User talk:Anypodetos

Epistemic modality

Thanks for clearing up the references by adding a notes section. Looks much better --AD Messing (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. The modality and mood articles could do with some more work, but I'm afraid I don't know enough about non-Indo-European grammar to be of much use. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mirtazapine

Sorry. I'm really antisocial and I don't usually bother talking to anyone about changes. Mirtazapine (as well as mianserin and setiptiline) may be tetracyclics, but they're very closely related to tricyclics as well and are usually grouped together with them, hence why I put them in the tricyclics article and template. Also, I consider tricyclics to encompass tetracyclics, as tetracyclics indeed contain three touching rings of atoms (plus one more of course). el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 12:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 07:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ulipristal acetate

Hi. I was discussing ulipristal acetate as an emergency contraceptive over at Vagina Pagina and mentioned that it can also be used as an abortifacient. It was suggested that ulipristal acetate was my source (it says ulipristal acetate is "embryotoxic") but that the claim was not sourced. I found that you supplied the information[1]. Is the source here? I see that on page 16 of that source, ulipristal acetate is called embryotoxic to rates and rabbits. If so, do you mind adding that note? I suppose I could do it myself, but pharmocology is not my area of expertise.

Thanks! NickelShoe (Talk) 22:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a bit to the section about pregnancy, trying to clarify the differences between "trying to use it as abortificant", "possible use as a working abortificant", "embryotoxicity" and "teratogenesis": That some abortions occurred which could or could not be caused by Ellaone has nothing to do with the question whether it would actually work fine as an abortificant. Can you tell me what you think of my additions? Also, could you point me to your discussion on Vagina Pagina? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The additions are informative! I'm glad you went to the trouble. I'm wondering about this sentence: "It is unlikely that the drug could effectively be used as an abortificant, since it is used in much lower doses than the roughly equipotent mifepristone." Is that explained in your source? Like, how "unlikely" is it? And when you say it's "used in much lower doses than the equipotent mifepristone," it seems like that's more about Ellaone specifically than ulipristal acetate generally. There might be a better way to word it. And is it lower than the dose of mifepristone as an ECP or for abortions or what? Maybe mentioning the actual dosages for common uses might be helpful?

Sorry about not linking directly to the VP discussion. It fell off the front page fairly quickly. My background is in English, not science, so I may need set straight in that thread. NickelShoe (Talk) 09:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of the drug, not the substance. Maybe ulipristal acetate could be used as an abortificant if another drug containing a higher dose of this substance were developed – with new clinical trials and all. It is unlikely that Ellaone could be used as an abortificant since 1. the dose is lower (30 mg) than Mifegyne for abortion (600 mg), and 2. of the 29 pregnancies despite taking Ellaone, only 6 abortions were reported. Since my background is in pharmacy, not English: could you help with rephrasing the Pregnancy section of the article?

Thank you for the link. I don't quite understand why people are happy about Ellaone (perhaps because I'm a man). The only advantage seems to be that it can be used five days after sexual intercourse, and why would a woman wait that long before asking a doctor for an emergency contraceptive? On the other hand, there are no good data about abortion induction, teratogenicity etc. and we already have the extensively studied levonorgestrel.

Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There are any number of reasons a person might need/want emergency contraception after five days. Sometimes a sex act that seemed within a woman's risk tolerance at the time doesn't seem so a day or so later. Sometimes schedules are not accommodating and doctor's offices aren't open on weekends and holidays. And for women taking hormonal birth control, sex on the placebo week is only protected if the next pack is started on time. If she forgets to start her next pack or is unable to refill her prescription on time, she may choose emergency contraception in case there are still viable sperm in her reproductive tract and she ovulates quickly.

It might turn out that Ellaone isn't enough better than Plan B to make the switch. But we only know that after we do the studies. What looked good to me was that ulipristal acetate was able to delay ovulation at a later stage than levonorgestrel. This might turn out to be important for women who were particularly close to ovulating when they had unprotected sex. Women who are less close to ovulating are in less need of emergency contraception, since there's a greater chance that all the sperm will die before they meet the egg. Of course, I would expect this to play out with ulipristal acetate being more effective than levonorgestrel even in the first couple days after intercourse, since the relevant factor would be the woman's cycle, not the sex act. As far as I can tell, the data do not actually show this. So maybe levonorgestrel will continue to be the drug of choice. That's fine with me.

