User talk:Edgar181/Archive15

	Archives
	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 - Oct 2009;

Please read before editing:

Please add new comments 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.
If you want to know why I blocked an IP address, you have to let me know what IP address you are referring to.
If you want to know why I deleted an article, you have to let me know what article you are referring to.

Any Knight

Hi,

Why did you, if the wikipedia comment is correct, delete the entry for Amy Knight on the Mitrokin page? – Cheers

Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimstutt (talk • contribs) 20:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I did delete an article titled Amy Knight about two years ago. I assume that is what you are asking about. The entire content of that article was, "Amy Knight - Born on March 8, 1986". As such, it met the criteria for speedy deletion (A7) because there was essentially no content to identify the subject of the article or to suggest why she is notable. If you think Amy Knight meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, please feel free to create an article with sufficient content to explain who she is. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

24.1.111.19

Thanks for blocking this persistent vandal earlier. I'm wondering if a block from editing user page is warranted, based on the user apparently using his talk page as a sandbox for his vandalism. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of that editor. The edits are certainly disruptive, but I'm not sure that they are ill-intentioned. I have reverted the talk page additions, but I don't want to prevent the user from requesting an unblock in the case of a desire to contribute less disruptively. I'll keep an eye on the talk page and see what happens. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for trying to give new editors the benefit of the doubt and WP:AGF, but I've attempted to communicate with the editor and offered assistance, but no response. Since the editor is using their talk page, it's not like the editor isn't seeing these warnings or requests. The user hasn't requested unblocks before, but I admit that maybe a long-term block could get them to wise up. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will promptly block talk page access if that privilege is abused, but for now I'll wait and see. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Substitution of images on Tetrahydroharman

Hi Edgar181,

I noticed that you have recently substituted the images on Tetrahydroharman, (1S)-1-methyl-2,3,4,9-tetrahydro-1H-pyrido[3,4-b]indole, and Calligonine.

If you are using a tool to automatically generate the images, does your tool export to SVG as well as PNG? SVG is an XML format for images that has a significantly-smaller file size than any rasterization. Also, SVGs describe the image, whereas a raster image describes the location of individual pixels. So, SVGs can be scaled to any dimensions without an artifact of transformation. If your tool easily supports SVGs, then you might want to consider using SVGs for those reasons. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently, I do not have access to software that is capable of generating reliable-quality SVGs of chemical structure diagrams. Also, I am not convinced that using SVGs is better than using PNGs. A high-resolution PNG has an appearance that is just the same as an SVG at reasonable scales, and the file size difference for generally small files is not an issue. There are also quality issues with the way that the Wikimedia software displays SVGs; check out some of the SVGs in this Commons category to see what I mean: Category:Low quality chemical diagrams. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

editing of sevoflurane metabolite B

Thanks for correction of my miscorrection of the structure of "metabolite B" of sevoflurane. I looked at the reference you gave, and indeed you were correct. The extra methoxy seemed unlikely to me, but I guess stranger metabolites are known. Wiki editor art (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is an odd degradation product, which is what prompted me to look it up. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing of Ibogaine

Hi, Edgar. I'm the one who added the Hunter S. Thompson reference to the Popular Culture section of the Ibogaine article, which you deleted on grounds that it was speculation. There was no speculation: there is indisputably an extended reference to ibogaine in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, and that book was indisputably an important part of the popular culture of its time. (It is still referenced in university classes today as a seminal work of subjective, hyperbolic, semi-fictional -- AKA "gonzo" -- political journalism, as evidenced by the links in my reference.) Whether the substantive content of works cited in popular culture sections is true or not is immaterial: in popular culture sections, what is important is what they said, not whether what they said is true. I believe you have inadvertently applied the wrong standards for inclusion in popular culture sections and urge you to reconsider your decision. Thanks, and all the best. PCMartinSeattle (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that Thompson's writings about Muskie's supposed drug use are purely speculative and even hyperbolic and Wikipedia shouldn't be reporting what is essentially rumor. In any case, I'm not sure that I see the relevance to an article about ibogaine. It could be relevant to an article such as Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, and perhaps to Hunter S. Thompson, but I fail to see how it adds any value to the article on ibogaine. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. The issue is moot: I now see that someone else had already added Thompson's Muskie-ibogaine story to the History section, where it is clearly identified as a satirical canard. All the best. PCMartinSeattle (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that. It seems to work well in the history section the way that it is written. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing block notification

Hi, I just wanted to point out that you didn't notify SandAndArt (talk · contribs) of your block. I know that you always take care of such notifications, so this must've just been an oversight. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that one somehow. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user Rounded Developments

Dear Edgar 181,

Just found out that my account has been blocked by you because apparently we are unable to provide people with the information about our not-for-profit organisation in Wales. As a community organisation wishing to give people good and independent information about sustainable / green building I am surprised to find this activity blocked and also a bit annoyed that I am not told about any blocking activity.

