User talk:Edgar181/Archive21

User:118.137.73.76

This address had been used by the Indonesian NBC/anime misinformation vandal several hours ago; it is currently blocked for 31 hours. I can't believe that the guy had flown under the radar and struck again.

Can you expand the block to either 118.137.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) or 118.137.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) because of this? The Indonesian misinformation vandal has a history of using addresses from the 118.137.*.* range to do his vandalism. Just in case. Thanks in advance - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 21:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like User:Daniel Case blocked the /17 range for one year. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:118.137.0.0%2F17 (FWIW, I think that's a reasonable decision and I probably would have done the same if he hadn't already.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry if I decided to resurrect an old thread, but it seems that the Indonesian NBC/anime misinformation vandal has never learned to quit. The guy still vandalizes several articles, including Children's programming on NBC, One to Grow On, NBC Kids, and Daigunder. The addresses he used recently include addresses from the 222.124.4x.* range. The ones I spotted and added to my list are as follows:

• 222.124.47.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 222.124.46.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 222.124.45.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I know this is not enough to warrant a rangeblock, but still note worthing. Just a heads-up! - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the persistent long-term problem led to year-long and wide rangeblocks before, it may be worthwhile to consider it again if he stays within the 222.124.4x.* range. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The guy was at it again several hours ago, this time using 139.194.139.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Same kinds of articles and then some. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 22:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: The guy also used 110.138.100.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on vandalizing Daigunder. He has been using addresses from the 110.138.*.* range intermittently. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 22:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the two IP addresses, but I'm not sure there is anything more to do at this point. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with User talk:88.110.112.185's block

Hiya,

Thanks for handling that IP issue. Although I think 1 week may not be enough. The user posted attacks on my talk page a couple of days ago after I had issued them warnings about vandalising. As a result of that Discospinster (talk · contribs) blocked it for 31 hours. The block expired, and the IP then attacked Discospinster. Going off previous history of this IP, there will be no doubt after this block expires, that they will post an attack on your talk page too. Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) removed the IP's threat from my talk page history, but I had asked at ANI if it would be possible to get my page semi-protected as a precaution in case the IP crusades on vandalising it; would that request be possible, and if so, where do I go to request it? Thanks Wesley☀Mouse 11:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on the IP address when the block expires. Any further misbehavior will lead to a longer block. In general, it is best to avoid semi-protecting user talk pages because it is important that anonymous editors are able to contact you, but if there is persistent vandalism to your talk page you can request protection at WP:RFPP (or just let me know, and I'll take care of it.) I hate to say it, but if you actively fight vandalism here, you will inevitably become the occasional target of their childish responses. The best thing to do is to just revert it and otherwise ignore it - or maybe take it as a sign that you are doing something right. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on dealing with this behaviour in future - I will most certainly implement the "revert and ignore" tactic. Wesley☀Mouse 11:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

User:SkepticAnonymous

Hey, Edgar, I just wanted to let you know that SkepticAnonymous is having a meltdown at the talk page, due in part to the perceived slight that you didn't comment on the block. Don't know whether you want to comment or not, but I just thought I'd let you know. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I left a reply there. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Tangentially related: I have somewhat an odd request for you. Could I possibly get you to block my test account User:WK-test for a while(perhaps with some kind of comment and wikilink in the edit summary)? While in the above discussion, it occurred to me that I don't actually know what it looks like when one is blocked, and now I'm a little curious to see what's actually displayed. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. WK-test is blocked for 12 hours. Enjoy not being able to edit.  :) -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, awesome, thanks! It gives a lot more information than I thought it would when one tries to edit a page, but it seems kind of weird that there's no notification unless one does try. I guess it makes sense for IP editors, though, since we don't want to scare innocent editors off, should their IP be blocked from someone else's actions. Might take a screencap of the block messages later for future reference. Thanks again! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Drugs by mechanism of action templates

Heya. Just wanted to mention that you might be interested in participating in this discussion: click. Note that he discussion isn't just about that template but applies to all of the drugs by mechanism of action templates. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 01:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I left a comment there. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Molecular images

Are you sure you have them correct? There seem to be to many valence electrons shown, eg. tricarbon has an extra lone pair on each carbon. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! You're right. I'll fix them now. Thanks for catching that. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Problems with an editor

