User talk:Edgar181/Archive16

18-ethoxycoronaridine

Hi Edgar. Could you take a look at this page? It seems a little suspicious to me...no references and the only google hits to the 18-ethoxycoronaridine are to the wiki page and the website of the abovementioned Obiter Research (some other ethoxy coronaridine derivatives are found as natural products, but not the 18-). I'm thinking if the University of Vermont had licensed out one of their patented compounds for the development of a new drug addiction treatment medication (the patents on 18-methoxycoronaridine are rather broad so this probably is covered) then they would have made some kind of press release about it? Meodipt (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The compound doesn't show up in SciFinder, but it's not too surprising that nothing has been published yet if it was first synthesized in 2010. It's quite possible that little is known about it, and it would be too early to be considered a drug addiction treatment, and not yet something to put out a press release about. So the content of the article doesn't come across as inaccurate to me, but it probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines pertaining to notability and verifiability. My guess is that someone involved in the research created the article in a moment of vanity. It might be best to merge the article into another which already has content about various coronaridine derivatives, such as 18-Methoxycoronaridine. This would at least put it in context. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm fair points, I was thinking about just asking the page creator for the relevant patent number so the page at least has a reference. But now that I had a better look I'm still more suspicious about the company, they look like they are just doing a custom synthesis of an obscure material that people might want and trying to sell it for a high price (18-methoxycoronaridine is not readily available from biosciences suppliers like Tocris or Sigma-Aldrich so researchers would probably be interested in a close analogue). And if things like this are anything to go by I feel the page may be more about marketing their poor quality product (they even admit it is racemic on their webshop) than proclaiming their new research. I'd be tempted to email the University of Vermont (or maybe just Dr Glick personally as no doubt he would know) about whether any licensing agreement exists as claimed. Meodipt (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok the relevant patent is US 6211360 issued to Stanley D Glick and Martin E Kuehne and the University of Vermont in 2001, but the patent filing was in 1996. So the 18-ethoxy compound is covered by the patent but it isn't one of the examples or preferred compounds, and is not mentioned in either of the papers I have about 18-MC congeners by Glick et al. It could still be a new 2010 synthesis as claimed, but yeah I doubt it has sufficiant verifiability even though I'd consider it notable (barely!) if it was proved to have been made. Meodipt (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So do you think it is worth keeping? I'm inclined to mark it with WP:PROD due to verifiability concerns. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I would say give the creator of the page a chance to come up with some references other than the patent, but PROD it if they can't. I'd support re-creating the page anyway if there is any mention of the compound in a journal or even a reputable science news website, but without even that its on shaky ground even by my inclusionist standards. I have created a few pages myself for compounds that are only mentioned in patents, but only because I've heard somewhat reliable rumours that they are being used already, wheras this page reads almost like an advert saying "we have made this new compound, and have it for sale" with not really any other information, it doesn't even say what 18-EC would be used for other than referencing its similarity to 18-MC. Meodipt (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have left a request on the creator's talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Potential block evasion

I believe User:98.121.192.163, who you recently blocked, has come back as User:98.17.119.43.-5- (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite possible. If edits from that IP become disruptive, please let me know or report them at WP:AIV. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ponazuril

Ciao Edgar. We've received an email through WP:OTRS suggesting that the image you contributed to the Ponazuril article needs to be corrected to show that it is a trifluoro and not a difluoro. I have no idea what this means, but if you could take another look at the formula, that would be appreciated! Regards, Skomorokh 12:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand what that means and it does seem to be correct. I'll fix it shortly. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the speedy response. Skomorokh 12:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Question/comment

Hello. I'm curious to know what software you're using to make the images of chemical compounds/reactions.Smallman12q (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I use ChemDraw. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Chemdraw supports SVG exports...is there a reason you prefer to save the compounds in the non-scalable png format?Smallman12q (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I only recently upgraded to a version of ChemDraw that is capable of generating SVGs, so I wasn't about to generate them until a few months ago. Also there have been some issues with the atom labels not scaling properly with SVGs, or some browsers not displaying them properly. Another minor issue is that ChemDraw does not generate SVGs with a transparent background, which I prefer. Since high resolution PNGs can be as good as SVGs at reasonable image sizes, the quality difference between the two formats is minimal in my opinion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For most projections, SVG is pretty good...I've written a VBS script to make the background transparent for ChemDraw svg exports at User:Smallman12q/Scripts/Transperify...I'm sure there are other Wikipedians who may find it useful as well.Smallman12q (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a try. -- Ed (Edgar181) 09:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if it works for you. Enjoy your labour day=D. Smallman12q (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried using your script on a few SVGs that I uploaded earlier this year. File:Glycol stearate.svg, File:Imiprothrin.svg, File:Fenclozic acid.svg and File:Hydroxyethyl methacrylate.svg. It seems to have worked just fine. Thanks! -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

=D. I've also added support for multiple files in drag/drop. Do share with other Wikipedians using ChemDraw. Cheers!Smallman12q (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Potty mouth troll

Hello Ed, at Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, 70.250.198.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps posting potty mouth trollish comments/remarks (1 & 2). Any advice? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185♪♫™} 09:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they have been given a final warning by User:BilCat, which seems to have helped. If there is any more incivility from this editor, just let me know or report to WP:AIV and they will be blocked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Roger that, but it seems that the IP had followed BilCat to the article from another thread and his rhetoric (1 & 2) is none the different from earlier on. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185♪♫™} 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again

