User talk:ChemNerd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Blacklisted references[edit]

When removing <ref>s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind (e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! Anomie 22:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was doing that. I just missed it on that page. ChemNerd (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment request: methylphenylpiracetam[edit]

If you'd like, please comment briefly at Talk:E1R#Proposed article on methylphenylpiracetam. --IO Device (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


Can you explain why you think I'm wrong? TekIonRLP (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what you wrote at Talk:Helium is incoherent. ChemNerd (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Why does this page have only one page Heptachlor/Heptachlor Epoxide?

Do you think that there should be a page created on Wikipedia for Heptachlor Epoxide and that the current Heptachlor page is not sufficient?

If not, why didn't you edit the article instead of reverting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, see this

"HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE is an oxidation product of HEPTACHLOR formed by many plants and animals, including humans, after exposure to HEPTACHLOR. It has been shown to remain in soil treated with HEPTACHLOR for over fifteen years and is toxic to animals and humans." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide are different chemical compounds. The sciencedaily article is conflating the two, I think. I haven't looked closely at original paper to sort it out, but it is quite possible that they were measuring heptachlor epoxide in people's bodies as a surrogate for exposure to heptachlor. But that part is a minor concern to me. In general, medical claims (such as a connection between chemical exposure and disease risk) should be sourced to review articles, not primary studies (or popular press descriptions thereof). It is best to wait until there is a peer-reviewed scientific publication that reviews the primary work before such claims are included in Wikipedia. Medical claims need to be referenced to sources that are compliant with WP:MEDRS. In this particular case, the text that I removed claimed the brain effects were "because of the high level of heptachlor in cow milk", a claim the cited article does not make. They claim an association, not a causation. The association shouldn't be reported in Wikipedia because to assess the relevance of the association to the topic at hand, one would have to resort to original research or synthesis which isn't permitted under Wikipedia policy. We must wait until a qualified source (a WP:MEDRS-compliant source) assesses the relevance of that association for us before we report it. ChemNerd (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Partial list[edit]

Ajuga genevensis[edit]

Am I missing something here? You removed a clearly reliable source which has stood in an article for years to leave material completely uncited. From your contribution list, it seems that this is something you do a lot. What's going on? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

There is one particular researcher that has spent years (literally) adding links to his own research to hundreds of articles, without making any other contributions to Wikipedia. It is quintessential self-promotional WP:REFSPAM. When he started he was warned about the conflict of interest issues, but he has persisted, now making just one edit per IP and then changing to avoid scrutiny. The list of IPs just above are a partial list of those involved. I have no objection whatsoever if an independent established user such as yourself finds a citation he has added useful and wants to add it back in. ChemNerd (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
In this case at least, that seems to be an inaccurate description. The user in question added sourced information- if they were adding irrelevant material to further reading sections, or spamming unreliable sources, then yes, "LINKSPAM" would be the appropriate hammer. However, adding relevant and useful material sourced to peer-reviewed research articles seems to be an excellent thing for a researcher to be doing (even if they happen to be one of the authors). Perhaps you could take a more nuanced approach to the additions, rather than simply assuming that they all need to go? At the very least, you should remove the information the user added, rather than leaving it unsourced. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Yes, maybe I should be removing the added information too. Adding one individual's research (who doesn't appear to be that notable in his field) to hundreds of articles probably creates situations of WP:UNDUE and/or systemic bias. ChemNerd (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


Sorry for making edit-conflicts (and thanks for the edits themselves, and figuring out how to get the N-prime typography to work)! I'm off for now. DMacks (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. And thanks for your improvements to the article too. ChemNerd (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Why am I getting like 7 messages?[edit]

All about the same 2 articles? Over and over. From Multiple users. What are you people like moderators or something?

Once was enough, I got it. Now I keep getting spammed to death by multiple users, It's like get off my back already, please. I'm not gonna make any more pages for ages, OK? Now will yall leave me alone?

   ChemNerd left a message on your talk page in Deschloroetizolam. I wanted to let you know that it isn't a good idea. 

Well why not? You don't have an article on it now, and I have valid info on it. I spent a day putting that article together and some nazi took it away.

Eatl33t1111 (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I see a welcome message and two polite comments from myself and another user. I don't see how anyone could view this as "getting spammed to death", requiring a response like "get off my back already". Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so when I made an edit that affected something you had done, I gave you the courtesy of informing you. I didn't have to do that, but it was the right thing to do. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, then I would suggest that you will simply need to find a way to be able to have these types of polite interactions with other editors without resorting to calling them Nazis. If you would like to have a further explanation for the edit that I made at deschloroetizolam, please let me know. ChemNerd (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)