Hi. I'm dropping a note to ask for your help on the press kit article page. There appears to be one editor (under various IPs and usernames, the most recent of which is Jillguttman2007) who keeps repeatedly changing the lead to the article. The article is about press kits (in all its forms) and this edit they keep insisting upon does not reflect all types of press kits. Their edits have been repeatedly reverted by numerous editors, as can be seen in the page's revision history, so I was hoping you might keep an eye on the page and/or drop this editor a warning (he appears to have been given other warnings in the past, but keeps changing his IP, so it's difficult to keep track of his previous editing activies and/or warnings). I usually contact you about semi-protect locks for bio pages, but (its my strong suspicion) this is the work of just one persistent editor who, for some reason, has fixated on "electronic press kits", so it seems silly to ask for a lock to protect a page from just one editor. Thanks. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Jillguttman2007 and a couple of the socks have already been blocked due to this report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Juliesimmons1987. I've put the article on my watchlist, so if they come back I'll revert and/or block as necessary. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. It looks like that report was being filed at the exact same time I was typing the above message, so I wasn't aware of it. I'm pretty sure they're all one person, so I'll leave a note over there. I'm still not good with using twinkle (I often find I've used the wrong warning template only after it's been placed onto a user's talk page, and then I have to try and fix it and I just wind up looking like an idiot) so I prefer to leave the warnings to more experienced editors who understand all the twinkle tags. But yeah - If you can just put the page on your watchlist then I can just leave that to you. I just stumbled onto the article today when I was preparing to link to the page (I know what a press kit is, but I was just checking to make sure it wasn't a disambig page or some other redirect before I backlinked to it) and found this editor's "rewrite" of the lead so confusing that I actually kept reading the title of the article thinking I'd arrived at the wrong page (even IP users had begun to revert his version of the lead, so I know it was confusing to casual readers as well). Thanks again. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Another sock puppet account on the Press kit article. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the United States

Hi again. First, a quick thanks for keeping an eye on the press kit page (discussed above). I'm writing again to mention something I just noticed. It appears a temporary lock on the Same-sex marriage in the United States article is about to expire in a couple of days. Since President Obama's recent announcement, the issue is front and center again, so I just wanted to drop a note to ask if you'd keep an eye on that page in case it needs its lock extended once the protection expires on May 14. There are no problems on the page (as of yet), but I just have a feeling opinions on all sides of the topic are going to be heating up during this election cycle, given Obama's recently "evolving" position. Thanks --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's quite likely to need continuous semi-protection. I'll keep an eye on it, and it is likely that it will have plenty of attention from others too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure there are other editors watching the page, but I'm not sure how many are admins who can re-protect the page, so I just wanted to drop you a note about it before the lock expired, given the timing of the lock expiring right on the heels of Obama's recent comments on the issue. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Visibility of outing edit summary

Hi, I notice you have addressed some of the recent outings and offensive content surrounding the David Bawden article and related content by changing the visibility of the diffs on page User talk:TSBColorado and User talk:115.249.115.244. There is one additional diff that may need that as there is an outing attempt in the edit summary: [1] Would appreciate if you took a look at the edit summary that specifically attempts to out another editor, and consider a similar visibility change for that diff. Thank you! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems I missed one. I have now hidden that edit summary. Thanks for catching it and letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Isomethadone structure

Hi Edgar181! First off, I'd just like to say thank you for uploading the structures for the drug/compound articles I create. I really appreciate it! That being said however, I've noticed some issues with a few of them that I thought I should mention. The first is that I think the structure you uploaded for isomethadone is incorrect. Compare it to the one for methadone. They're identical as far as I can see. For the isomethadone struct, according to the structure on PubChem (compare to the one for methadone) the methyl should be at the 5 position instead of the 6 position on the carbon chain (assuming I have my chemistry right; I very well may not). Secondly, I think the structures for alphacetylmethadol and betacetylmethadol might be incorrect as well. Compare them to the ones on PubChem: alpha and beta, respectively. The isometry seems to be inverted in both cases. And lastly, you added "Axomadol.svg" to the drugbox of the axomadol page, but it looks like you forgot to actually upload the file. Would you mind looking into these? el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 20:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Hmm. Things might be a little more mixed up than I thought with alphacetylmethadol. It looks like the IUPAC and structure on the page for it are for the (+)-isomer (i.e., the mirror image of levacetylmethadol) and not for the racemate like I've been thinking this whole time. Indeed, I got the drugbox for it from ChemSpider, and both ChemSpider and PubMed seem to think that alphacetylmethadol is "dexacetylmethadol" ((+)-α-acetylmethadol) and not the racemate. I can't even find an entry for (±)-alphacetylmethadol on either of the two sites. Very confusing!! Also, both sites seem to be indicating that both the structure and the IUPAC for levacetylmethadol are wrong as well (link and link). For the structure, it too seems to be inversed, whereas for the IUPAC on the Wiki article it says that the absolute configuration should be "(1S,4S)-" while they say it should be "(3S,6S)". Would you mind taking a look at this for me as well? I'm no chemist so to be perfectly honest in regards to this whole matter I feel a bit like this right now. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 20:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for creating these articles. When I saw them, I knew it was going to be tricky. I don't have too much time at the moment, but for now I've updated File:Isomethadone structure.svg - you are right, the methyl group was misplaced. I'll take a careful look at the rest a bit later today. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Alphacetylmethadol: Chemical Abstracts indicates that alphacetylmethadol is not a racemate, but rather a single enantiomer, specifically the R,R isomer. It is the mirror image of levacetylmethadol, the S,S isomer. This appears to be consistent with the records at PubChem, ChemSpider, and DrugBank which are linked from the article. I believe that the text at alphacetylmethadol which says that it is the racemate needs to be changed. I agree with you that the IUPAC name at levacetylmethadol has incorrect numbering and "(1S,4S)" should be changed to "(3S,6S)". The image at levacetylmethadol is correct, I think, and matches what is shown at PubChem and ChemSpider - it is just oriented differently so that a stereocenter that is drawn as a wedged bond in one image becomes a hashed bond in the other. If I understand what you are getting at, I think if you compare File:S-butan-2-ol-2D-skeletal.png and File:S-butan-2-ol 2D skeletal.png and see that they depict the same stereoisomer, your confusion may be alleviated.