Here we go again Ed... on that article page, the regular editors (such as myself) are having headache there with this IP editor 70.250.198.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who just kept flooding the article with all sorts of tags but not actually helping to edit or improve the article. Judging by his familiarity of WP, it made me suspicious that he might be a banned user. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185♪♫™} 07:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

To me it looks like someone who is actually trying to help, but not knowing Wikipedia's peculiarities, rather than someone trolling. I suppose it is possible that it is a banned user, but I think assuming good faith is still worthwhile at this point. It seems that talk page discussion would help all around. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Ed, I know you meant well but his action thus far has not inspire much confidence for me in him. Too much nonsense in one day from him and we don't know what to expect next... please note that two other regular editors are now stressed out by the IP's edit-warring and pointy behaviour. Frankly, I think I'm one of the sane ones left around there simply because I'm not giving a rat's ass. Anyway, appreciate if you could keep a close watch there, I have a feeling the IP would up his antics soon. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on the IP's talk page suggesting that he use the talk page to first discuss any further changes to the article. Please let me know if the disruption continues. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

CSD

Hi Edgar, FYI I've quoted some CSD tags in an RFA !vote, including one that you deleted - you might want to see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wifione. Regards ϢereSpielChequers 21:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I left a comment there. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No probs, as neither of you were able to see the text I've restored it and filed a translation request. ϢereSpielChequers 12:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk elections

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks

Dear Edgar, Thanks for the wonderful support you gave me in the RfA, thanks. This is a personal note to tell you your vote mattered a lot and was appreciated highly. Sincerely. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that it turned out well for you. Congrats. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Picnicface

I was wondering why the page on sketch-comedy group Picnicface was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LT555 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the article at the title Picnicface because it was just a redirect to a deleted article titled Picnicface Comedy, which was deleted after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Picnicface Comedy. If you have questions about that deletion, it would be best to contact the admin who deleted it, User:Spartaz. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Bismuth subsalicylate

I've noticed several structures for this compound from a variety of sources. Whatat is the nature of the bonding between bismuth and the oxygens. From the sources I've read, the melting point is greater than 360 degrees Celcius; at least one bond is ionic. What about the other bismuth to oxygen bonds?--Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the bismuth-oxygen bonds will have both some ionic and some covalent character, but I don't know enough about bismuth chemistry to really know. Sorry I can't help much. 09:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Do Wikipedia administrators get paid for their services or do they actually hold down real jobs? I've noticed these people make between 50 - 100 edits every single day. Where do they find the time to do this? It's as if they wake up at 3:00 AM and start editing until 11:00 PM that night.

No, Wikipedia administrators do not get paid. For many people that contribute regularly here, I think it is more like a hobby than anything else. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

draconian block by a bot?

i was concerned about this could you have a look? thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That bot blocks IPs addresses that are confirmed to be open proxies, because of their history of being used to abuse Wikipedia. If I recall correctly, it also checks to see if the blocked IP addresses cease to be open proxies, and then unblocks them. The bot has approval from the Wikipedia community to carry out these tasks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious editing patterns

Hi Edgar. I was going through the edit history of some pharmaceuticals that have been going through FDA filings recently and came across some odd editing patterns. The two drugs I noticed were lorcaserin and flibanserin. Both times a string of edits had been made in a row by a new user, which changed content substantially by adding lots of references and professional language - but not encyclopedic language so much as the kind of thing you would see in a prescribing information for doctors. In one case a long-dormant account was reactivated to make the edits (User:Monkeshine for lorcaserin), in the other it was a new account (User:Mimabern for flibanserin), but both times the account was basically single use and had only edited that article or related ones, and the changes tended towards giving favourable reviews of clinical trial results and minimising the emphasis on reported side effects - and both times the changes were made shortly before the FDA advisory panel voted on whether or not to approve the drug for sale. I wonder whether these articles were edited by employees or agents of the company trying to get the drug approved, in an attempt to sway the vote (or perhaps merely drum up public support for the drug), as in both cases the FDA panel ultimately voted against approval. Meodipt (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Googling "mimabern" bought up this (note the myspace link) so I don't think there is a problem there. Based on this Monkeshine could well be a paid editor who was paid to edit the page, it looks like they may have also been astroturfing elsewhere. Smartse (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions of these editors, I think it is quite possible that they are involved in some way in the product or the company behind it. The language is technical and professional, as you say, and probably not the work of a casual uninvolved editor. Seeing that in both cases the effort was short lived, I suspect this just was the work of an individual, not some concerted effort by the company itself. If the intention was to sway an FDA approval process, I think that would be a waste of time. The process is so information-intensive and involves so may people with greatly varying motivations that anything written on Wikipedia is going to make no difference at all. It is more likely directed at public opinion. This kind of editing with a conflict of interest is very prevalent on Wikipedia, on many kinds of articles relating to products, musical groups, politicians, etc. Our response in every case should be to edit the articles to include a broader, more neutral point of view. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Software you use

