User talk:Nirmos

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


Hello, Nirmos, 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! Wizard191 (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Organophosphate Pesticides[edit]

While you are correct in that Ethion, Azinphos-methyl, Diazinon and other compounds are not, in a strict chemical sense, organophosphates, they are nonetheless classified as organophosphate pesticides by the EPA, WHO, agricultural scientists, etc. See, for example, [1] or [2]. So while they are not technically organophosphate compounds, are they still organophosphate pesticides, and belong in Category:Organophosphate insecticides. Yilloslime TC 18:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for letting me know, I will not remove the Category:Organophosphate insecticides on any articles. Do you suggest creating sub-categories to Category:Organophosphate insecticides so we could specify whether the compound is a phosphonothioate/phosphorothioate/phosphorodithioate insecticide? Once again, thank you for your constructive feedback. Nirmos (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's fine to put the articles in question into both categories. For example, diazinon is an "organophosphate pesticide" but it's also an example of a phosphorodithioate compound. So while I reverted your removal of Category:Organophosphate insecticides from these articles, I also retained Category:Phosphorodithioates for them. I think this is a good way to handle this situation. It might be worth putting a note on top of the page for Category:Organophosphate insecticides, that says something to the effect that this category is for those pesticides generally referred to as organophosphates, but that some members of the category not are true organophosphates in the strict chemical sense.Yilloslime TC 23:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, there was recently some similar confusion with Category:Organochloride insecticides. See User_talk:حسن_علي_البط#Hi. I think the issue is that many of the names of the standard pesticide classes (organophosphates, organochlorines, n-methyl carbamates, etc) have chemical sounding names, but the classification system itself is only partially based on chemical structure. Yilloslime TC 00:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I think your idea about putting a note on the Category:Organophosphate insecticides page is good. However, we still need to decide what this category is to include. Phosphorothioates and phosphorodithioates follow the same formula as phosphates, just that one or two oxygen atoms are replaced by one or two sulfur atoms, respectively. Phosphonothioates, however, do not follow this general formula, but these too have been labeled 'organophosphate insecticides' and/or 'organophosphates' here on Wikipedia. See [3], for instance. Hence, we need to decide whether to include phosphonothioates in Category:Organophosphate insecticides or not.Nirmos (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
WIth regard to [4], VX isn't a pesticide, so it definitely doesn't belong in Category:Organophosphate insecticides. And it probably doesn't belong in Category:Organophosphates, since it seems that that category is reserved for compounds that are true organophosphates in the strict chemical sense. (But Category:Organophosphate insecticides is itself as subcategory of Category:Organophosphates, which is confusing. I've got no opinion about what to do about that.) As for what should go into Category:Organophosphate insecticides, I think it should only be insecticides commonly referred to a "organophosphate [or organophosphorous] insecticides," in reputable, authoritative sources like, for example, those EPA and IRAC documents I cited above. Doing a chemical category search on [5] generates a pretty comprehensive list that includes obsolete pesticides not included in the EPA/IRAC documents. Yilloslime TC 01:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


I suggest that you move this article to 'Category:Inorganic amines'.

  • Azanes are almost always termed amines.
  • "Inorganic" reflects the nature of the articles in the category.

--Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sure, I will make the same changes on Swedish Wikipedia as well for coherence. Thank you for your constructive feedback! Nirmos (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

CSD is not automatically for foreign language articles[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you tagged Jonathan Segerholm for CSD as "cross-wiki spam not in English". Please note that this applies only to articles that really exist anywhere on foreign language wikipedia servers (CSD A2, {{db-a2}}). Because in this case it turned out that there is not corresponding article on the Swedish WP. And to apply such a tag you should be sure that the article was copied from somewhere else. Otherwise, please use {{notenglish}} and list the article at WP:PNT for translation. If the article is then still not translated after two weeks it will be proposed for deletion, but again, foreign language entries are not an automatic criterion for speedy deletion. Regards, De728631 (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

”Because in this case it turned out that there is not corresponding article on the Swedish WP” is not true, as you can see here. Nirmos (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok sorry, but when I looked it up, the article there had been deleted and I didn't see the deletion log. Anyhow, next time please post a link to the external article or the deletion logs so as to avoid such misunderstandings. De728631 (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course, it's just that I'm new as an administrator (as you can see on my user page). I still have things to learn. Nirmos (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Born of Hope at[edit]

On another note, I came across your link to the new Swedish wiki version of Born of Hope. While reading that article on I noticed that the author wrote in the "Produktion" section that it cost 17k pounds to make the trailer. That's not true though, Madison and her crew got donations of £17k by posting their trailer online (cf. "An extra £17,000 was generated..."). My Swedish is just good enough for reading but I fail at writing text, so maybe you could fix that fact over there? And apart from that, the Swedish text looks very much like it was translated from the English version. I don't know how attribution is done at the Swedish wiki but to maintain the licenses, the source version should be credited somehow. Cheers, och god Jul! De728631 (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Amazing you spotted that. I've corrected it.
I don't know whether the article was translated from another language version or not, but seeing as I used the English version as a source when I corrected the misinformation on svWP, it should have this template. I've fixed this as well.
Merry Christmas! Nirmos (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Link removed by mistake[edit]