Betacetylmethadol: File:Betacetylmethadol.svg appears to be correct to me and matches what is depicted at PubChem and ChemSpider. As above, because of the different orientations, wedged bonds and hashed bonds appear opposite.

Axomadol: File:Axomadol.svg was uploaded at the same time I added it to the article, and it displays correctly for me. I don't know why you're not seeing the same. Try bypassing your browser's cache, perhaps?

I hope this clarifies everything, but please let me know if there are still some issues. You understand this remarkably well for a non-chemist. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh. Thanks, I understand the isometry matter now (or at least I think I do!). And thanks for fixing isomethadone and levacetylmethadol. Those were the only two that I was really fairly certain there was anything wrong with.

I did a little more investigation on alphacetylmethadol as the INN referring to the R,R-isomer just seemed rather, well, retarded to me (considering that betacetylmethadol refers to a racemate, levacetylmethadol to its enantiomer, etc.). According to the original WHO proposed and recommended INN publications for alphacetylmethadol from the '50s (link and link, respectively), alphacetylmethadol does indeed refer to the racemate. Also, the BAN for alphacetylmethadol refers to "(1R,4R)-4-dimethylamino-1-ethyl-2,2-diphenylpentyl acetate" (link). Though I have no idea what "(1R,4R)-" means, based on the image of the structure that's included it seems to translate to "α-" in this case, and hence, they seem to be in agreement with the WHO. There has been a lot of confusion over the years between acetylmethadol, alphacetylmethadol, and levacetylmethadol even in the medical literature, and availability of WHO INN publications on the web is a relatively recent thing, so I'd imagine that that may be why so many of the chem websites seem to be so confused. Though, the thought that even Chemical Abstracts got it wrong is rather surprising (and the WHO even references CAS # 17199-58-5 for levacetylmethadol in its yearly complete list of INNs publications, or at least in its one for 2007 (link)). What are your thoughts?

Yeah I have no idea either in regards to axomadol. Tried clearing browser data, switching browsers, and even switching computers, but alas, the structure image still won't display. I did check Wikipedia Commons and saw that it's up there though so I suppose it's only a matter of time until it starts displaying for me as well. Pretty weird in any case.

Thanks. After three years of working on drug articles on Wikipedia one can't really help but to learn a little chemistry I suppose! el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 18:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of the discrepancy between sources. With all these chemical compounds which are so closely related chemically and have similar names, even the experts are going to make the occasional error. And once an error is made in an authoritative source, that error will propagate to other sources. Looking at the the two 1950s sources you link, it's not clear to me that they indicate that alphacetylmethadol is the racemate. There is no indication of stereochemistry, which might imply it's a racemate, but it's not clearly specified. For what it's worth, Chemical Abstracts lists the racemate as CAS#1553-31-7 with the synonyms DL-α-acetylmethadol and α-(±)-acetylmethadol; whereas the (R,R)-isomer is listed as CAS#17199-58-5 with the names alphacetylmethadol and α-d-acetylmethadol. Where the WHO links CAS # 17199-58-5 to levacetylmethadol, this appears to be a mistake to me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahh. Sorry, I meant 17199-58-5 refers to dexacetylmethadol, not levacetylmethadol. Derp. In any case, it still seems to be a mistake, or at least to me it does.

In regards to the 1950s sources, I really think that they do indeed mean the racemate. For one, they're WHO publications, and important ones at that (i.e., they're literally the announcements of the [at that time] newly-designated INNs of these compounds)—you'd think that they wouldn't leave such a potentially confusing and misinformation-generating ambiguity present if they really did mean the (+)-enantiomer. And secondly, in the same recommended list in which all the methadols are present, levallorphan and levorphanol are present as well and are listed as (–)-3-hydroxy-N-allylmorphinan and (–)-3-hydroxy-N-methylmorphinan, respectively. Hence, if they labeled them appropriately, I'm inclined to think that they would certainly label alphacetylmethadol and such appropriately as well. Finally, considering that alphacetylmethadol and betacetylmethadol were both listed together in the same publications, you'd think that they would clarify that alphacetylmethadol refers to the (+)-enantiomer while betacetylmethadol is racemic if that really is/were the case (since the names imply that they are racemic diastereoisomers of each other).