What software do you use for drawing chemical structures? Or better yet, would you recommend any particular software for an undergraduate chemistry student who needs to draw organic molecules for lab reports? (Preferably open source, if such exists.) Dtork (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what software Eddie uses, but I recommend MarvinSketch. You can download it from http://www.chemaxon.com, you'll only need to sign up for an account, you won't have to pay anything either, I can testify to that. I'm an undergraduate myself, and I've been using it for my laboratory reports.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I use ChemDraw, which is the most widely used program, and probably one of the best. Unfortunately it is not free or open source. Although I haven't used it much, other people seem to recommend ACD/ChemSketch, which does have a free version. Also, Wikipedia has an article that can help you explore your options: Molecule editor. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Vincristine/vinblastine

Hi Ed. I've fixed both now—how embarrassing! I've also uploaded File:Vindesine.svg. I've checked them against Common Chemistry and KEGG (which usually has clearer structures), but I'd really appreciate it if you could have a quick look yourself. Thanks again, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

They all look good to me now. Thanks for the quick fixes. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent Block

Could you reconsider the length of block given to 174.77.223.251, please? The edit pattern suggests vandalism on a once daily basis. You've blocked the user for 24 hours, but the edit pattern suggests that the user won't try to edit until tomorrow; when the block will have expired, or will be ready to expire. How about a 36 or 48 hour block instead? — Fly by Night (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, seems reasonable. I've made it 72 hours to span the weekend. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's probably best. Thanks a lot. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Psoralen Biosynthesis 1.jpg

Hi there, you recently restored File:Psoralen Biosynthesis 1.jpg, citing a temporary restoration. It's been over a week since that point, can the file be re-deleted? — ξ^xplicit 01:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I undeleted a couple of images to help out the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:CHEM#Psoralen.23Biosynthesis, which seems to have come to an end now. I have now redeleted the two images involved. Thanks for the reminder. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

209.192.121.254

Thank you very much for your help. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Address 167.206.79.227

Hello Edgar,

The address you blocked (until July 2011!!!), 167.206.79.227, is a shared IP address used by the Greenwich Library in Greenwich, CT. Although I understand there may have been some irresponsible behavior by someone, or several people, logging in from library computers, it is unfair and uneccesarily punitive to block everyone and anyone here @ the Greenwich Library from being allowed to create a wikipedia user account! Please consider removing the block.

Coolsuds (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The block is not punitive. Considering the long history of persistent vandalism from this IP address, this block is necessary to protect Wikipedia. The block does not prevent registered users from editing (only anonymous editing), and it does not prevent anyone from reading Wikipedia. The years of vandalism from this IP address have continued despite repeated warnings and many prior blocks. Under such circumstances, it is common practice and within Wikipedia policy for administrators to place year-long blocks on such problem IPs. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK Edgar, fair enough, I see your point. Coolsuds (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

UAA Holding pen

Hi, just to remind you that in cases where the violation is not blatant enough to warrant immediate blocking but may need further attention soon (eg. discussion is taking place, the user hasn't edited yet, etc.), it may be suitable to move the report into holding pen so that the usernames can be watched for a week or so to see if they become problematic later. I notice that you recently cleaned out both user- and bot-reported sections of UAA, most of which were non-blatant vios which didn't require action, but a couple would have benefitted from being placed in the holding pen for a while. I've restored one such entry since discussion is taking place. Just thought I'd let you know that I've done so. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

To me, it didn't seem worth moving any of them holding pen. But I can refrain from removing listings that may fall into a broader gray area, if that helps. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hyperzionism - undelete question

Hello, Edgar Can you please clarify what are the reasons for the below article deletion or the only one you listed already on a page? If this an only reason, what would be the process on un deletion and adding more source links?

TIA

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Hyperzionism_(deleted_04_Jun_2008_at_20:12) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MainAssedo (talk • contribs) 00:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hyperzionism was deleted in 2008 under the proposed deletion process. If such a deletion is contested, it can be immediately undeleted, so I have now done so. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

blocking IP82

Hi, thanks for that. This comment was especially telling, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Flatiron Building vandalism

Thanks for the fast action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandalism

Hello Ed. Wondered if I might ask for some advice. I reported an IP-hopper who removed stub & other maintenance tags, disambiguation hatnotes, changed birth countries from historically-correct to modern names, etc to ANI (report archived here). AFAICT they kept off while that thread was open, but then returned, keeping the same IP long enough to get a final warning and short block, for which you were the blocking admin. They've since been back at least twice Special:Contributions/78.3.25.76, Special:Contributions/78.2.138.87, doing much the same thing, but only for a few minutes at a time, so there's virtually no chance of catching them active. Any suggestions as to what to do next time I notice their handiwork? thanks for your time, Struway2 (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much else to do but watch, revert and report. You can report the IPs at AIV with a brief explanation that it is a repeat vandal, perhaps with a link to the prior block. If it becomes a persistent problem, bringing it up at ANI again as necessary is probably the way to go. (Sorry about the late reply. I wrote up a reply earlier today, but must have forgotten to post here somehow.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Somebody doesn't like you very much. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Those make me laugh. My favorite is this one. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Sodium_aurothiomalate.png

