thank you very much for your suggestions.

-SM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.79.218 (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Cult Beauty

Hello, Edgar181 … You deleted Cult Beauty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it's back again, and another WP:CSD was removed by another WP:SPA (probably a WP:SOCK) … your intervention would be appreciated. Happy Editing! — 70.21.24.28 (talk · contribs) _{15:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)}

P.S. - Check What links here and it looks like three SPA/SOCKs have been working on it. :-) — 70.21.24.28 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)