User talk:Plasmic Physics: Difference between revisions

Do you have a list of allowed sources? If so, please direct me there. N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)methyl amine is a definitely good synonym. JSR (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a list, the "list" was constructed through a dispersed debate. The list includes peer reviewed journals, the list of unallowed sources is actually larger and better established. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, where is the list of unallowed sources?JSR (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that either, I have to decide on a case by case basis. I'm given guidelines: no chemical vendors, and no depositor supplied synonyms. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of references to Sigma-Aldrich in Wikipedia. There are dozens of references to miscellaneous MSDS's by various vendors. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.JSR (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm refering specifically to the sourcing of chemical synonyms. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then have a good time. I'm a lot tired of this process.JSR (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least, it's not my fault or my rules. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chembox edits

Just a sequence of edits:

If you would have bothered, you would have seen that that is common knowledge (and probably does not even need a reference, anyone using common sense would not bother challenging that), or if you would have bothered, you would be able to find a reference yourself. And that goes for many of your edits - requesting a reference for the abbreviation 'EDTA', giving a reference for the name 'pentane' (to pubchem, of all places!). Elephants are grey, it is unreferenced, and it would be utterly silly to challenge the statement or to provide a reference for it.

More at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#What is going on in the chemboxes.3F.

So to make life simple for you, I suggest:

You either add data,
Or you challenge data that someone else added if you think it needs challenging (but use common sense),
Or you reference data that someone else challenged,
Or you remove the request for citation that someone else added you think it is common knowledge (again, use common sense),
Or you remove the data with a request for citation, but only if you were not the editor to challenge it, ánd you were not the editor who added the data in the first place. But first you either try to reference is, or you consider it is common knowledge.

You do not do any combination of these 5 statements, read them as a mathematically exclusive or ('XOR'). I would also suggest that you re-add all the data that you first added (with a citation needed tag), and later removed again - but this time just add the data - you damaged Wikipedia in those edits above. Happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only remove synonyms that are left unreferenced after three months, which is a sufficient time for other users to add a reference. I don't consider it my responsibility to reference synonyms added by other users. Just because something is common knowledge does not mean that it is implicitly correct. Pentane is referenced as a current "IUPAC systematic name", not just any name. "Elephants are grey" does not apply here, that statement cannot be challenged. "As straight as an arrow" is common knowledge, but is can be challenged, and has been demonstrated to be false. PubChem is suitable asa reference for systematic/iupac names. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A) ~~No, you do not, see the three diffs above - you add them with a {{citation needed}}, and~~ you retag them, and you remove them.

B) It is also not your responsibility to tag them, nor to remove them. If they are challenged for 3 months, and you don't bother to find the references, then leave them

C) Yes, you are right - but that also does not mean that it is in need of a reference.

D) Yes, 'IUPAC systematic name' - but for common knowledge it does not need a reference, and especially not to PubChem.

E) Of course the statement that elephants are grey can be challenged, but no-one with common sense would, it is common knowledge.

F) No, PubChem is not a suitable reference for that.

I again suggest that you follow the 5 points above - either you add, or you challenge, or you reference, or you remove - but not, ever, all of them - even after 3 months, not even after 5 years - this is a collaborative project, let data addition, challenging and removal be done by different people. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion on WT:CHEM, but the removal of all the synonyms and abbreviations in the PMDTA case are plainly very, very counterproductive, and damaging. References can be supplied, and IMHO most are absolutely not needed (see also the WT:CHEM discussion). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will not remove unsourced synonyms. I am not familiar chemical abbreviations or synonyms. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is PubChem not a suitable source for that? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1]: "Chemical names shown in PubChem Compound records are a composite derived from all linked substances, with default ranking of names by weighted frequency of use". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using the synonym section, I'm using the Identification section. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And where do they get that data from? And the FAQ does not state whether it is the identification data or the synonyms that they derive the name for. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That name is automatically generated using an algorithm which almost always follows the IUPAC algorithm, which is why I compare the two. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PlasmaPhysics, please ask for help or advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals. This way we can get some consensus before you make decisions. Can you do that? Surely you have noticed that you are the focus of a lot of concern for many years, so please let us help you.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmic Phycics, per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#What_is_going_on_in_the_chemboxes.3F, could you please try and get the names back into the articles where you removed them as unsourced. I am afraid that you have removed a lot of information which should be restored. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a huge task that could take weeks. I don't keep a record of removed names, I only keep a record of articles that I have finished working on. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have deadlines - and we have Special:Contributions/Plasmic Physics. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to search as far back as a whole year's worth of edits to find all related removals. That link doesn't really help, I'll have to manually check the edit history of each individual article, for every article. I haven't counted them yet, but there could be hundreds of them. Of course that's just half the effort, I still have to reinsert the names. I will talk later, it's late/early. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect other users to do it for you? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. I made those edits in good faith. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not upload bad information and expect others to correct it

If you do not know the compounds to be filled into the box, then dont add them! its easy. IMHO, it is wreckless to add misinformation into the ChemBox with the expectation that others cleanup for you. This is the reason for my recent reversions. Take out the dubious information before updating the ChemBox! This is one of the central requests coming to you from the community. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the misinformation? Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All information is double-checked before addition. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite obvious that either your source or your transcription from it is flawed. You inserted a SMILES string into N-Acetylaspartylglutamic acid that said it contained an aromatic ring. Please immediately stop using whatever source/method you have been using as it is not giving correct information. DMacks (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple copy error, everyone makes the occational mistake. Are you sure that you understand SMILES as well as you ought to? Even though it was the wrong SMILES. it contained no aromatic rings. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lower-case letters are aromatic. And H is generally not specified (although it's not "forbidden", it's not normal, and again suggests you're using a buggy system to generate what is supposed to be a universally-usable value. DMacks (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying that it's not aromatic. Have you actually tried to render it? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of wikipedia is not to write nonsense that might happen to work in some contexts or try to bend the rules for machine-use data. You should know better than that after years of warnings about inserting things that you derive manually using one set of rules that you happen to like when it's against standard usage in the field. I'm not going to respond further here, you're already at ANI for long-term disruption/etc. DMacks (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I'm not writting nonsense. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding fact tags to chemical infoboxes

Your practice of adding fact tags like those is being discussed at WT:CHEM#What is going on in the chemboxes?, where your edits have been described as damaging articles, and also at WT:No original research#IUPAC names for chemicals, especially for drugs. Please note that you shouldn't make edits that a fair number of people see as controversial, until the discussion is finished. You are of course welcome to participate.