I think the pregnancy section looks good. The part about 6 of the 29 is a bit confusing to me. Grammatically, it's because of the prepositional phrases and negative. I'm also having a bit of trouble following the point. The word "only" makes it sound like it's trying to make a point about the number, but I don't totally follow. Perhaps a clearer, more objective way to put it would be to simply list all the outcomes--spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, and continued pregnancy. I gave it a shot. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with that sentence. I was trying to keep a WP:NPOV but obviously failed. Perhaps this was because I had had a rather unpleasant discussion with an employee of the marketing authorisation holder beforehand, who claimed that Ellaone didn't interfere with pregnancies (but couldn't name any studies). Anyway, the section sounds neutral and objective now, I think. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hope you are doing well. Sorry I have been neglecting WP:PHARM:CAT! I have been busy with WP:DERM:MA which is really helping to improve Wikipedia's coverage of cutaneous conditions. Thanks again for all your help in the past! ---kilbad (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, nice to hear from you! I've been neglecting categorisation, too. Would you have time for a re-launch when WP:DERM:MA leaves you a bit of spare time? Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a re-launch in the future after the bolognia push would be a great idea! ---kilbad (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Structures

Sorry for the late response. Sure if you're up for it. See here:

• [2]

Currently I just get them all from ChemSpider or NIMH's ChemIDPlus. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 00:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Terri

Nice work with Terri, it's the little things that count. — sligocki (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

vitamin C edits- I'd tend to err on side of inclusion and later expansion

As a person who often contributes stuffs myself, it is annoying to have people delete a few sentences that are relevant and need to be expanded. The article is not on merit, but on human understanding. In fact, I may need a reference on "dumb things people have attributed to ani-oxidants" and this stub is a good starting point there. You are not trying to promote anything by explaining it or else all of wikipedia would be a bland, politically correct polemic. One sentence about a notability viewpoint hardly seems to be NPOV or undue weight, a lot of people think vitamin C cures everything and understanding the origina of tht believe seem to be a reaonable objkective. The term "asset" also seems to be apropos as opposed to proved or "told us" etc. There are many good reasons for expanding this and few for removing it. Personally, you find too many appeals to authority in science and on the other hand science if often done with bold hypotheses that later are shown to be wrong but result in important results during the exploration, not suppression, effort. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, re-added. Sorry, I didn't intend to annoy anybody. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Could I get your feedback

Perhaps I could get your thoughts on my first feature picture nomination at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pyogenic granuloma 1.jpg? ---kilbad (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to help you, but I don't know enough about PG to be of any use here. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

de:Mifamurtid

Hallo Anypodetos. Danke für die Durchsicht der Nomenklatur im Artikel de:Mifamurtid. Nur ein Problem sehe ich. Mifamurtid besteht streng genommen nicht aus einem Glutaminbaustein, sondern aus dem 1-Amid der Glutaminsäure, der auch für diese Synthesevariante verwendet wurde. --Sven Jähnichen (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Da muss ich dir Recht geben. Gibt es die Bezeichnungen "Glutaminamid" für Glutaminsäure-1-amid bzw. "Glutaminamidyl" für das Radikal wirklich? Ich ändere die Beschreibung der 2. Synthese auf "...glutaminsäure-1-amid" und die der 1. auf "...glutaminamidyl...", obwohl ich mit letzterem nicht ganz glücklich bin. Ich fände es eindeutiger, die (in File:Mifamurtide synthesis.png) rechte Carboxylgruppe als die primäre zu sehen; dann hätten wir eine wirklich lineare Peptidstruktur. Brundish (Einzelnachweis #6) tut das, indem er den Begriff "Isoglutaminyl" verwendet; aber das dürfte eine ad-hoc-Bezeichnung sein. Bitte ändere den Artikel, wenn Du einen besseren Vorschlag hast. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

