User talk:Fvasconcellos/Archive 22

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

Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23

Note to self

Things to catch up on: WP:PHARM:CAT · Talk:Temazepam · Talk:Deaths in 2009#Proposed new policy · WT:MEDMOS · Quinolone articles · WP:CHEMS validation

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen L. Robinson

Carmen L. Robinson, an article which you previously userfied, is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen L. Robinson. If you are interested, please comment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


I didn't really realize you were out :) I took two weeks to visit friends in Venezuela, and then have had a lot on my plate since I got home, so I haven't kept up as well as usual. I'm afraid I don't have much to report, but I'm always glad to see you on my talk page. I hope all is well, your friend, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I sure did :) I even marched in the (futile) protests, and had a lovely time. The rich are richer, there is a whole new class of rich Chavistas, and life goes on. Crime is outrageous, but I was careful (not as bad as Sao Paulo, though, where I had an armed guard and driver at my service 24 hrs/day when I worked there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

Irish clover.jpg

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Structure requested

Hi Fvasconcellos, if you remember a couple months back, you added a couple of nice structures to the article Cyathus, which subsequently passed GAR and is headed on its way to FA. I'm wondering if you would be so kind as to do the same for Crucibulum laeve; specifically, the structure of Salfredin B11 mentioned in the bioactive compounds section. Thanks kindly for considering my request; hope I can repay the favor someday. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can do. Congratulations on Cyathus! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again! Put me down in your "favors owing" column. Sasata (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal

There is a persistent IP vandal on the page Name-dropping, who tries to insert two people's names and edit-wars and abuses other editors when they are reverted. It goes back to Dec 2007 [1]. Their last IP was temporarily blocked a couple of weeks ago. They're back with another IP today,, and I noticed that they've edited one of your user pages, at User:Fvasconcellos/monoclonalschecklist. I just wondered if you had any idea who this IP user might be, as it is odd to see them making positive contributions after such a lengthy campaign of vandalism. Thanks! Fences and windows (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... no idea. I thought this could be a shared IP now occupied by a productive user, but this edit summary suggests otherwise. Perhaps that ever-elusive "vandal" that sees the error of his/her ways? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for March 2009

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 24 - March 2009
"I got a lot of shit for the Rolling Stone review of Reckoning because the guy really likes my guitar style and he wrote, 'on this record, Pete Buck does everything.' We'd stop for gas and it would be, 'Pete Buck does everything. Why don't you go pump the gas, Pete?'" - Peter Buck
Project news
New members

LizParker and Cavie78 joined the alternative music fold during March.



SoxBot II (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Alpha-eleostearic acid.svg

Hi Fv. I think there is an error in the double bond geometry of File:Alpha-eleostearic acid.svg. According to Chemical Abstracts and PubChem, alpha-eleostearic acid is the (9Z,11E,13E)-isomer. But your structure is the (9E,11E,13Z)-isomer, which is catalpic acid. Can you take a look and fix it if you agree? Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I can't find the source I used for the structure, but by the date of the file it was probably PubChem. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Done :) Thanks for the heads up. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Hase mit Ostereiern (2).jpg

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I actually had a very nice time today—spent the day with my family. Happy Easter yourself, however belatedly :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Fvasconcellos

Thank you for saying hello, you caught me when I could not resist to fix a few things. But in principle I decided that WP is largely not the academic community of fine and literate people any more. Too many dumb school boys, also on the side of the admins. I cannot stand the rude manners and crude logic. (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look