Thanks for the CAS # for the racemate. It will come in handy.

el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 01:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you've made a good argument that the original WHO document should be the one to follow despite the discrepancy with modern databases. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Okie doke. I updated the drugbox for alphacetylmethadol. Would you mind making sure all the data is correct and fixing the structure? el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 18:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll check on Monday - don't have weekend access at home to the databases to check the data. Thanks again for all your work on these articles. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Sure. Thanks again for all your help as well! el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 18:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Heya. Are you sure the PubChem and ChemSpider IDs you added for alphacetylmethadol are correct? If I'm not mistaken they refer to acetylmethadol, not alphacetylmethadol. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 16:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ack. You're right. However, CID 201445 from PubChem is for the (R,S) isomer which is also incorrect. Alphacetylmethadol is the (R,R) + (S,S) mixture, which doesn't seem to have its own PubChem entry. Also, ChemSpider 174413 is (R,S), and there doesn't seem to be an entry there that specifies (R,R) + (S,S) mixture either. Just leave them blank, maybe? -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I see. Yeah, I guess so. We'll just do that then. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 19:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions! SwisterTwister talk 16:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Subaru BRZ

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Subaru BRZ. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

blocking of Essarsteel to edit essar steel content

Hi i have edited the content based on the information provided on Essar Steel on their website www.essarsteel.com . The current information is not only old/outdated/incorrect but also lacks full details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.118.250 (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The reason I blocked the account User:Essarsteel was because usernames are not permitted to match the name of an organization. You are free to sign up with a different username. You are also free to edit Essar Steel, but edits should be constructive (simply blanking the article as you did here is not appropriate). Also, you may want to have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, which may apply. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok many thanks. The whole motive is to provide correct and detailed information about the company. Also blanking could have appeared because of server problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.118.249 (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fyi

• This diff
• User talk:167.176.16.8

Thought I'd let you know since you last blocked the IP. - jc37 16:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably no action is needed at this point for a single edit like that, but I'll keep an eye on the IP. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking the user who vandalized my userpage! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

More spam from 89.219.150.21, even after last block expired

89.219.150.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now blocked the IP address for longer. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Brangifer (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Cyproterone -> Cyproterone acetate

Heya! I was trying to get the cyproterone page moved to cyproterone acetate (since cyproterone itself is of course a different compound and isn't actually marketed) but it seems that the administrator who attempted to do it for me messed up. Take a look for yourself: cyproterone and cyproterone acetate. I messaged him like half an hour ago or so but I haven't gotten a response. Based on his contributions lately he doesn't seem to be that active, so I'm concerned the page might be down for several hours or longer. Would you mind fixing it? el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 19:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I have it all fixed now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup, looks like it. Thanks! el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 22:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

IP range block

Hi Edgar. An IP has written to ArbCom in relation to this block. It's not an issue that ArbCom should get involved with, and I have advised the IP to direct their enquiries to info-en-q@wikimedia.org; however they have written me again, so I am passing the matter on to you. Obviously they cannot get in touch with you directly because they are blocked, and for reasons of their own they prefer not to register an account to get around the block. If you could email me I will pass on your response to the IP and perhaps you two could discuss the matter together and come to some agreement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(I replied by email, but have copied it here, too.) I don't recall the specific incident of vandalism that led to this particular block, but looking at the contributions from this range it is clear that it has been the source of persistent vandalism from nearly every address within this range spanning many years. Several of the IPs in the range are tagged as being wifi hotspots for the New York Public Library - just the type that is typically a prolific source of vandalism, so I think the softblock I applied to the range is appropriate and I would be hesitant to remove it. Since the anonymous editor is unwilling to register with an account (the normal, simple solution in these situations) I'd suggest a potential alternate solution: if there is one particular IP address within this range that the anonymous editor uses and he is willing to reveal that IP, I'd be willing to unblock that one. This should avoid the "collateral damage" to a good-faith contributor, but still protect Wikipedia from most of the vandalism from this range. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Solubility paragraph you deleted

wiki directed me to this page sorry if I'm not very proficient with wiki parliamentary rules.

You deleted my paragraph saying "somethign is incorrect". Please say what you feel is incorrect if you are going to delete other's work. I really don't see how it was "incorrect" or misleading more than any text or in context.

(you did not leave any note in the talk section or otherwise)

In the "Applications" section, certainly informing the reader that inspecting chemical equations to determing if a reaction will take place (ie, if gas forms) is a good thing mention for the topics that follow and a good thing to elude to in general. Which is why most books mention it as being a point of notice while studying bases, solvents, solutes, etc.

It was not supposed to encompass all possible chemical outcomes: it was just a paragraph.