PS natürlich gibt es "Glutaminamid", das Radikal der Glutaminsäure heißt "Glutamin-". Kann heute nicht mehr richtig denken. Bitte formuliere die Nomenklatur so, wie du es für am besten hältst. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Die Bezeichnung "Isoglutamin" hatte ich gar nicht auf der Rechnung. Sie ist gebräuchlicher als "Glutaminamid" für das Glutaminsäure-1-amid (meint die allwissende Müllhalde). Die Bezeichnung "IsoGln" findet sich auch im PubChem-Eintrag 24847885 für Mifamurtid wieder. Daher ändere ich es in diese Richtung. Danke für deine Hilfe. --217.85.157.156 (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Noch was: Wo ist beim Isoglutamin oben? Wenn man von der rechten Amidgruppe (der in der Peptidkette) ausgeht, ist es nämlich L-konfiguriert, wenn ich mich nicht sehr irre. Übrigens habe ich das 2. Vorkommen auch geändert. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Gute Frage. Die nicht sehr koscher wirkende PubChem-ID 16219403 meint L=S, wie es auch für 18 der 20 klassischen proteinogenen Aminosäuren gilt. In dem PubChem-Einträgen von weiteren vom Muramyldipeptid abgeleiteten Substanzen wird analog von D=R beim Isoglutamin ausgegangen. Unter dieser Annahme steckt in Mifamurtid also ein D-Isoglutaminylbaustein. --Sven Jähnichen (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dann sei es so. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits

Thank you for your helpful advice. I will use this information to good effect.--Yid (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your answer about "orphans"

I appreciated your answer about orphan tags. I thought that particular query had fallen into a wiki-hole somewhere!

However, still unanswered is my question about orphan tags showing up on watch lists. If I were having them show up, I would strive to improve interconnectivity, and so de-orphan them.

As it seems to me now, orphan tags are easily ignorable, as they seem essentially meaningless. If I stumble across one, I will deal with it. Or not.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

---

I investigated your tip about changing my Preferences. It made no difference.

Your other pointer, to a list against which I would have to counter-check my own 1800-member list, runs into the same problem I already have with the other existing lists of orphans: A) I can either sit around comparing lists while hoping to eventually do some Wikipedia work, or B): I can ignore the orphan tags and keep on writing.

Orphan-tagged articles popping up on my watchlist could lead to some quick de-orphaning, but doesn't likely to happen. Luckily, orphan tags are of little consequence. So, on with Plan B).

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Actually, the list of 1800+ flying aces is nine lists:

List of World War I aces credited with 20 or more victories

List of World War I aces credited with 15–19 victories

List of World War I aces credited with 11–14 victories

List of World War I aces credited with 10 victories

List of World War I aces credited with 9 victories

List of World War I aces credited with 8 victories

List of World War I aces credited with 7 victories

List of World War I aces credited with 6 victories

List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories

If you want it all in one single list, there is [[3]]. There are also other lists sorted other ways in the aerodrome.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Many thanks, Anypodetos. I am surprised there were so few articles on the orphan tag list...but I am NOT complaining (lol). A couple of orphan tags have also showed up since on my Watchlist. Did you tinker with the bot so it would do that? If so, thanks for that also.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

---

User:PotatoBot

Just an FYI. This bot is putting up redirects that redirect single surnames to asteroids (re: Maksutov). This seems to be an incorrect function since asteroids are almost always named after notable people, those redirects should point to the person (or the surname DAB page), not the asteroid named after them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The bot only created redirects if no disambiguation (or other pages) existed. It cannot know after which person an asteroid is named, or if it is named after a person at all. Thanks for creating the disambig. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

DARPins

Here a response to your question in de.wiki. Differences mainly occurred due to different counting of the repeat motives. --Sven Jähnichen (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Narten nouns

Hmm, I seem to have invented this term myself. I thought I saw it in Fortson "Indo-European Language and Culture" but he actually used it in reference to aorist formations rather than nouns. Ringe doesn't actually use "Narten" in reference to anything but he does group the lengthened/normal alternations in nouns and verbs together, giving examples of such alternations in nouns, present-tense verbs and aorist-tense verbs. I'll go ahead and change it to something else. Benwing (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Help cleaning up verb tables?

Hello and thanks very much for cleaning up the tables of PIE noun forms that I added. I just went and added a somewhat similar table, a full paradigm of a PIE verb, again taken from Ringe (2006), in Proto-Indo-European verb. I wonder if you could clean up that table similarly? I'm not exactly sure what you did on the previous table but it looks a lot better. Thanks! Benwing (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I just clicked "edit" for exactly this reason :-) I mainly changed

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="1"

to

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="wikitable"

but also added *'s and {{PIE}} templates. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help in cleaning up the tables. No problem with your change of "is pronounced as" to "becomes".