Migraine Associated Vertigo and you see what I am complaining about. (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I mind the habit of some editors to call every inconvenient edit or constructive criticism or removal of bogus "vandalism" or "page blanking". This must be the habits of American school children, and it really gives away crude logic, rude manners and malicious intent. I am certainly glad that I do not have to teach in this country, that must be hell. Probably they also bully each other to get better grades. Experienced with Goodson, later on the Temazepam pill bottle argument and now with edits to Migraine associated vertigo. Every time they are bloating themselves and yell vandalism or page blanking and most of the time the admins buy it. Can you explain that? Has spoiled the fun for me. (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But I have explained, remember? Look, I get where you're coming from. In this particular case, I urge you to take this to WT:MED and keep the discussion door open. I see no major, hair-pulling issue with this article, other than an excessive focus on Dr. Hain's work when plenty of sources are available. (This good review has quite a few in its References section.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good friend. I have put your link on the discussion website, lets see if they use it once they have chilled out from their hysteria. Meanwhile an admin has warned me 3rd level for remarking that the WP:MEDMOS guidelines are junior college reading level and seem to exceed the attention span of the editor. (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If the warnings bother you, maybe you should consider something along the lines of... trying not to insult people? :) Seriously. To each his own, I guess. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides, "To each his own" has an extremely sinister connotation to Germans. I know the classical meaning, that everybody may contribute to his abilities, and receive what is his own. But in Germany it was perverted by the Nazis, being the inscription above the main portal to the concentration camp (KZ) Buchenwald, where the people would then be gased. In German: "Jedem das Seine", this was the inscription. Look it up. (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Argh. Don't you just hate it when the forces of evil appropriate perfectly innocuous proverbs and use them for world domination? I apologize if you took any offense—I can't wrap my head around the extent to which modern-day Germany is still influenced by the Nazi past. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not exactly part of modern day Germany. I have been born into a famine year, a Germany that consisted destroyed inner cities, of gardens and orchards still standing in suburbs, but only the basement remaining of the house, or half the house missing and several families living in the remaining part, or people living in sheet metal sheds (Germany has bitter cold climate), and this are the early childhood memories. Houses confiscated by the government to make room for refugees, divided, with one family living in each room, like the house where I was living. Furniture makeshift, a wooden crate with a cooking plate on it for kitchen, a locker, a chair, a metal bed frame with a matress. School in makeshift places, e.g. a room of a former restaurant. Improvement and rebuilding from the mid 50s then things became normal. The Nazis had left us a destroyed country with everything in ruins, and millions of fresh graves of the war victims as well as of the millions of murdered jews and other political victims of the Nazis. (In case such graves really existed, and they had not just plowed the remains under with bulldozers). To our generation it was first hand experience that our parent and grandparents had turned the country into the ruins of a murderer country. They didn't like to admit that almost everybody had either participated actively or passively, or had become a victim himself. So my generation has not participated but we have inherited the moral debt of the parents, and part of it is not to forget, and to learn of history. I wish the young generation would also be more aware, such that we would have less young people falling for neo-Nazi paroles, racism and fascist ideas, but they seem to forget. History may repeat itself, once it is forgotten after 70 years. Magnify picture here

for the city of Hamburg. The smoke cloud was 7000m high after a fire storm developed. See here