But thank you for caring I'd enjoy any discussion. Please use the "Talk" for solubility I'm not a "user" for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.172.35 (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed that addition to the article because, unfortunately, it contains multiple inaccuracies. I left an explanation on the article's talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking the IP who put curses and racially inappropriate statements on "March 15". Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Willow Rivers

You may want to investigate further. He's posted an unblock request. His original version of his userpage had no resemblance whatsoever to the promotional material posted there by an anonymous IP, for which he got blocked. Given the initial userpage message, and the unblock message, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and unblock, but I wanted to give you a chance to do so first. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic beat me to it. The original creator of the page very clearly is nor reponsible for the subsequequent promotion; please look at the time span. I propose to unblock tomorrow (late here now) unless you have a cogent objection.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it does seem that Willow Rivers' user page was "hijacked" by someone else trying to promote a company called Willow Rivers. I have unblocked the account and left my apologies. Thanks both of you for recognizing the problem and letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That was 10 minutes ago... did you forget to unblock him? By the way, I semi-protected his userpage so that Willow Rivers spammers can't deface it again. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't forget to unblock him - but it does not seem to have worked.  :/ Not sure what went wrong the first time, but he's unblocked now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete of Talawanda School District Page

Hi. I just thought I'd let you know that you deleted my school district's wikipedia page. While you might believe that "it had no meaningful information" it did at least offer a small bit of info on the school district itself, and was also a template should any future member feel to add to it. It hurt no one by existing, so I'm not quite sure why you deleted it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.79.221 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I'm aware that I deleted Talawanda School District. It was completely empty of information - not even "a small bit of info on the school district itself". As an article with no information whatsoever, it served no purpose and met criteria for deletion outlined at WP:CSD#A3. -- Ed (Edgar181) 04:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Structure Drawing

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I don't know Wikipedia protocols very well yet. However, I need someone to correct the structure of mecamylamine. I'm editing the article (for no reason in particular except that I know something about cholinergic ligands), and I noticed that one of the endo- isomers of mecamylamine was illustrated in the "structure box". Unfortunately, mecamylamine has only been made in the form of its two "exo-enantiomers" (or, to be more precise, it appears that all pharmacological studies have been on the two enantiomers with the exo-configuration)- precisely the point I want to make in the text. If someone would be kind enough to do the drawing, either of the "exo- enantiomers" will do, and I'll make the appropriate correction to the stereochemical designators in the name.

Thanks. (I hope to be able to do my own drawings soon). Xprofj (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out. I should be able to take a look later today and create the images then. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've created images for all of the endo- and exo-isomers at w:commons:category:Mecamylamine. Let me know if these work for you, or if you need anything else. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

These are great. Many thanks.Xprofj (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but you seem to have accidentally switched two of the File labels: "Mecamylamine endo.svg" actually shows the exo isomers, and "Mecamylamine exo.svg" shows the endo isomers. I'd fix it myself but don't know how. No rush, obviously...I'm grateful for all the help.Xprofj (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not being a pain at all. You are right - I got endo and exo mixed up. I have swapped them now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be clearer to have the endo/exo pairings swapped or drawn in a different orientation. In the File:Mecamylamine endo.svg pair (and likewise in the File:Mecamylamine exo.svg pair), it's obvious that they are enantiomers because they are drawn as identical mirror images. But in the File:Mecamylamine isomers.svg set, it's not obvious how an endo and an exo align (there are differences in position that obscure the simple point of stereochemical difference). Would be clearer if, for example, the methylamine group were always on the "front" corner of the bicyclic system. DMacks (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. But playing around with orientations as you suggest, I'm having difficulty making them look right. When the amine group is in the front and in the endo position, it tends to obscure the methyl group behind, and I'm concerned that it ends up being less clear. I'm not sure what the best thing to do is. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

For what my opinion is worth, I'd say don't worry about this too much. We're discussing subtleties that will only be meaningful to someone with a pretty good grasp of organic chemistry (e.g. a ≥3rd year undergraduate - I can state this on the basis of personal teaching experience), and such a person will "get" it regardless of how it's drawn, provided it is correctly drawn.

To put it another way, there are an awful lot of undrawn structures that one could be drawing instead of optimizing a particular one that already serves its purpose....Xprofj (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Mecamylamine endo-exo ideas.png is the best I could get easily (let me know if you want the .cdx). I disagree with the idea of doing these half-way/"good enough" as given. The whole point of having endo/exo is...to compare endo/exo, which is obviously an important distinction otherwise there's no value in illustrating them at all. It's an advantage to everyone to make the difference as obvious as possible rather than just "here are two different things". The current diagrams, even a chemist would have to think about for a moment to recognize that that's the only difference, and a non-chemist is not likely to "get" that it's the only difference at all. Even our article discusses in detail the two different ways camphene could possibly react, so these diagrams only are useful to support the text if they are paired as "the two that could come from one camphene enantiomer". I agree that there's an endless pile of stuff to do (feel free to put together a list in your userspace so others can help out and take our time to do them well as time allows). DMacks (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for the drawings. As I (or whoever) expand(s) the article, I'll do my best to illustrate the text with the most appropriate images available. I'm not sure how far to take the chemical discussion at this point. One tiny problem is that, to the best of my knowledge, the endo-isomers have never been made, but without the means to do a structure-based Scifinder search, I can't be sure.Xprofj (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