I realized that I accidentally omitted the final table in the paradigm, the perfect active. (Ringe's example paradigms don't include any perfect mediopassives.) I have to go to sleep now and don't have time to try and fix up the table the way you've done to the others -- if you could fix it up I'd greatly appreciate it, otherwise I'll try to do it tomorrow. Benwing (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

GA on hold

Please see Talk:Proto-Indo-European root/GA1 for more information. This is on GA Hold. Chris (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Congratulations. It passed. Good job. Chris (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot request

Hi Anypodetos,
I saw that you own the potatobot which does redirects. I would like to have redirects from language codes to languages (e.g. deu to German language). The ISO 639-3 standard handles those codes, and they already have a wikipedia namespace (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639:aaa , which redirects to Ghotuo language). However, not all the codes are in there. For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639:aab should point to Ari_language, but that redirect does not exist. My request is now as follows:

* for every $code from the first column of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639:a -z
* create redirect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639:$code
* target of that redirect should be the link in the first column if available ([Ghotuo language|aaa]]) 
* else, use  X language, where X is the name found in the 7th column (aax || || || || || || Mandobo Atas) --> #REDIRECT Mandobo Atas Language

Do you think that you could tweak potatobot to do this, and would you actually find the time to do it? Jasy jatere (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll gladly do that, but please be patient -- I'm a bit short of time at the moment. Also note that redirects to nonexisting pages (like Mandobo Atas language) are not allowed, so the bot will have to omit these. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Depending on the time you want to spend on this, you could actually also create the non-existing pages on the fly, based on information found on http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=aax. There is of course a copyright issue there, but something like the following should be legal:

  $language is a language spoken in [[$country]] by $population people. It is also known under the names @alternatenames.{{lang-stub}}

I'm not sure how helpful such one-sentence stubs would be, so I asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Creating language stubs. User:Angr there is sceptical, too. Anyway, I'm not sure how the bot should obtain the data from the Ethnologue website. Sorry, but this doesn't look good. (But I'll create the redirects of course.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that scraping the Ethnologue website should not be too difficult. Depending on whether the creation of the articles is approved or not, I can get the data from the ethnologue page and send you a csv file or similar, if that helps. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I filed an approval request for the bot: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PotatoBot 2. You might want to add that page to your watch list if you want to keep up to date. Comments and suggestions should also go there and are very welcome. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and energy in getting the ISO thing done

this was really very useful Jasy jatere (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. And there will be another round in due time; see WT:LANG#Searching language infoboxes. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

ISO bot

I just added a References section, since the bot recently grabbed some references along with the ISO codes. I hope that doesn't mess with the log processing. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, but the bot will override your edit with its next run. The refs should be removed from the language infobox, because they break the external links to Ethnologue. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Isocodes

I have a file with the codes, but I am not sure whether I may post them to wikipedia bcs of copyright issues. If there is a private way of sending them to you (email, IRC, some website), I would be more comfortable Jasy jatere (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

sent you a 4,4 MB file. Let me know whether you received it in good order Jasy jatere (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Filmzauber

This piece was probably much better known in the English translation, and the London and Broadway productions were the most famous productions of the piece. Indeed, the fact that German Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on it is an indication of that. So I thought the English name was better to use for the article. This is the case for other Edwardian-era musical pieces. Any thoughts? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What about moving it back and starting the text with something like

The Girl on the Film is the English version/translation/adaptation of the operetta Filmzauber, literally 'Film Magic' , by Walter Kollo and Willy Bredschneider. The operetta had a German libretto by Rudolf Bernauer and Rudolf Schanzer. It was a parody of (then popular) silent films.

I just thought it irritating that the title did not match the lead sentence; you've got to read down to the section English adaptation before understanding the connection. Thanks for asking; and please do what you think best. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Medroxyprogesterone

Again. The "comparisons" issue is ongoing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but have very little time at the moment. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ezogabine/retigabine

Hey there! Where did you find the retigabine renaming information? As far as I know, retigabine is still the INN (and ezogabine the USAN)... I've been preparing an expansion of the article and was surprised to see this move :) (Should I rewrite my draft?) Best as always, Fvasconcellos* (t·c) 19:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)