for the typical sheet metal sheds. (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope the above explains the deep consequences of the Nazi time, at least for my generation. The destruction by the Nazi time went far beyond the material destruction by the lost war and beyond the killed millions. It was also a moral destruction and a destruction of trust in the traditional cultural beliefs and values, which had led our parents into the Nazi regime and the act of holocaust and the war. How could we trust the teachings and values of people who had cheered the propaganda of the great idiot five years before, and who had murdered 6 Mio. people to purify the race? Who had murdered 20 Mio. people of neighboring countries to subdue them under the leadership of the great idiot and the blonde beast? How could we believe they had suddenly changed completely, other than for pure opportunism? This was the main consequence of the Nazi time for my generation. Nothing was true any more, nothing trustworthy, nothing genuine. The teacher and the parents and the politician and the priest - all could have been collaborators of the regime. Who told us that the priest had not blessed the weapons or the gas oven or secretly had called the holocaust the revenge of god for the jews murdering Jesus? Why had the pope of that time not decidedly taken a position against Hitler? Who told us which turn would the public opinion take next? They were a doomed generation of murderous opportunists and never to be trusted again. We had to find a new start, but from where? Essentially our generation was born into the waste dump of history and the vacuum of values generated by the Nazi time. This deep defect and the effect of insight in its nature cannot be overcome in one generation. I hope this answers the question, why the historical consequences were so lasting. In the historical view many problems of contemporary politics can be traced back to the consequences of the Nazi time, still among them the antisemitic elements of the Nazi time in the ideology of combattants in the middle east conflicts, coming from a political alliance with the axis in the WW2. The Hamas still mentions the "Protocols of the elders of Zion" in their charta, and it would be interesting to cross reference their ideas and public beliefs with the propaganda of Alfred Rosenberg who also held the "Protocols" as one of his pet peeves. Somebody should dig out his "Mythos of the 20th century" and related materials and cross reference contemporary opinion of the terrorists against them. The Nazi time has thrown ahead a shadow over history, which will last for a century or more. Does it answer the question? (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I admit that I had doubts about attention span and reading level, as obviously the plain nature of my concerns always was bent and diverted into all kinds of directions, me hating Dr. Hain, me running a single purpose account to discredit the article, me being unreasonable for not recognizing that we can source all to one website, me doubting that isometheptene and ergots being triptans my edits being disruption, vandalism and page blanking etc. etc. - This are really kind of passive-aggressive editors, who use all tricks to discredit criticism or changes. I don't know why I am always misunderstood. You have immediately summarized correctly, in a femtosecond. These simply have some goo in their gearbox and stuck synchronization rings also, but oh boy, I can't even use the word junior college associated with attention span without them calling the henchmen... Was good talking to you again. (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization

If available, your comments would be appreciated regarding 3rd and 4th level ATC categories. ---kilbad (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Will see. At first glance, I'd say this is verging on category creep, and I'd rather keep the chemical/structure-based categories we already have. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you expand on that comment? What do you mean by "category creep"? Thanks again for your feedback. ---kilbad (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll reply over at the Talk page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. ---kilbad (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Antidepressants template

I have a dispute with another editor. Your comments would be appreciated.Meodipt (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Antidepressants template

I'll have a look. Damn it, why do I always disappear when people ask me to weigh in on something? It's starting to look bad :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Songs with lyrics by E. Y. Harburg

Info talk.png

Category:Songs with lyrics by E. Y. Harburg, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Influenza image

Hi there, could you make a SVG version of File:Influenza subtypes.png? Could be very useful at present. Thank you Tim Vickers (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I have to warn you, though, the file size advantage has pretty much been lost since SVG font rendering went the way of the dinosaurs :) Do you make a point of having the border, or can I leave it out? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Leave that border out please. If you've copied that file onto your computer I'll delete the local copy, since it is not "correctly tagged". Tim Vickers (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete away; the SVG's done :) How would you like it licensed? PD? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes PD is good, I'll expect it to start showing up on the web in a few days. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Okey dokey—here's the file. Please fill in the description, add source(s), mess about with the categories etc. In case you'd like anything changed, I'll be free for the next couple of hours, then probably not until the weekend! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks great! Now displayed to our tens of thousands of readers. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

List of brand names

Do we need the endless list of brand names like in Bromazepam? Take a look. (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not really, although I don't think it's that long at all—see this for a really unmanageable one :) I'd remove the whole section and replace it with an external link to reference 1 or Lexi-Comp (more reliable). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
And YesY Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Streptococcus iniae

Thank you so much! ---kilbad (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
I award you this Barnstar for creating the article Streptococcus iniae, and working on it just from 23:35, 4 May 2009 to 04:40, 5 May 2009, making it looking like its have been there for ages Maen. K. A. (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for April 2009

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 25 - April 2009
"The other day I had these Jehovah's Witnesses come round to my house, and they tried to convince me that the Pope was the Devil's representative on Earth. So I told them that Jesus was the world's first communist. So they left. They were genuinely enraged.'" - Ian Brown
Project news