DMacks, those look like reasonable representations. I suggest moving that image to Commons and putting it in the mecamylaminen category with the others. (It's probably not necessary to create an SVG equivalent - high resolution PNGs are just as good in my mind - but it would take only a few minutes to do it if it's needed.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

SciFinder does not have any entries for either exact (absolute or relative stereo) endo isomer, only non-same-relative or unassigned stereo forms. doi:10.1021/jm00107a019 was a valiant effort (and has endo of some close analogs, along with a bioactivity assay of them). DMacks (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence of the endo isomers as pure isolated stereoisomers in the chemical literature either. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for checking. I do actually have the Suchocki SAR paper cited in the article (with the intention of outlining the SAR at some point when I have the time), but it's pretty old, so I wasn't sure if anyone hadn't picked up on the "missing" isomers since.Xprofj (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

MSDS of Freon-22

My article edit on Chlorodifluoromethane was rolled back by you for this reason: "per WP:CHEMMOS we don't copy MSDS info word-for-word"

The information added was not inaccurate or incorrect, so the next time you want to be a by-the-book robot, please do something positive and fix it instead of removing everything altogether.

And you didn't remove something trivial, you removed health hazard information that was nowhere near present in the article before my edit. I had an accident with Freon-22 and wanted to state it's hazards in Wikipedia.

So next time, try to be pragmatically useful (not just a law abbiding drone) and fix the error instead of erradicating knowledge that was not perfectly in tune with the rules.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.79.35 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The consensus among Wikipedia editors is that copying content word-for-word from an MSDS into a Wikipedia article is not appropriate. The agreed upon guidelines for chemistry articles are outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry. If you disagree with this consensus, you may discuss your concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ken Hudson Campbell

You deleted Ken Hudson Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and restored 63 revisions of it later. With this action however you also removed the semi-protection you just placed on the article. Could you restore semi-protection on the page? Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 19:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that and letting me know. It slipped my mind that page protection gets cancelled under those circumstances. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blekko

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Blekko. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

About deleted article 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobutane

Hi Edgar181! I'm wondering why you deleted that article. It has a IUPAC name and a valid SMILES number. I am not a scientist, but I'm science-literate. What was so wrong with the article? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the group of articles including that one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#New_articles_with_errors. Basically, I deleted it because it was empty of any content beyond what can be derived from the name. If you would like to add some meaningful content to the article, I would be happy to undelete it for you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading it right now. Thank you for both the info and your quick response. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

hello, my name is Omoyemi Patrick from Nigeria. could you search and send to me history of the people of Lampese in Akok-edo local government area of Edo state Nigeria.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.184.64.120 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you are asking. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

2C-I

Can I ask why you undid my edit to 2C-I. There is a confirmed case with forensic testing that indicates a male 17 year old died after ingestion of 2C-I. I think it is important to have that information as it is verified by a state forensics lab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:240:2:B918:8E6C:665F:4648 (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There were two reasons. The first is that the addition was unreferenced. It is not uncommon for misinformation to be added to articles such as this, so I think having some kind of verification is necessary (a link to a news article, forensics lab report, etc.) Secondly, I think singling out one particular individual and reporting on him in an encyclopedia article is a bit unfair to that individual and also goes against the policy outlined at WP:UNDUE ("discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic") However, I would not be opposed to a more comprehensive discussion of the risk associated with 2C-I, including the possibility of death from overdose as evidenced by examples such as the one you refer to. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for taking care of the disruptive IP editor on 2012 Republican National Convention. We'd been reverting him over and over for hours. Specs112 t c 20:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to help out. I suspect he'll be back when the protection expires in which case I would recommend to promptly request reprotection at WP:RFPP. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Alvaro Filbert