Hey Ed Hope all's well Was wondering about this image you drew a few years back. Seems doubtful that there'd be a naked Au+ cation. I'm expecting som sort of dimer or coordination polymer. I've taken the image down for now, so that we can talk about it. Do you have a reference? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The structure of aurothiomalate described in some books ([1], [2], [3], [4]) is polymeric. --Leyo 07:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember what source I used to draw that structure, but SciFinder, PubChem, and ChemSpider all show it as a monomer, so one of those was probably it. From Leyo's references, it does look like it would be better depicted as a polymer though. I'll replace the image with one based on those refs. Chemical databases often have trouble describing compounds with complex structure. I trust the textbooks more in this situation. What do you guys think of this image: File:Sodium aurothiomalate.svg? Thanks, both of you, for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Only one issue: IMHO the S–Au–S bond should be linear. BTW: We have an article on and a structural formula of disodium aurothiomalate. --Leyo 12:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I changed the bond angles. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks fine now IMHO. --Leyo 13:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an article which describes the structure of sodium auromalate (see Robert Bau Crystal Structure of the Antiarthritic Drug Gold Thiomalate (Myochrysine): A Double-Helical Geometry in the Solid State in J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 9380-9381. doi:10.1021/ja9819763. The structure is more complex as a double helix. A pitch contains four Au-S-units.Steffen 962 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it can adopt all kinds of interesting "secondary structures" in the solid state and in solution. But for a simple line drawing to represent the repeating unit in the polymer, that information is unnecessary. If someone wants to create a three-dimensional image based on the crystal structure, your reference would be very helpful though. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Premarin structure

Hi Edgar. I was responding to a question on the estrogen talk page and I noticed that in the File:Premarin structure.png, a double bond joins C7 and C8 while PubChem CID 9919 structure has a single bond between these two carbon atoms. I would appreciate if you would check this and correct the structure drawing if necessary. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I now see that you have drawn a second structure File:Estrone sulfate.png with what I believe is the correct structure. I therefore have replaced the structure in the ChemBox in the Premarin article with this second structure. Please feel to correct my correction if I am wrong. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like File:Premarin structure.png is actually one of the minor constituents of Premarin, equilin sulfate. I agree that the image at Premarin should be File:Estrone sulfate.png. Since there is already an infobox for estrone sulfate at the article estrone sulfate, probably the infobox at Premarin should be changed to indicate that it's really a mixture. What do you think? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and converted over to a combo drugbox. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the combo drug box in the Premarin article is much more appropriate. Thanks for fixing that. Boghog (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

99.235.152.83

You've just blocked this user and RevDeleted two edits. Might I suggest that this revision be RevDeleted too? — Fly by Night (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, seems reasonable. I've done so. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Edgar. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Evasion

Just so you know, 71.139.36.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the 2nd block evasion I reported, the first was blocked 2 weeks. CTJF83 chat 19:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In a situation where an editor is changing IPs after being blocked, block length beyond 24 hours isn't going to make much difference. If he returns, please just let me know. Thanks for your help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we consider 2 page protections? The IP is adding an image/caption with BLP issues and possible defamatory. CTJF83 chat 19:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the articles is already listed at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. At this point I'd prefer to defer to the admins that handle requests there more often than I do. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Where are you getting the information that "morphanol" refers to dl-3-hydroxy-N-methylmorphinan?

I have never seen the word "morphanol" used anywhere in the scientific literature. I searched PubMed, Highwire, Scirus and Google Scholar for the word "morphanol" and didn't find one reference using that word to refer to dl-3-hydroxy-N-methylmorphinan. I found that "methorphinan" was replaced by "racemorphan" in 1953. I can't find one reliable reference to dl-3-hydroxy-N-methylmorphinan. I'm asking you because I checked the page's history and it stated that you created the page. Stormont RT. (1953) Council on pharmacy and chemistry. J Am Med Assoc. 152: 709. AlkaloidMan (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)AlkaloidMan

The article morphanol (now renamed to racemorphan) was started by another user. Before now, I had never edited the article, so I don't know where the name "morphanol" came from. Checking SciFinder, I find that dl-3-hydroxy-N-methylmorphinan, racemorphan, and methorphinan are all listed as synonyms of the same compound with CAS# 297-90-5 and the structure currently in the article. Morphanol is not listed as a synonym. CAS# 5985-35-3, which was listed in the article is actually the HBr salt, so I added the number for the free base. So everything looks correct to me now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(+)-cis-2-Aminomethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid

I recently updated the infobox on this page after doing some research. I need confimation on the chiral notation in the article space. I also added two names to the other names cell of the infobox, I need to confirm that 2-Aminomethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid is indeed a delta amino acid and not a gamma acid; Norcoronamic acid refers to 1-amino-2-methylcyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid. I'm new to amino acid nomenclature, I specialize in inorganics.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything that says either "delta-norcoronamic acid" or "δ-norcoronamic acid" are synonyms of this compound (or any other). They are not among the synonyms listed at Chemical Abstracts or PubChem. "Norcoronatine" is a completely different compound and I can't find "δ-norcoronatine". I think this amino acid should be classified as a gamma-amino acid. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Circular redirect

Hello. I see that you recently created the page C2H4O2N4 with the content "#REDIRECT C2H4O2N4". I'm sure that wasn't what you intended to do, so perhaps you can fix this redirect to point to a valid target. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't figure out right now which chemical compound I meant that to redirect to, so I have deleted it. Thanks for catching the error and letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It was meant to be azodicarbonamide. Google is my friend. :) -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