SoxBot (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


You may be interested in this discussion on the de wikipedia. Cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied over there. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
Thanks so much for all of the help and effort you have gone through for ensuring that the name "Minas Geraes" is right or wrong! :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) As I said over at, whatever the outcome, at least we'll have a reliable source now. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Streptococcus iniae

Updated DYK query On May 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Streptococcus iniae, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yippee :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding your recent edit of the Floxin article

You had stated that you felt that listing of the quinolone drugs that had been removed from use to be inappropriate, as you felt this article should deal strictly with Ofloxacin. However the opening statement regarding the adverse reactions begins with:

Fluoroquinolones are alleged to be generally well tolerated with most side effects being mild and serious adverse effects being rare.[60][61] Some of the serious adverse effects which occur more commonly with fluoroquinolones than with other antibiotic drug classes include CNS and tendon toxicity.[62][63] The currently marketed quinolones have been cited in some publications to have safety profiles similar to that of other antimicrobial classes.[60]

Where we find a general statement alluding to fluoroquinolones being "well tolerated" with "safety profiles similar to that of other antimicrobial classes." Would you not agree that a paragraph the clearly refutes or challenges this statement would be appropriate considering how many have been removed from clincal use or restricted since the date of the citations used to support that statement? You do not find well tolerated drugs being removed from clinical use or restricted. This is the reason that the paragraph you deleted was placed there to begin with, to add balance and present both sides of the issue.

If we are to remove statements in this article that show that these drugs as a class are not well tolerated, just because they do not specifically state "Ofloxacin", then we should also remove the introduction paragraph that claims, contrary to what has been published, that they are well tolerated as a class as well; since that paragraph does not specifically state "Ofloxacin" either.

As such I would ask you to reconsider your edit or offer up something comparative that would inform the reader of the problems with this class that ofloxacin is a part of. If we are to allow praises then we should also be allowed a challenge to such praises. Or perhaps we should just remove that introduction completely and there would be no need to refute it. (sigh as well on this end)Davidtfull (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would personally remove that introduction. A simple link to "Quinolone" or "Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones" would suffice here—this is an article on the drug, not the class, so it should focus on drug-specific information and mention class-specific ones only in passing. The "History" section should also be trimmed:

The precursor to fluoroquinolones, nalidixic acid, was developed in 1962. However it was shown to have a very narrow antibacterial spectrum which limited its effectiveness. In 1978 norfloxacin was developed that improved upon nalidixic acid, making it the first fluoroquinolone. Modifying the central structural core of norfloxacin allowed researchers to create additional antibiotics with improved effectiveness. In this manner, ofloxacin was developed.

could easily become

Ofloxacin was developed in 19xx as a broader-spectrum analog of norfloxacin, the first fluoroquinolone antibiotic.

with no detriment whatsoever to the article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the trade names I would be inclined to agree with you as well except for the fact that Ofloxacin is known by so many different names as well as the fact that it had gone generic years ago. Therefore it would be all but impossible for someone taking floxacin prescribed under these various names to access this article if they did a wiki search using the generic name. Additionally floxacin has been discontinued here in the States, so anyone being prescribed this would be recieving the generic brand in the United States. Do we really want to be writing forty or fifty different redirects for each and every one of these generics? Or do we accomplish this by using a heading for the trade names? Willing to listen to any solution you may have to this problem. Just for the record it was LG's suggestion to include trade names in first place, back when we were working on other quinolone articles, not mine.Davidtfull (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We have a long-standing saying in Wikipedia (it may even be codified somewhere) that "redirects are cheap". Redirects for trade names are a more appropriate solution than in-article "laundry" lists, because 1) they avoid clutter in the article body, 2) they prevent issues such as an ever-growing list that may be "expanded" with inaccurate information (our articles on valproates, for instance, are plagued by well-meaning editors adding trade names of valproic acid in the valproate semisodium article and vice-versa); and 3) they make it much easier for someone looking for a particular generic formulation of the drug to get to the actual article; someone looking for "Tarivid" would simply type it in the search box and be taken directly to the ofloxacin article.
I don't mean to discourage you, but these are the least of the article's issues. It has serious stylistic problems (that is, it does not conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines), needs to include more internal links as appropriate, has several uncited statements, etc. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is no where near done so I take no offense to constructive criticism in the least while it is being developed. Deleting chunks without even a discussion is rather discouraging however.

