User talk:ChemNerd

Welcome!

Hello, ChemNerd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see you caught my misspelling at Tolperisone, too.

Editing Nicotine

Hello there. When editing the nicotine article to highlight changes in the field of nicotine research I noted that my changes were removed. I agree with the outcome, yes they were poorly sourced. If however, I can back up the statements more readily then can they remain in the article? They will not represent a non-neutral point of view because there is no neutral point. Everybody believes that nicotine is the addictive component of tobacco smoke so to say otherwise is non-neutral but the article as a whole will be neutral, arguing both for and against the addictive properties of nicotine. I presume that you do not have conflicting scientific evidence to confirm that nicotine is the psychoactive component of tobacco smoke?

Removing Categories

Why are you removing all the categories from these chemical compound articles? Silverchemist (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not removing all the categories. I'm only removing the redundant ones. For example, if isopropanol is in Category:Alcohol solvents, which is a daughter category of Category:Alcohols and Category:Solvents, then Category:Alcohols and Category:Solvents are redundant and should be removed per WP:SUBCAT. ChemNerd (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not remove the daughter category? It seems more useful to have the ethers, or alcohols grouped together. Not all alcohols or ethers are used as solvents. Silverchemist (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand you. The categories for ethers and alcohols are daughter categories, too. So why not remove them? Not all organic compounds are ethers or alcohols. ChemNerd (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUBCAT#User benefit rule "Does the removal of duplication affect the reader, making it hard to browse through subjects or spot their target easily? If the answer is yes, you should not remove the duplication." If a reader is looking for a listing of ketones, it is not obvious that they should also look at the daughter category of ketone solvents. Classification by "ketones" is based on composition while classification by "solvent" is based on use. Silverchemist (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we just see it differently. To me I think it is obvious that someone looking for ketones will look under ketone solvents too, just as someone looking for a list of organic compounds will look under ketones too. In any case, it's not a big deal to me, so if you want to add the additional categories back, I'm not going to complain. ChemNerd (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChemNerd: Please reconsider your recent recategorization. It puts undue weight on one of many (probably even more important) aspects and uses of a chemical compounds. At least reinstate the original general category. Also, in my opinion it does not make much sense to subcategorize solvents by chemical functionalities (amines, ethers,...); other schemes would make equal or even more sense, such as bp, logP, H-bond properties,... Please also notice that the categorization system does not have to be strictly hierarchical top-down. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who created those categories - I just saw, for example, that some alcohol solvents were categorised in Category:Alcohol solvents and some were in Category:alcohols and Category:Solvents, so I consolidated them in the subcategory plus I also removed redundancies. It seemed perfectly logical to me, but I suppose I'm in the minority here. I won't make those kinds of recategorizations any more. If those subcategories shouldn't be used for the handful of chemical compounds that I moved to them, then I suggest that those categories shouldn't exist at all. ChemNerd (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manganese(II)manganate(VI)

Heya

Related discussion at User talk:Itub. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is within the rules to speedy delete it instead, please do. ChemNerd (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for hte note on pyO

I'm not that uncooperative, usually, so I redrew the thing per your appropriate suggestion. Now we gotta get this new troll padlocked, we need to find a grumpy admin with special powers.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I'm sorry if I came across as demanding. ChemNerd (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organocopper cmpds

Organocopper compounds are typically defined as those with Cu-C bonds, not just containing organic ligands (otherwise organometallic chemisty would be even vast-er. So I have reverted some of your recategorizations. Please feel free to contact me if you want to discuss the topic.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine with me. I left a message for you at your talk page at the same time you left this one. ChemNerd (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a potentially counter-intuitive classification scheme, so your initial categorization effort was understandable. You'll find that some folks are picky about the distinction between card-carrying organometallic things and other "classical" coordination cmpds. The Cu(II) benzoate, when heated to decarboxylate, does decompose via Cu-Ph organometallic things, I think. Keep up the good work. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. ChemNerd (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

Categorization of pharmacology articles

I started WP:PHARM:CAT in hopes of providing better guidance regarding the categorization of pharmacology articles. If available, I have posted an updated draft at WT:PHARM:CAT, and would appreciate your feedback. kilbad (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elsevier

"misrepresentation" is not a neutral word, it is a euphemism utilized by Merck and Elsevier. Scientific Misconduct is an appropriate term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.76.159.6 (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an academic researcher, I have followed this story with interest, but I haven't seen any evidence that there was scientific misconduct. The scientific findings reported in Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine are not faked or fraudulent. They were peer-reviewed and published in other journals before being reprinted in Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine. It's the editorial issues that involved misconduct and misrepresentation. The fact that editorial control was in the hands of the business that funded the journal and that stood to benefit financially from the collection of articles reprinted in it is a huge conflict of interest that was hidden from the public. Call it misrepresentation or call it misconduct, I don't think it matters much, but the concerns are not really scientific, but rather editorial. ChemNerd (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carnosine external links

i saw you moved the smart-drugs.net link to the bottom of the page (you weren't the original editor who put it on there) but i just removed the subheading altogether because the link that was posted was a cleverly disguised order form for health supplements. Ytcracker (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The removal is fine with me. ChemNerd (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen Cyanate

I see you have redirected this page to point to Isocyanic acid, It looks like it belongs there. Thanks! I added a couple lines to that article specific to hydrogen cyanate to wrap up the merge. I appreciate your help. Daviga1 (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to help. ChemNerd (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChemNerd. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[[Litmus test

i would like you to pleasee give me a reason as to why you always delete my edits on the litmus test page about the nature of litmus solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saran.adios (talk • contribs) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was out of place and a bit confusing. I have now incorporated it into the article in a more reasonable place. ChemNerd (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think you have fully understood my edit.i wanted to state that although litmus is an indicator it itself should also possess a characteristic of being acidic i.e.a ph lower than 7 or basic i.e. a ph higher than 7.

after experimentation it has been found that red litmus solution(used to test for bases) itself has a ph higher than 7 that is it is basic whereas blue litmus solution(used to test for acids) has a ph lower than 7 that is it is acidic.

i therefore request you to review this point and restore my original edit.thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.96.138 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that what you are saying is correct, but maybe it's just a language problem. ChemNerd (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you remove citations?

Is forbidden to insert citations in wikipedia?--250GP (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misrepresenting those references. ChemNerd (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you can not accept the truth...sometimes truth hurts...anyway the citations confirm clearly that bald men have lower testosterone levels than controls and therefore higher diabetes risks, if you want I can copy some article sentences--250GP (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]