WHY DID YOU DELETE THE UH THING WITH SEA SPONGES I NEEDED THOSE FOR A SCHOOL PROJECT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.12.53 (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know why I deleted an article, you have to let me know what article you are referring to. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked editor

Hi Edgar. Earlier today, you blocked User:Howardbrownhealthcenter because of his/her user name. I added {{Uw-ublock}} to his/her talk page so that s/he would understand the block and how to redress it. I hope that this is okay. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion to be aware of

Hello Edgar181. I noticed that you have rev/deleted several edit summaries by anon IP's all of which seem to be socks of User:Pé de Chinelo. I don't remember all of the articles that you have done this on but the most recent that I am aware of is here [5]. Today I noticed this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Seeking Range block of IPs and I mentioned your rev/deletions there. I don't know if you will want to add anything to that discussion but I did want to make you aware of it. Thank you for cleaning up the edit summaries and also for your time in reading this. MarnetteD | Talk 20:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Permethrin structure.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Permethrin structure.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Can you tell me why you deleted my page, please? Am a new user and was adding bio of me, my company and also useful information on energy savings advice for bill reductions and energy efficient products & habits! Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignito73 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you are talking about User:Ignito73, Wikipedia does not permit advertising on user pages. Such pages are routinely deleted. (Details can be found at Wikipedia:User pages and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, if you're interested.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed talking about Ignito73. So is there somewhere that I can mention the U-GET business, without getting too advertisy? I see that other companies are listed, so why not U-GET? As I said in the original question, I am listing the services, the advise and help for businesses and ways of reducing energy consumption.

Any advice you can provide as to where, if any I can post on Wiki, I would appreciate. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignito73 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has notability guidelines at WP:CORP. If you think U-GET meets that criteria for inclusion, and you think that you can write an article with a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), you are free to create an article at U-GET. If it doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria you might have a look at other options listed at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. I hope this helps. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tarpaulin (fish)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tarpaulin (fish). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sock Q. Faunce (talk • contribs)

Calling attention to your vandalism in this way is a sure way to get yourself blocked from editing. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

about Aminoacridine

Hi, Edgar. Now that Aminoacridine is a disambig, I'm at a bit of a loss how to update these templates: {{Anthelmintics}} and {{Antiseptics and disinfectants}}. Should they now link directly to 9-Aminoacridine (reading the articles imply that), or should they do a WP:INTDABLINK and use Aminoacridine (disambiguation)? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 10:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

9-Aminoacridine is the proper target, I believe. Thanks for catching that. I have updated the templates accordingly. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

titaniumwf.com

Hi, this site has been reported to the metaspamlist here earlier today. In the meantime, you could add it to User:XLinkBot/RevertList to stop us having to manually revert it. SmartSE (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'll have to defer to someone else to add it to the XLinkBot list though because I'm not sure how to format it properly. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity by Cosmic Acceleration Theory

For reasons of respect please allow me to propose that a valid theory should not be deleted because an administrator just doesn't like the theory for there own personal reasons. Please change your decision of deleting Longevity by Cosmic Acceleration Theory. I can prove this theory thru Physics. Mark Williams, Electrical Engineer, Texas A&M University 2002—Preceding unsigned comment added by Krunchlol (talk • contribs)

I deleted that article because it was just copy of a conversation at Talk:Longevity myths. Before continuing any further, I would suggest that you take a little time to learn about what Wikipedia is. In particular, please have a look at these pages: Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Namespace. I hope this helps. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it further. No offence taken. Krunchlol (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

you deleted "Alexey Maksimovich Fridman" page

I put an url there redirecting to the article in Russian on ru.wikipedia.org

should I translate this Russian entry to create an eligibe page?

Fridman57 (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

An article which is merely a link to another webpage (even another language Wikipedia page) is not sufficient according to Wikipedia guidelines, which I why I deleted it. If you can translate the Russian article into English, that would be great. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: AIV

Thank you, something had failed during copy-paste. WTM (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. That's what I figured happened. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what to do about this one..

Hi Edgar, As you're an administrator I'm assuming would have a better idea of how to treat this User talk:Mhiji editors behaviour. They've been consistently adding italics templates to articles, and deleting all attempted discussion by others on their talk page (See talkpage history). This was brought to the noticeboard Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive647 last week, but the issue was closed unless the editor continued to refuse to discuss the issue (which is still continuing and happening). Since the incident is archived (and I'm not up with the wikipedia procedures), I'm not sure what the correct way is to bring this up again, or whether an antivandal approach is worth taking. Any ideas? Cheers, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they're now removing the italics. Maybe best to wait and see what happens. Sorry to bother you, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I was composing a reply just as you left this last note. It may be moot now, but here it is: It looks to me like the user was adding {{italic title}} to articles. People disagreed with that addition. And now he is removing the templates, which is what others wanted. Am I understanding it correctly? Aside from the fact that the user is refusing to communicate with others, it seems that the dispute is settled. Unless the user once again displays disruptive behavior without communicating, I don't think there is anything that needs to be done. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Bis(trimethylsilyl)acetamide

Hi, yeah, is there any particular reason that you reverted all my constructive edits to the chembox? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The N,O compound and the N,N compound are different. The article text is about the N,O compound and chembox data pertains to the N,O compound. Switching to identifiers for the N,N compound was therefore not appropriate. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers...