I intended to add headings for: pharmacology parmacokinetics dosing susceptible bacteria etc, to comply with the style guidelines, as well as adding in the internal links.

Just have not had the time to do so due to pressing personal concerns. I am just now starting to work on the article again after several weeks absence. Normally I have LG come in behind me and peer review it and make corrections or suggestions as needed when I believe a section to be completed. We seem to work fairly well together on these articles with no real disagreements arising doing things in that fashion. But he has been tied up with other things at the moment and has not had a chance to review it as of yet.

But compared to the state of these articles before I started working on them I cannot help but feel a bit put upon here. They were a horrid mess and for the most part useless. And nobody cared. But the moment I start trying to fix them and present relevant information they fall under a microscope, demanding perfection. For example the Pefloxacin article begged for a rewrite for well over a year. And nobody did anything about it. The same with this article. So it is quite discouraging to be trying to do your best and have everybody suddenly take an interest in something they have ignored forever, just because I am the one trying to fix these problems. Problems they had no interest in until I came along. But I am learning that is the nature of wikipedia, so either I accept it or give up trying.

I was under the impression that you did not need to cite each and every statement made. Just those that could be disputed. But if need be I have no problem citing every sentence if that is what is required. But that tends to add a lot of needless clutter.

Not too sure how to create a redirect so if you would help me with that then I will create them for all these various names. Personally I would rather avoid the trade name heading as well. Just trying to accomadate other editors who thought it was important is all.Davidtfull (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about the article being a work in progress; there is no deadline, although our readers obviously benefit from an article being "in shape" as quickly as possible :) It is indeed not necessary to cite every statement—common sense should be your guide—but, obviously controversial material excepted, it isn't easy to try and predict which statements could be disputed; after all, it all depends on who's doing the disputing. If you like, I can go through the article and add {{citation needed}} tags to statements I would like to see referenced.
Redirects from drug trade names to the nonproprietary name can be made as follows: simply create an article with the content
#REDIRECT [[Name of the main drug article]]{{R from trade name}}
This creates the redirect and places it in a category used to keep track of all trade name redirects. A redirect from "Oflocet", for instance, would be created as follows: search for "Oflocet" → click on the red "Create this page" link → create the page with
#REDIRECT [[Ofloxacin]]{{R from trade name}} .
Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try to create the redirects in that fashion. Thanks for the help with that. If you care to go ahead and tag the statements you think need to be referenced and I will provide the references. If you see something that you feel is out of line rather than just delete it, drop a note on my talk page or use the discussion section of the article and let's talk about it first.

There are things I have put there to sastify others who have also taken to arguing endlessly about these articles and deleting things they disagree with willy nilly. For instance the intro to the adverse section was the result of the compromises made with while working on the quinolone toxicity article. A pre-emptive strike if you will. But I know it is IMPOSSIBLE to please everybody here. No sense in even trying. But I honestly believe these articles should engage the reader rather than just present a carbon copy of the package inserts. They need to do more than just provide a brief and to the point list of facts, devoid of any context from hence the facts are derived. The history of the drug, the manner in which they are employed, what the regulatory agencies and others have to say about them, the social and economic impact they have, etc., are all part and parcel of engaging the reader's interest. Perhaps you disagree and believe they should read like the physicians desk reference instead.

But one a side note I did check a number of other antibiotic drug articles on wiki other than the fluoroquinolones and they all fail to comply with Wikipedia's style guidelines and nobody has raised this issue regarding them. Just with the quinolone articles do we find such concerns being expressed.

