User talk:Edgar181

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Please add new topics 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.

Archive

Archives


2016
 • Jan 2016 - Apr 2016
 • May 2016 - Aug 2016
 • Sep 2016 - Oct 2016

1,1-bis(diméthylamino)éthanol[edit]

Hi Edgar,

On the page fr:Tétrakis(diméthylamino)éthylène, it tokes about the reaction's intermediaire 1,1-bis(diméthylamino)éthanol, C6H16N2O, PubChem CID 18534497. Could you see if this product appears in Chemical Abstracts and have a CAS number, please? --Titou (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@The Titou: 1,1-bis(dimethylamino)ethanol does not have a record in Chemical Abstracts. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thank you --Titou (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

DAV Centenary Cricket Team (Paschim Vihar) Delhi[edit]

Hi Edgar181. You deleted DAV Centenary Cricket (Paschim Vihar) per WP:G2. It looks like the article was created the same day it was deleted under a different name as DAV Centenary Cricket Team (Paschim Vihar) Delhi. I've tagged the recreation per WP:A3, but am wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at it to see if it should go to AfD instead. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to update, the article was deleted per A3 and A8 by AustralianRupert -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No conflict of interest[edit]

Ed-- Currently working on the ipraglifozin (suglat) page and you pointed out a possible conflict of interest. However, I have no connection to either company. I do believe that a company's background and financial information is relevant when learning about a drug they are promoting. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brru224 (talkcontribs) 16:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Brru224: OK, that's fine. It's just a common occurrence with articles about pharmaceutical drugs. Feel free to remove the message from your talk page. As for the financial information about the two companies involved, that information seems completely out of place to me - it would be appropriate for an article about the companies themselves, but not about the drug. For the cost of the drug, prices change so much with time, place, purchaser, insurance, etc. that it is generally not possible to provide universally accurate information about costs. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Edgar181.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help[edit]

Hi Edgar181,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

COI Inquiry[edit]

Hi Edgar181,

I wanted to let you know that I don't have a conflict of interest with the Venetoclax page I have been editing. I am a university student in pharmaceutical sciences, doing independent research on the drug.

Thanks!

EmilyDaley — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyDaley (talkcontribs) 22:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, no problem. (Please feel free to remove the message on your talk page if you want.) I guess your edits just looked like the work of a professional. :) -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

GS-5734[edit]

Hi Edgar. Any chance you could work out the name of this molecule for me? Bit too many stereocenters for me, especially around that phosphorus! Not on PubChem yet, I'm guessing it doesn't have a CAS# either? Meodipt (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added the IUPAC name derived by an old version of ChemDraw that I have (but I'm not 100% sure it is accurate). GS-5734 does have a CAS Number assigned, which I have added too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk page protection request[edit]

Hi - I think You have rats dead! might be looking for a holiday from editing their talk page. Since you're the blocking admin, perhaps you could grant them that wish? --bonadea contributions talk 13:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like another admin has already taken care of it. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Edgar181. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Pls review a new article[edit]

Hi there,

I have noticed that you have recently improved my article uvitic acid. Now I have created uvitonic acid. May you review it and add a chemical infobox?

Cheerz! Lamro (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I see you added the infobox, so I just added an image. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dental caries[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dental caries. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

RAJA NAIPOSPOS[edit]

I'm not really going to argue with your deletion of RAJA NAIPOSPOS, but just wanted to check that you actually read my comment on the talk page and took that into account before deleting. SpinningSpark 10:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I remember putting the article and talk page comments through Google Translate, but I may have missed your comment at the bottom. Looking at page again, I think it might be possible to write an acceptable article on the topic, but it would certainly require sources to establish notability (and would need to be written in English), so I wouldn't object if someone recreated the article under those conditions. In any case, I still think the article as it stood met criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks for your diligent followup. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

History of chemistry

[edit]

My link was GOOOOD. Ps.And it not my website!
95.49.111.218 (talk)

Please have a look at WP:EL. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

One more to review[edit]

Hi there,

May you please review Ustilagic acid? I am not able to identify correct categories.