...for blocking that Jimmy Rollins vandal. Swift and decisive. — KV5 • Talk • 14:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Level into

Thanx for the block. One always wonders what spammer or NPOV-spewer one has angered. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a classic childish response, isn't it? -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tim Nott deletion

Hi Edgar I presume you deleted this entry because it was written by the subject - fair enough. However, the subject is arguably notable as a long-serving and prolific technology journalist, the ranks of which form the subject of many wikipedia articles (eg Glyn Moody, Guy Kewney)

Would the article be acceptable were it submitted by an independent author?

Best wishes Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timnott (talk • contribs) 16:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have guidelines concerning conflicts of interest (see WP:COI for details), but it is not a sufficient reason for deleting an article. I deleted the Tim Nott article for reasons of notability. Guidelines for inclusion can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people). If you (or someone else) can write an article from a neutral point of view which demonstrates that the subject meets these notability guidelines, the article will probably be kept. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Epic Rage Guy

If you had read my comments, you would have known I was in the process of adding the required information to this article. This is why I hate wikipedia. It's no longer and encyclopedia anyone can edit... but I digress. So the question is should I bother adding more content to the page or will you just delete it again? Did you google Epic Rage Guy before you deleted it (like the admin guidelines suggest)? There's over 11 million exact hits and 5 million image hits. I'd say that's notable. - Mike5906 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike5906 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the article Epic Rage Guy because it met criteria for deletion, specifically WP:CSD#A7. If you think that the website meets Wikipedia's notability guideline (see Wikipedia:Notability (web) for details), you may recreate the article with sufficient content to show that it meets these guidelines. If you wish to work with the deleted content, I can recover it and place it in your userspace. You can then work on it there until you feel it is ready to be copied back to the "Epic Rage Guy" title. Just let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Kennis Group

Dear Edgar, This is mayank from India. I contributed an article about a company were i work, which is popular in India, like other companies but it was deleted by you on '20 November 2010' could you please tell me the reason behind it and i would also like to know about how to work it out since I am new to Wikipedia,I am still on learning phase. kindly guide about the same. Thanks & Regards Mayank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayank.ha (talk • contribs) 06:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the article Kennis Group because it did not make any kind of assertion of notability (see WP:CSD#A7 for details on this deletion criteria). If you think that the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)), you may recreate the article with sufficient content to show that it meets these guidelines. Otherwise, it is not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry if some of your edit got messed up when I reverted the ruded edit by User:86.181.253.128. TucsonDavid (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened, but I think the rude edit had already been removed. Does the page look fine to you now? -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it looks ok to me. TucsonDavid (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for my sandbox page deletions

TCO (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

reposting article

Hi -- Just fyi, I'm reposting an article I asked to be deleted. A moderator has persuaded me that I acted precipitously in blanking it out. Thanks for your help. Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:80.189.151.45

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

My revert to the previous Lance Armstrong page was accidental and I was about to fix my accident. My bad slow computer. :(

OK, no problem. You can just remove the note I left you from your talk page if you want. -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandal alert.

Sorry to disturb you, but can you block 202.70.54.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? This address is currently being used by the infamous Indonesian misinformation vandal who deliberately puts misinformation on Telenovela, Digimon, and Little League articles without sources to back them up. He has been doing this for three years now using different IP ranges. He's active right now. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The guy's is very big pain the butt now (he's still doing it for three years). BTW, the address above is just part of the 202.70.54.0/24 range which he has been using for some time. You are not obligated to block this particular range or protect the pages he hit today, but you can do so. The guy has used various IP ranges over the years; I can give you a list of the addresses he had used since July 2009 alone (it's in my sandbox, BTW). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: BTW, I always went to TFOWR for whenever this vandal strikes, but he's been out for quite some time now due to offline real life events. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at contributions from that range, I do see quite a few that appear to be from this editor, but also plenty of constructive edits presumably from other editors. I'm hesitant to block that range, particularly if this user has so many IPs available to him. I think it simply wouldn't do much good. Unfortunately, in situations like this there isn't much else to do but report the IPs for blocking whenever they show up. Please feel free to contact me to help out whenever I'm around. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The guy returned and did his brand of vandalism today. This time, he used 202.70.54.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This also comes under the 202.70.54.0/24 range. BTW, the range was blocked four times before for the very same reasons. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The individual IP has been blocked by another admin. I have /24 blocked the range for a month. Let's see if this helps. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one the guy uses intermittently: 118.96.122.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Same MO, same kinds of articles, was blocked once. Just used this address today. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
PS: Same goes for this address: 110.138.25.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He just attacked hours ago. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I blocked both IPs for a month. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The guy once again returned. The address he used this time: 114.79.2.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He really frequents and vandalizes those two pages a lot these days. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've blocked that IP. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The guy is at it again. The address this time is 114.79.1.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: Above IP already blocked. Seems he's using the 114.79.x.* range, but it's still to early to tell. Just a heads up. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Just reported that the guy once again vandalized several pages using the address 114.79.2.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) today. Since he used addresses on the 114.79.1.* and 114.79.2.* ranges, can you block the 114.79.2.0/24 and 114.79.1.0/24 ranges (the 114.79.0.0/22 range is too big for this instance, I know)? Please do so as soon as you get back. Thanks in advance! - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: BTW, please expand the rangeblock to 114.79.0.0/21 instead. He also used 114.79.5.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 114.79.1.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Thanks again. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. The range has already been blocked. But let's keep our eyes peeled. (We know what this guy's capable of doing). Sorry to disturb you, if my notes bother you in some way BTW. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me at all. I'm glad to help, but it seems we might have quite different schedules. I generally haven't been able to respond promptly because I'm not around when you are. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've only discovered this one just now, but it seemed he also used 114.79.0.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which is under the 114.79.0.0/21 range. That's now four addresses acting as "meatpuppets" to each other in just a span of five or six hours before the range was blocked! - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Black Kite's block on the range 114.79.0.0/21 should cover all of these. Just let me know if anything else shows up outside that range. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Though it's too late now, but as a heads-up, the vandal came back today using 114.57.12.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). However, he was caught and blocked by ESkog, whom I didn't know is an admin at first. As a result of the vandal's activities, I requested four of the pages the vandal targeted and they are now protected, three of them for three months and one for six months. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another alert (though it's too late once again): The guy reared his ugly head again. He used two addresses today: First he used 118.137.153.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (which is outside the range of 118.137.0.0/17) and later reused 110.136.113.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He vandalized the same kinds of related articles (and now crossing into ABC territory). Both addresses are blocked and the 118.137.128.0/19 range is also blocked due to this one and a second one used earlier. I've also requested another page to WP:RFPP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete page on Christina Yu?