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand what is expected of me, as it seems there is a special set of rules here that others don't have to comply with that are constantly changing depending on who the critic is. Just trying to figure out what they are is all so I can try and comply with them.Davidtfull (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, there is no deadline, so many articles are not up to scratch. I brought this to your attention because, as you seem to be building the quinolone articles "from the ground up", so to speak, they might as well be built to code. I also agree that drug articles should not mirror a package insert; let's take this one step at a time and I'm sure these articles will grow into excellent sources of information. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, it is also generally a good idea to "prosify" information that one would normally present as a bulleted list. See this edit for an example of what I'm talking about—turning list items into prose makes for a more engaging and readable article, and avoids clutter. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they should be done properly as well. I think with you, as well as LG taking an interest, and correcting things as we go, we can accomplish exactly that. I take no offense to such corrections or a different set of eyes reviewing my efforts. Surely I will be making mistakes being rather new at this. But my intentions are honorable so I am more than willing to be educated here and make justifiable revisions as needed. I'll be the general contractor here and you and LG can be the building inspectors. You know the "building codes" far better than I. I'm going to move this discussion to the talk page as to not take up too much of your space here. Thanks for taking the time to help with all of this. It is appreciated.Davidtfull (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


You had asked: if interactions were not significant, why would we mention them

I would suggest because some interactions are troublesome to the patient but not medically significant. The idea being to seperate the two and focus on the medically serious ones while still allowing for those which would result in discomfort to the patient but not medically threatening to the patient's health. Hence two categories: Interactions / Significant Interactions. Seperating the chaff from the wheat. Interactions being common warnings while Significant Interactions becoming the Black Box so to speak. Combining the two and you risk the significant ones being overlooked. Listing only the significant ones and you deprive the patient of the information regarding those that may only cause discomfort.Davidtfull (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that; it's not exactly an orthodox way of approaching interactions (although "tier" systems do exist, e.g. "Risx C", "Risk X" etc.). I'll review the article again tomorrow and see how it's coming along. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, the article is coming along nicely—your recent edits were a major improvement. I still don't think we should mention interactions that are not considered clinically significant. Perhaps we should take this to the article Talk page? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no real strong opinions regarding this either way. My perspective is from the patient's point of view and what information the patient reading this article would find to be relevant would derive from there. Whereas others would view this article from the treating physicians point of view and may consider such information to be frivolous. Hence why don't we sit on this until the article is completed and go from there? Viewing this issue in the context of the full article, rather than just that particular section. I'm sure their will be other issues that will require discussion as well and we can include this at that time. Are you satisfied that the documentation regarding the J and J shareholder meeting is sufficient? I included that due to its notability, rather than what some may percieve to be my so called "hidden agenda" as in all of the years I have been researching this class, as well as other pharmaceuticals, this is the FIRST time that I had encountered shareholders raising safety issues regarding the fluoroquinolones during such meetings. Not only once, but two years in a row. The second time by a former drug rep who actually sold this product and was placed on disability by the company he worked for due to such reactions.