Hi. User:Alvaro Filbert is requesting a review of his block. I have no idea what they've actually done. They are on UTRS as #2187. Secretlondon (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I blocked this user because he was repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. He was rapidly creating many chemistry related articles that had serious problems including factual errors, unclear notability, and lack of content. Based on the the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:CHEM#New_articles_with_errors and the pleading from other chemist editors at User talk:Alvaro Filbert, it was clear that this user's editing was disruptive. I blocked once for 24 hours earlier this week, asking him to consult with the chemistry WikiProjects when the block expired before continuing to create more articles. Alvaro Filbert did not respond and simply continued the same disruptive behavior, so I blocked indef. As mentioned in the block message, if he will agree to the condition that he will consult with WikiProject Chemistry or WikiProject Chemicals before creating more articles, I am fine with him being unblocked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Suppose that we were able to take out his auto-confirmed status; then he would have started contributing constructively. Also note his reply:
Sorry, but I think I just want to make new articles, so that other people can continue the article. I hope Wikipedia can understand my reason. Thank you.
It seems polite as he had made an apologize. This user has good intentions. The only problem with him is the articles he created. And he has not done any other kind of vandalism (and is not a vandal). A special user right package for the User:Alvaro Filberts? Vanischenu m^Talk 02:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply, somehow I missed this message until now. I have no doubt that this user has good intentions, and I would be happy to see him become a constructive editor. But his article creations were disruptive and his other edits were problematic (factual errors, etc.) Several editors attempted to address the problems with him on his talk page, but he was completely unresponsive and continued the same behavior and that is why he was blocked. Perhaps there is a language barrier (or, less likely, simply an issue of competence). If there were a user rights package that would not permit him to create articles, that might work, but I'm not aware that such a thing is possible. However, I am perfectly willing to unblock him under the simple condition that he consults one of the chemistry WikiProjects before creating new articles. That is the simplest solution, but so far he has not agreed to it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply. I know that you have done the right thing. I think that it would be better if we have such a possibility to take away a particular user right (or the autoconfirmed status). I have made a proposal for it at the Village pump.(here) Vanischenu m^Talk 14:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Centers For Disease Deterrence

Wow—while I thought this article was weird, post 9/11 cloak-and-dagger stuff, I didn't think it was a hoax. Please tell me what I should have been looking for! All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The article itself wasn't too strange to be obviously fictional, but the website it was based on is focused entirely on preventing the spread of zombies. It's part of a hoax described on Snopes. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on that; it was part of the WikiProject Wikify backlog, and I should've checked the sources :-). All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon closed as Trainwreck halted

Why were the discussions on deletion of the article closed? When will the discussions re-open? Why was the warning at the top of the main page removed by a non-moderator after it specifically said not to remove it? Is it not still being considered for deletion?

User:Spartaz closed the discussion because of the completely disruptive behavior of many of the participants. I completely support that decision. The article is not currently being considered for deletion, but it would not be surprising to me if it were considered again at a later time when the off-Wikipedia hysteria is less likely to be involved. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Great, I'll be sure to tune in when it's considered again. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.172.108 (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For blocking a vandal against BLPs. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

sodium acetate

Ed,

Thank you for pointing out said vandalism. While I was unaware of any vandalism, please let me know if anything else arises from this IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.144.27 (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That edit was from about a year ago, so it may not be relevant to you since IP addresses sometimes change more often than that. You can always check the contributions from the IP address yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.4.144.27 -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

For Your Interest

[2]

I'm not sure what's going on re Arthur griffiths

I'm asking you because you were the last admin to delete the Arthur griffiths article today, which has been created again. I don't believe the story that Griffiths was one of the founding officers of the Royal Tank Regiment, so I've tagged this latest reincarnation as a hoax, but there is a real notable Arthur Griffiths, author and Inspector of Prisons, who has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography that I can't create for some reason, maybe because of this article's existence? Not sure what to do, can you help? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The article I deleted was essentially empty (the entire contents were "Major Arthur Griffiths MC & Bar"), so that shouldn't have any bearing on the current article. Since the title Arthur Griffiths is already used, if you would like to create a new article about another person named Arthur Griffiths, you will have to use some type of qualifier in the title such as Arthur Griffiths (author). It can then be listed with the other Arthur Griffiths at Arthur Griffiths (disambiguation). For the current article at Arthur griffiths, it's probably best to let the proposed deletion run its course, or perhaps it could be just redirected to Arthur Griffiths. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks re 31.25.3.105. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking user:81.154.98.50 who vandalized my talk page, calling me a dumbass. Thebestofall007 (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Request

User:MBisanz has requested help and feels there is need for new crats.Would you interested in running for cratship ,as I feel you are amongst the few who meet the high standards.Please feel free to say no if you are not interested and wish to work in other areas.Thank you.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Running for bureaucratship is something I've only vaguely considered before. If you give me a week or so to consider it, I'll take a closer look at the roles and responsibilities, and then let you know. Thanks for considering me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've taken some time to think about this and have decided that bureaucratship is not something that I would like to do at this point. I feel at times that the pull to do admin work detracts from what I really like to do - improve Wikipedia's content - and bureaucratship would inevitably exacerbate that. Thanks again for considering me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. When you recently edited Dextran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FITC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletes

Thanks for the WP:CSD#U1 deletes! BigNate37_(T) 21:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

are u trying to ruin my reputation

are u trying to ruin my reputation as a business model every page i have made has been deleted by YOU at least give me a chance to edit and make them better ur trying to put me out of business arnt you if u dare do i will get my lawyers on you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayton2068 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I don't think it is me that you have to worry about causing harm to your reputation. Also, you should be aware of Wikipedia's policies concerning legal threats (even silly ones like this might get you blocked from editing). -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

deletion request

Please delete revision 503325834 on page Viewpark for RD2. Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. In general, childish vandalism such as this, even when it includes some offensive language, is best just reverted and otherwise ignored, I believe. Nevertheless, I've removed it in this case. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps I was looking for an excuse to test to process, having not done it before. In the past I've done just as you suggest. In the future I'll limit my deletion requests to potentially libellous personal attacks. All the best, 78.26 (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about a G6 move

Hi, I'm very sorry to bother you with this, but it's something that has just risen up again and I am still scratching my head about what happened / is still happening. It doesn't help that I don't understand the details of how to follow G6 moves.