Cheers! Lamro (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I'll take a look a little later today. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Lamro: It looks complicated. There appears to be at least 3 chemical compounds with that name: ustilagic acid A, ustilagic acid A, and ustilagic acid C. PubChem, Chemspider, SciFinder, and Reaxys are not consistent about the identity of each. And the description of "ustilagic acid" at the cyberlipid.org page linked from the article encompasses even more chemical structures. Maybe is it best to remove the chembox and write the article from the point of view of a class of related chemical compounds with similar properties and biological functions, rather than as one specific compound. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

What is the difference between {{Db-a11}}, {{Db-invented}}, {{Db-madeup}} and {{Db-hoax}}? Hoax and invented are similar but they are marked as G3 ans A11. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Basically, {{Db-a11}} is for an article that is about something that is real, but was just invented by the person writing about it. {{Db-g3}} is for an article that is not real - completely fake. For example, if I make up a game called "Fun sport ball" and play it with all my friends at school and then create an article for it, that's {{Db-a11}}; but if I write about a game called "Fun sport ball" which supposedly has professional leagues in many nations and which Lebron James stars in, that's a hoax, {{Db-g3}}. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Perilla[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing—Perilla—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Diospireiro (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Edgar, thank you for deleting Pizzagate investigation. You may want to warn and/or block the article creator, and also note likely related to incoming Trolls from Olgino, more info on that at [1] and [2]. Sagecandor (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Trolls from Olgino is something new to me. I'll take a look. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Also more research I've done is at Fake news website on section Fake news website#Russia for info on possible incoming activity. However, [3] is also most informative and revealing. where hundreds of paid bloggers work round the clock" ... Sagecandor (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Some problems[edit]

Hi Ed,

unfortunately, I tried to publish my first article 3 times and I can not understand where the problem is.

Maybe,

Problem of set my user page ? Problem of neutral point of view ? Problem of links

I got a first Submission declined on 7 November 2016 where the problem was "structural" But now it looks to be a different problem

Can you tell me more ? or give me an advice.

Thank you in advance for all.

Regards

Page : Draft:Septodont

Nolanmiton (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


Nolanmiton, it looks like the draft was declined because it appeared promotional in nature. That is an assessment that I would agree with. The company is probably notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia, but it would need to be written from a more neutral point of view. Also, you may want to take a look at WP:COI, which may apply here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about "Vaccine" updates[edit]

The changes I made should stand, as they are entirely truthful, and documented by the CDC, along with proof from the CDC in the form of a link. Therefore my edits should stand and be left alone. Instead, they are being removed. This is the second time it was removed, so I am wondering what the purpose is of removing truthful and accurate information. I figured rather than putting it up again, I would attempt to find out the reasoning to delete truthful information. At this point, it just seems that some want this hidden, and no one should hide facts from those wanting to research any medical choice, such as vaccines.

I reworded this:
"Egg protein is present in influenza and yellow fever vaccines as they are prepared using chicken eggs. Other proteins may be present."
to say this:
"Egg protein is present in influenza and yellow fever vaccines as they are prepared using chicken eggs. Other proteins may be present, such as human fetal DNA from aborted babies, fetal bovine serum, human serum albumin, porcine DNA, bovine serum albumin, and other animal DNA[1]"

The only thing I can think of would be changing "human fetal DNA from aborted babies" to "recombinant human albumin" or "human albumin", or "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts", or "MRC-5 cells", or "human diploid cell cultures (WI-38)", or any of the various ways they explain it, but ultimately, you are still talking about human aborted fetal cells. I didn't add the guinea pig DNA that is in varicella, because that isn't in as much. But between the others I listed below, you get all the main methods of DNA in vaccines.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

References

199.74.155.50 (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Your edit was rightly reverted. If you have different content to propose please do so on the article talk page at Talk:Vaccine. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
There were several issues that I had with the edit. One was that "other proteins" is inconsistent with various types of DNA in the list, which are not proteins. The other issue is, of course, "human fetal DNA from aborted babies" which (as I'm sure you know) was not supported at all by the reference you cited. The comment you have made about alternative phrasings that are supposedly equivalent to "human aborted fetal cells" is just plain wrong. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"other proteins" was what was originally there, I just expanded on them. How it was worded before made it seem like it was egg or other. And it is egg, human, porcine, bovine, guinea pig and other DNA. And how exactly is "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts" in your opinion is not from an aborted human baby? That is exactly what it is... Even Wikipedia knows that, as you can see at WI-38. The CDC pdf I referenced listed the names that I expanded on. And if you do further research on each name, you can easily find that is from a specific aborted human fetus. Instead of naming all the separate babies, I listed the type of DNA it was, human, animal, etc... 47.185.111.92 (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot even understand how someone could view a cell culture and a human baby as different, then there isn't any point in having a conversation. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is also important to those who are against things like abortion to easily find information that a vaccine contains cell cultures from a baby. They have the right to accurate information, which the CDC also provides. So it ultimately seems like you are against stating this was from a human baby. In that case, then I shall word it differently. Would it be okay to place the reworded information here so that maybe we can come to an agreement on wording so that my edits are not reverted so quickly? 70.196.13.69 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what I said. The best place to suggest edits to the article is on the article's talk page, talk:vaccine. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I did put this there on the article talk page, but you are responding here after it was on the article talk page. So I responded back rather than ignoring it... 69.78.235.130 (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected[edit]

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)