It seems you are confused to distinguish the difference of spam and non-spam. Why do you think each and every external link is spam? The link you removed from Hans Orberg page is the link to the official website of Hans Orberg himself. Please don't remove it again as this is not a spam nor a self-promotion link. Nimasdj 08:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a mistake, check the article's history and you'll see. On talk pages, please write new posts at the bottom of the page and sign your posts with four tildes. Nirmos (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User page change[edit]

On your userpage, I have changed the grammar in two sentences somewhat. -- (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! English is not my first language. Nirmos (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Phenol or alcohol?[edit]

Hi! Why are estradiol and alfatradiol not phenols? Phenols says that they "are a class of chemical compounds consisting of a hydroxyl group (-OH) bonded directly to an aromatic hydrocarbon group", which is what I've learned at university, too. Estradiol and alfatradiol meet that definition if I'm not much mistaken. Could you clarify that? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the carbon skeleton to which the hydroxyl group is attached has to be that of benzene for a compound to be called a phenol, otherwise there wouldn't be things such as naphthols, anthrols etc. Estradiol and alfatradiol are derivatives of estrane, so they would be estranols. Nirmos (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, estradiols even, because of the two hydroxyl groups. I think I'll make a category for those. Nirmos (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, the aromatic part of estradiol is a benzene, with some aliphatic rest that happens to form some additional rings. Furthermore, the Category:Naphthols is a subcategory of Category:Phenols, which would support my opinion that naphthols, anthrols etc. are special kinds of phenols. As far as I know, the term "phenol" (as opposed to "alcohol") is primarily used because OH attached to an aromatic ring has quite different chemical properties (higher acidity etc.), and for that purpose it doesn't make much difference how large the attached ring system is.
I'd suggest putting Category:Estradiols in Category:Phenols and Category:Alcohols. Please tell me if you disagree. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's not what I've been taught, but it doesn't matter much, I'm not very active on enWP anymore. Do as you please :)
Nirmos (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Anypodetos looks correct in assessment of the "phenol" functional-group analysis here. DMacks (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Estradiol is definitely both an aliphatic alcohol and a phenol. EdChem (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Estranes[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Estranes, 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. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Estradiols[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Estradiols, 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. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind. If you do, please object at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 27. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with small categories? You're gonna delete, say, Category:Thiophosphoryl compounds as well? Nirmos (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't delete Category:Thiophosphoryl compounds because I don't know enough about anorganic chemistry to estimate how many notable compounds would fit there. I'm not sure about Category:Estranes either, but I'm pretty certain that Category:Estradiols has no potential for expansion (see WP:SMALLCAT). Could you comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 27 to keep things in one place? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The CFD aside, what happened to the categories for estradiol and alfatradiol? Both are diols, so why remove that one? Also, all estrogens are steroids, so the steroid category in estradiol is redundant. Nirmos (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for removing the diol category, that was a mistake. I've re-added it. Estrogen is a pharmacological, not a chemical term – an example of a non-steroidal estrogen is diethylstilbestrol. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! But then the estrogen article is wrong. In the first sentence it says they ”are a group of steroid compounds”, and in the first sentence in the fourth paragraph it says ”Like all steroid hormones”. Nirmos (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Good you've spotted that. I hope it's correct now. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

AWB skips redirects[edit]

I made a list using Source: Category and chose "Folkungaätten" as the source. Then I clicked on "Normal settings" under the Options tab and entered [[Kategori:Folkungaätten]] under "Find" and [[Kategori:Bjälboätten]] under "Replace with". When I pressed "Start", AWB skipped the following pages that are redirects: sv:Cecilia Knutsdotter (Bjälboätten), sv:Ingeborg Bengtsdotter (Folkungaätten), sv:Katarina Bengtsdotter (Bjälboätten) and sv:Katarina Folkesdotter (Folkungaätten). The option "Page is redirect" under the Skip tab was not ticked. Nirmos (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Nirmos you have to disactivate "Follow redirects" in the "Options" menu. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I had no idea there was such an option, thank you very much, Magioladitis. Nirmos (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This does beg the question, though: Why is this option enabled by default? I mean, redirects exist to make sure that when a user searches for something in a normal browser, the user can easily find the correct page, usually to read it. But with AWB you want to edit pages that match your search. Why would most people want this feature enabled by default? Nirmos (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Nirmos when we created this option (many years ago), most people wanted to edit pages with actual content and AWB provided very few on redirect fixes back then. Some of the options should have changed (sometimes even renamed) but we are afraid this would break ties with older versions and cause compatibility problems. I have switched the option off in my settings. I advice that you do the same. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)