I don't know your role in wikipedia, but one assumes that you have a position within its structure to be able to take such action, but given that there is a range of other links in this section to other not-for-profit organisations I fail to see why we should be singled out as not being appropriate to link to. By this action all links to BREEAM or LEED as organisations for example should be banned. Why are they not so?

Surely wikipedia is about information sharing not arbitrary decisions by individual members.

Please advise

86.143.126.149 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Peter

This is not about "arbitrary decisions by individual members", but rather the objective application of policies developed by community consensus. Wikipedia user pages may not contain promotion of an organization unrelated to Wikipedia (see WP:USER). That's why I deleted User:Rounded Developments. Also, Wikipedia usernames are not permitted to match the name of an organization (see WP:ORGNAME), so that's why the account named "Rounded Developments" was blocked. You are free to sign up for an account with a different username. If you wish to create an encyclopedia article (which should be titled Rounded Developments rather than User:Rounded Developments), please read Wikipedia's guidelines for notability first, to see if it qualifies, or the article may end up being deleted again anyway. Finally, you might want to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines as well, which may apply. I hope this helps. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Спасиоци

Hey. Just to inform you that seems like bot removed your contribution in here :P Ilyushka88 Talk to me 12:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the bot did that, but I have restored my edits. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Oooh Chomper!

You did not autoblock this person and as a result they vandalized while logged out [1]. Triplestop x3 21:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Did article again

I worked on Angelina Ballerina: The Next on my special page. I notice that I was missing a source and decided to include it. I even add the category and made improve the into and summary. Do need some help working on it. (mich (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

It looks fine to me. I did a few copyedits. Feel free to move it to the appropriate title now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mean

Why did you block 91.194.220.7 from creating an account. It is mean Anthony 5432 (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Because of the years of persistent vandalism coming from that school IP address. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

you deleted an article, so can i make the new one?

dear edgar181, you recently deleted my article of "merawatan.pk". i wanted to take a prmission from you that can i recreate this article? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahz29 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the article said that merawatan.pk is "not much popular and not much recognized", it would seem that it clearly does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion (see Wikipedia:Notability (web)). If you create the article again, it will most likely be just deleted again. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia in other ways, you can see Wikipedia:Your first article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please review User talk:217.206.81.234 page for blocking

Persistant vandalism to Giacomo Puccini article this week alone. Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism from this IP address has been persistent, so I have blocked again. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User name block

Thanks for making me not have to file a report on this no-brainer. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that

You sent me a message about how my 'addition' was considered vandalism, see what i was doing was seeing how you actually add things to a text so i tried that, but then afterwords i couldn't find where i had put it in. sorry i didnt mean for it to stay there i won't do it again because i know how it works now. thank you.

katrina020 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.90.183 (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem - no harm done. Welcome to Wikipedia and please feel free to contribute constructively. -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Kaimhill Primary School‎

This article has been recreated several times after it gets speedied. Any chance it could be salted? Thanks! --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 19:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It was created a second time, generally not enough for salting, but I'll take care of it if it becomes problem. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Xylose

Ouch [2]: nice marketingspeak quote. They're keeping it up [3]. Acroterion _(talk) 19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Marketing folks are not generally known for subtlety. Thanks for reverting that last addition. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You won't know why and you won't remember me ...

... but one of your admin actions tonight is deeply appreciated. Cheers! --81.170.90.3 (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to have helped ... whatever I did. :) -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Slightly puzzling block

What's the block of User:Mushroomsanta about? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I came to ask the exact same question. They have filed an unblock, and I have placed it on hold pending clarification from you. As their only edit so far had been to post the unblock request, it's difficult to understand how you came to the conclusion this was a sock, but maybe you know something I don't about this? Beeblebrox (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This user is a sock of the vandal mentioned at Wikipedia:ANI#Letter_vandalism. I have sent details by email to the two of you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the details, I've declined the unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

4-methylmethcathinone

Do you think it would be worth protecting this page to stop all the constant IP editors removing toxicity info and inserting links to vendors? Not sure what the policy is here as these edits are more good faith but misguided rather than vandalism per se, but they are common enough that they are getting reverted several times a day, and it is a fairly heavily viewed page. Your thoughts? Meodipt (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, the page protection policy wouldn't cover a situation like this where the edits are not really vandalism. However, I have seen semi-protection used when an article is in bad shape and an editor (or group of editors) is trying to make significant improvements and needs a bit of a break from "interference" from persistent non-productive IP edits. If this is the situation, I'll semi-protect the article for awhile to give you a chance to improve it. Otherwise, we'll just have to deal with it by being vigilant and reverting bad edits - such is the nature of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Edgar. Yeah thats what I figured, good faith edits don't fall under the vandalism policy even where dubious in their accuracy! Not much more that can be done to improve it at this stage seeing as the first scientific literature references were only published last month, will have to wait for more research to be done. So I guess we just have to be vigilant about reverting inappropriate edits for now. Meodipt (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Spamming

This computer is one of many on a university network. The likelihood that your message will be received by the original vandalizer is highly unlikely. However, thanks for the warning. 129.7.222.204 (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)