It would also be helpful if you at least had a rough look at the articles you are editing; the name "Argireline" that you have fact-tagged occurs in both sources, in one of them even in the title. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble opening the article. However, it is not enough to simply occur in a source, it must be explicitly associated with the substance. You are sourcing the statement: "ABC is another name for DEF." Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, you change IUPACName to PIN, while removing all the stereo-chemistry information from the compound. For as far as I can see, this is a piece of peptide, which hence is the optically pure material that is mentioned there (and that is the one actually shown in the images). You change the name, and you immediately request a citation for that name, which is, with PIN by definition, original research by yourself based on rules which are incomplete. You ask in the reference "Is this the prefered IUPAC name? If not, move to OtherNames" - No, it is impossibly the preferred IUPAC name, so you could have put it in othernames by yourself. But of course, you already decided to remove the IUPAC name.

You leave the ChemSpiderID as is, but add a text to show which isomer it is (while you removed that from the IUPAC/PIN-name, but add as a first pubchem the racemate. The page is throughout talking about the chiral compound, that should be the first pubchem.

Then you ask for a citation for the other name Argireline (which can be reference, and which is referenced) where that is referenced in the text that it is a genuine other name (you ask for 'Is this a genuine, non-proprietary name' - it is a genuine other name, that is enough).

Same goes for some other edits you recently performed.

Do we really have to escalate this to you being banned from performing ANY edits to transclusions of {{drugbox}} and {{chembox}}? Or can you agree that you will leave identifiers and names/othernames all alone except for restoring data (to their originals) that you removed before. Above, you mention you don't have time to repair the damage you did over the last years, but you do have time to damage more. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that was the answer to this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is completely unrelated. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why you would blank a large section of a chembox for no particular reason, I don't know; I just responded. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Plasmic Physics, as was said in the above thread: Please do not upload bad information and expect others to correct it. Bold, revert, discuss. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already take great care not to load bad information, and I certainly don't expect others to correct it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one diff I worked out above (or in more detail on AN/I) does not show that you take 'great care', and that you re-revert one of the other edits (and warning me of vandalism) does show that you have no intention to actually repair it. If you then say that you do not expect others to correct it, then the only conclusion left over is that you insist to have pages showing incorrect information. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well for once, tell me what information is wrong. You keep accusing me, yet you insist on leaving no edit summaries, or being vague. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the analysis in the AN/I thread? Why did you remove the stereochemistry information from the name of a compound that certainly is the enantiomerically pure compound. Why challenge the name while it is thoroughly clear from the text that that is an other name of the compound. Do you see that there are a large number of editors who complain - it suggests that something has to change, if it were just one or two .. but until now I have to see an editor who is actually supporting your edits to a large number of parameters of the chem/drugboxes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To genralise the article, which I fixed by the way.
Because just mentioning E=mc^2, does qualify a source for the statement: "Einstein discovered the relationship E=mc^2". Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be generalised, it is about this one single specific enantiomer. No, but it is not 'just mentioning E=mc^2', they say that they are actually synthesising Argeriline... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but does it contain a statement of "Argeriline = Acetyl hexapeptide-3", or any identifier, like the CAS or similiar? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Chembox edits by User:Plasmic Physics. Thank you. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Chembox Removal

I notice you removed my very informative chembox on Aqua regia. May I ask why? Your rationale, "Chembox not appropriate for nonstoichiometric mixtures" is complete crap. A chembox for aqua regia exists on many other entries for this topic in other language.

Please put the chembox back. There is no need to delete someone's work which adds useful information to an article. I might add this is the kind of nonsense that's driving people away from Wikipedia. Stop being part of the problem. Drnathanfurious (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a decision by the Chem Project. They decided that it is not appropriate for mixtures to have a chembox. Talk to them. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? This is extremely pedantic. You've deleted useful encyclopedic information over a formatting issue. Stop. If you want to put the information somewhere else on the page, that's okay, but don't just remove it because it uses a particular template. Stop. Drnathanfurious (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that I had misinformation in my chembox. Can you point out which information is incorrect, so that I may update it? Drnathanfurious (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the new discussion on WT:CHEM. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking on this page, but can't find what you are referencing exactly. If mixtures can't use a chembox, then I'll just enter it manually into a table that looks the same. I don't care if it's in an official chembox. The information is useful and should be included in the manual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.5.34.217 (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing an important point: most of the information is wrong. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, tell me what's wrong and I'll fix it :)

@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
 I'm looking on this page, but can't find what you are referencing exactly.  If mixtures can't use a chembox, then I'll just enter it manually into a table that looks the same.  I don't care if it's in an official chembox.  The information is useful and should be included in the manual.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/141.5.34.217|141.5.34.217]] ([[User talk:141.5.34.217|talk]]) 11:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :You are missing an important point: most of the information is wrong. [[User:Plasmic Physics|Plasmic Physics]] ([[User talk:Plasmic Physics#top|talk]]) 11:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
+Okay then, tell me what's wrong and I'll fix it :)