Hi, why did you delete the page on Christina Yu on 12 December 2008? I see G8 is referred to, but there are articles mentioning her on for example Time.com Thank you. EpleB (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The version of Christina Yu that I deleted was solely a redirect to a page that doesn't exist, and there was no other content. As such, it met criteria for speedy deletion G8 because the target of the redirect doesn't exist. If you think Christina Yu meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion (WP:BIO), please feel free to create the page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Latsabidze

Hi Edgar181, I intend to put a new article about this person: Latsabidze. I am new to wikipedia and sometimes need some help. Any comments or suggestions would be highly appreciative! Just to let you know: This is a new version I recreated from Music43lover (according to his permission), so I am going to activate it soon. Thanks! Sausa11 (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a few minor copy edits, but it looks good to me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for support!

Dear Edgar181, Thank you so much for your minor edits! Please do continue helping me in editing the same article not on the music43lover's workplace but on here: Latsabidze This article was nominated for a deletion by Ohconfucius, (because he thought it was promotional) - however few hours later the banner was taken off, because article got more encyclopedic and much leaner. I would very much appreciate your support and further edits in order to keep this article in live. If this article looks good to you (as you just mentioned) please leave some notes on the article's talk page here - maybe with some positive feedback. That way some administrators will see what the other users think about, and why article doesn't have to be removed. I would be thankful! Much regards! Sausa11 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that you are an valuable administrator on wikipedia, your word has a weight. If you think that this article is OK to keep on the wikipedia please write few words to Ohconfucius to avoid further problems. From my side I will (and eventually other editors) continue improving the article. Thanks again! Sausa11 (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think an administrator's opinion carries more weight in content decisions. In any case, I don't think the article is in danger of being deleted. But if it is ever nominated for deletion, let me know and I'll weigh in. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi again, I really appreciate your help Edgar!!! Still, if you could put a positive word on the talk page of the article that would be great! I mean, I trust you and your opinion. If you think it's not necessary than leave it. In any case I think to share your opinion with Ohconfucius here who previously nominated my article for a deletion would be helpful. You can just say the same thing you wrote me that you made a few minor copy edits, but it looks good to you. Thanks again! Sausa11 (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If it is ever nominated for deletion, I'll make a comment then. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully it will not be any more. Ohconfucius seems satisfied now with an improvement. Please fell free to do some edits in a future. Thank you very much! Just wanna add, you seem very fair guy! Best, Sausa11 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User block/page deletion

Hi Edgar, sorry to trouble you, please could you advise whether the information that was being built on the user page for Wynyardplanetarium on Fri 4-Dec would have been appropriate had I added it from this account as a page of it's own for Wynyard Planetarium & Observatory, in neutral tone (which I was aiming for), without the logo, but a photograph instead? Many thanks, Ed.--Ed1966 (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, putting external links within the article text is not accepted, but other than that the content of the page looks fine to me. If you need a copy of that text, I can undelete it for you. Just let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the prompt reply and advice Edgar. I would appreciate a copy of the text when convenient. Is the external link the only problem or, as I was presuming it was the issue, should I leave the logo out too? Kind regards, Ed. --Ed1966 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the page and moved it to User:Ed1966/Wynyard Planetarium and Observatory where you can work on it. The logo will be acceptable only if it has in fact been released by the Wynyard Planetarium under the Creative Commons license and is not copyrighted. The website www.wynyard-planetarium.net where the logo appears is marked with a copyright notice, so by casual observation it appears that the logo would not be suitable for Wikipedia. A photo, if available, would be preferable in my opinion anyway. As for the other issues you mention, I think the article is sufficiently neutral. You may want to have a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines at WP:N, to see if it qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks once again for you expert tutelage --Ed1966 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove Edit Talk page privalages

Would you mind removing the ability to edit his own talkpage to the recent IP you blocked per this edit. Thanks Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Another noted vandal

Sorry to disturb you. But I have a vandal which is different from the Indonesian vandal that we are talking about.