Soon after we find that Floxacin had been discontinued. Without an explanation. Coincidence? Possibly. Related? More than likely, considering the CEO's comments, but I have no proof to offer as no press release or other notification was issued by the manufacturer. I should also make mention here of the fact that Paul Cahan was a high ranking executive with the American Red Cross and had on numerous occassions interacted with Johnson and Johnson officials in this capacity. He too has been permanently disabled as a result of his adverse reactions. Hence my conclusion that these events were notable enought to include in the drug's history as two shareholders whose living was directly related to the activities of Johnson and Johnson chose to speak out.Davidtfull (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't really expect the article to ever be "completed"—there's really no such thing in Wikipedia—but I understand what you mean.
I'm satisfied with the references, and I agree these were notable events. Presenting them in a neutral manner is fine, although I don't think a reference to is necessary for the 2009 meeting, since it is avaliable from the J&J website. You can use {{cite video}} to cite references to audiovisual media; it includes a parameter for the timestamp. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I included that reference FQresearch for the 2009 webcast as I am sure that J and J will not have that webcast archived on their site for more than a couple of months. Particulary when you take into consideration their expanding legal problems concerning levofloxacin/floxin. Whereas I believe the page on the FQresearch site will be around for many years to come. Thereby providing a backup to the J and J 2009 reference down the road. Just recently another law firm filed papers seeking Mass Tort consolidation regarding thousands of additional lawsuits that have recently been filed. The plaintiffs lawyer, Michael London, is asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to accord mass-tort treatment to their suits against the manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc. It is my understanding that such litigation is also in the works regarding Floxin as well. As such it would be prudent legally for J and J to pull that webcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidtfull (talkcontribs) 22:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Penang state locator.svg & File:Sarawak state locator.svg

Thank you for the SVGs pal. You're really nice. Thanks (: Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 17:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

OTRS Wikimedia.svg
The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our Portuguese permissions queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 17:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi there, I'm having difficulty with this BeVeryGoodMan (talk · contribs) at antioxidant. Could you please talk to them? I can't get them to discuss their edits. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, it looks like you've got it covered for the time being :) I'll keep an eye on it. Best as always, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Ay, two of my favorites in one place! Pingie ... Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benzodiazepine/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Seagul Rockit

Hey man this is my band and its not vandalsim homie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seagulrockit (talkcontribs) 23:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I know it's not vandalism; I never said it was. Nonetheless, it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You may want to have a look at WP:MUSIC for our guidelines on the criteria bands must meet before they can have an article on Wikipedia. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

fine i didnt want to put it on wikipedia anyways —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seagulrockit (talkcontribs) 23:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK then. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


A 5 ml vial of flumazenil

Thanks for the clarification on images.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. How do you like this closer crop? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi Fv, I was just wondering if you know of any publicly-accessible online database of INNs? Thanks, -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Unfortunately, I don't; I Google "drug_name INN" and the corresponding issue of WHO Drug Information is usually among the first results. This is also a very useful source. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Making .svg Chemical Structures

Fv, Help!

I have been trying to make .svg files out of line art chemical structures. I have created structures in ACD ChemSketch 12.0 and tried various ways of getting them into Inkscape: copy & paste; double copy and paste via PowerPoint; via PowerPoint after conversion to Windows drawing; saving as WMF or EMF and loading into Inkscape, or converting with SVG Factory; and others I don't remember right now. Either the figure comes into Inkscape as a bitmap, or it comes in as line art with all the lettering missing! Please let me know what your secret is. (I do notice that you don't seem to have used a version of ChemSketch later than 10.)

Addendum: I finally managed to create a decent .svg structure by copying a structure from powerpoint to OpenOffice Draw, then exporting it to an svg file, then opening that file in InkScape and then re-saving it as an svg file. The final drawing is Semapimod.svg

(The svg file from OpenOffice did not display correctly in Wikipedia.) (The original drawing was not from ChemSketch but from a stone-age Win 3.1 program called Molecular Presentation Graphics. I have yet to try this with a Chemsketch drawing.)

Lanulos (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you're using ChemSketch 12.0 and Inkscape, the best advice I can give you is to export the structure to PDF and import the PDF into Inkscape. It will be 90% ready for upload—all you'll need to do is join the paths (each bond is exported as an individual path) and convert the text to outlines if you want a cleaner look. You also wanto to increase the size of the atom labels in ChemSketch. The image above is already in good shape, but it must have given you a lot of trouble; the PDF method is simpler and gives excellent results. If I can help you any further, please don't hesitate to ask, and don't forget to upload your results! Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't thought of transfer via pdf. Here is the result (with a slightly rearranged drawing):
Semapimod cs.svg
I've noticed I have to leave a bit of space around the figure or it gets chopped off at the edges.
Lanulos (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)