I know you have blocked 121.54.42.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) before due to a vandal's misinformation (i.e. insertion of tokusatsu titles in Philippine TV program lists without any source or proof of his edits). This address was blocked a third time and after this block expired, the vandal's up to his old tricks again. I have reported him to WP:AIV, but there seems to be no action. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I put a longer block in the IP address. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Tabtoxin Structure

Thank you for the notification regarding the typo I made in the tabtoxin structure I had uploaded to the commons. Feel free to delete/remove it. Lhynard (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, the image has been deleted and replaced with this version: File:Tabtoxin.svg. Thanks for creating the article in the first place. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I was considering studying its biosynthesis in grad school; it's rather embarrassing that I got the structure wrong. :) Lhynard (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I make little mistakes like that, too, all the time, even though I have spent my entire career looking at chemical structures. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Take care with speedy deleting articles

Hi, I know you accept speedy deletion tags in good faith but you should never have deleted Martti Soosaar from wikipedia. There are plenty of google hits and plenty of books authored by him. In future PLEASE do a quick google check before deleting. It was tagged by an editor who has a history of making serious misjudgements with articles which is very damaging to wikipedia. Also this article had an Estonian translation tag on it indicating it needed translation. I agree that the article was very short but it needed expanding not deleting. My words with the person who tagged it will be considerably harsher and I will warn him that if he keeps pulling stunts like this as evidenced on his talk page by all of the posts "declining his speedy deletion tags" then I will be opening a complaint about him. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do make a habit of looking at articles before deleting them, and the article as it stood did meet speedy deletion criteria, so I wouldn't agree that there was any misjudgement in the tagging or deletion. In any case, thanks for re-creating the article with at least enough content to identify the subject. Cheers, -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

MOSCAP listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MOSCAP. Since you had some involvement with the MOSCAP redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a mistake. I deleted the redirect and closed the discussion. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/180.216.90.183

Hi, Edgar

Can you take a look at Special:Contributions/180.216.90.183? Ip has been warned repeatedly not to remove unsourced tags on wikipedia articles, but is once again removing them [6][7], only removes them in order to add unsourced misinformation on tv channels and lists of programs [8] and even adds semi-protected tags to unprotected articles [9] when they won't even show up. --John KB (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Even though it's been awhile since they stopped editing, I have blocked the IP address because the disruptive edits have been so persistent, and have continued unchanged since the last block. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Samuel Dinssa page?

What was your reason for deleting the Samuel Dinssa Page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdinssa (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It was an article about a real person which did not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. There is also a good explanation already on your talk page, if you haven't seen it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OfficeTeamLimited

Hi Ed, wanted to drop you a note. I reblocked OfficeTeamLimited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as a spamblock and removed their talk page access. They had removed the content of their talkpage and replaced it with the same content that you deleted. I have advised them that if they wish to be unblocked they need to do it by email, suggesting you / myself / the unblock mailing list. As the original blocking admin I thought you might appreciate the heads up. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the appropriate response to me. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Edgar181. You have new messages at Jeepday's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jeepday (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Merging "Natural insecticides" with "Insecticides" articles

The "Natural insecticides" article contains conclusions derived directly from 2010 Research and development of a specific company (Provipax S.A.). As data put forward in the specific article have been recently discovered (from research on natural insecticides only), we feel that it should stand alone and NOT be merged with any other article, having a lot to offer to the reader after it's editing has finished. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandreadis (talk • contribs) 23:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing different about "natural" insecticides aside from the fact that they are obtained from a natural source. Personally, I don't think there is much more to say about it than that. And this distinction can be made just as well, or better, at the main article insecticide. Also, if the article is entirely the work of one company, this has the potential to lead to a biased, non-neutral point of view considering the conflict of interest involved. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as the differences between natural and synthetic insecticides is concerned, we are afraid that you could not be more wrong! The differences are vast, which will be obvious to the readers after the editing of this article has finished. The natural insecticides is a new field of scientific research that only recently has started being thoroughly investigated in depth. Please keep in mind that we created this article only to share these new information with the public. The article is written in a purely neutral tone and has no advertising purposes whatsoever. After all it's an open article and everyone is invited to add or correct parts according to their knowledge. We stand firm on the belief that it has to offer new knowledge directly from research and should be kept intact. Now as far as the fear of "conflict of interest" is concerned, although true in several cases, should not stand in the way of the distribution of facts. It will certainly not fear us in our will to share this knowledge. Wikipedia is a powerful tool but not the only one... If someone knowns more about this subject is very welcome to add it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandreadis (talk • contribs) 15:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hyperzionism

You recently contested the deletion of this article via WP:PROD. However, I believe the subject is non-notable, and have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperzionism. Robofish (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it wasn't me who contested the PROD. I undeleted it because it was contested by User:MainAssedo. But thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)