• 14:07, 6 October 2011‎ Edgar181 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,711 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Thái Nguyên to Thai Nguyen: Requested move. Rationale: Non-diacritic form to follow the style of Britannica and Vietnam News Agency, per WP:NCGN. No English language model exists for the diacritical form.) (undo)
• 14:07, 6 October 2011‎ Edgar181 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,031 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Thanh Hóa to Thanh Hoa: Requested move. Rationale: Non-diacritic form to follow the style of Britannica and Vietnam News Agency, per WP:NCGN. No English language model exists for the diacritical form.) (undo)

These two towns were part of a failed RM at Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 at 7 August 2011 shortly before you were requested to move them. But there's no way you could have known that since, unless my eyes are deceiving me, and I find this a bit hard to believe, The talk page bot link to the failed RM was removed 27 August same for Talk:Thanh Hóa 27 August. I presume this is not normal procedure for requesting a G6? If so, then would you mind checking for me - since I don't know the G6 system there may well be something I am missing. Sorry to bother you, but it may not be an isolated case of misusing the G6 process. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's perfectly normal for {{db-g6}} to be used for deleting a redirect that is holding up an uncontroversial page move. Because it has been ~9 months since these moves, I don't remember the exact circumstances for these two particular cases, but it is unlikely that I was aware of the move discussions that you link. Looking at the deleted page history, the request was made by User:Kauffner and his explanation, "Non-diacritic form to follow the style of Britannica and Vietnam News Agency, per WP:NCGN. No English language model exists for the diacritical form" seems consistent with Wikipedia policy including Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese). However, if the rationale given was not accurate, or if there was a move discussion that came to a different conclusion, then I have no objection if someone wants to reverse the moves since it does seem that the move shouldn't have been characterized as "uncontroversial". -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. Given that you have confirmed that it definitely was Kauffner, then I should inform him that I have spoken to you. There have also been similar discussions with admins User:Graeme Bartlett and User:Malik Shabazz who also had the same thing happen. I should say that Kauffner seems completely unrepentant about hiding the failed RM link before making an "uncontroversial" request, which I find more disturbing than the initial hiding them. The moves cannot be restored since Kauffner has edited the redirects here and here in a manner reminiscent of User:Dolovis, if you are familiar with that case. So could you please wave an admin magic wand and return them to the result of the RM? Many thanks. But what silliness - if the day comes when I go breaking the rules I hope I'd do it for something a bit more important than stripping accents off a couple of Vietnamese town stubs. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, how does it work? were you selected, or did the G6 just land in your lap by unhappy accident? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Although it seems perfectly reasonable to me to move these articles back since they were moved under controversial circumstances, I see that there is currently an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling pertaining to these types of articles. So I think it would be best to wait upon the outcome of that discussion to determine its potential impact on these articles. (But if anyone feels strongly otherwise, I will go ahead and move them back now.) As for how I these articles ended up getting to me, when someone tags an article with G6 it ends up at CAT:CSD and any administrator can choose to deal with any article there at any time. I just happened to be helping out with those speedy deletions when these articles were listed there. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, I think the principle of honesty needs to take precedence here. It wasn't just one speedy move admin who was misled by deleting evidence of a RM and making a false request, but all those who participated in the RM. And, to be honest, I don't like to see trickery rewarded. So I request you return them to RM result please. You can refuse the request, but I'm requesting it. Thanks for the explanation about CAT:CSD. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. The two articles are now back at their previous titles Thái Nguyên and Thanh Hóa. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that draws a line under it. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Temporary undelete

What it be possible to temporarily restore this page? Theres some coding in the revision history that I would like to take a look at. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, it is now undeleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I got what I needed you may re-delete it now.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually if you have a good understanding of wikisyntax, I could use some help. Thanks to you, I was able to retrieve the coding to help User:TriiipleThreat/Service Awards flow correctly but now it will not display on mu userpage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I had a look, but I'm sorry I can't see any reason why User:TriiipleThreat/Service Awards won't transclude at User:TriiipleThreat. It will transclude on my userpage (here), so there must be something in the coding on your userpage that affects what's below it. If I move "{{/Service Awards}}" to the top of User:TriiipleThreat, it will display... -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It has something to do with {{-}}, which is need to separate the sections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it to work, I had to define a width for the template.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you figured it out. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Aabomycin

Can you add to this? I salvaged it from speedy. Albomycin might be the other name and have more hits.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Something is not right. After a brief look, it seems that aabomycin and albomycin are two distinct chemical compounds and the article currently conflates the two. I'll take a closer look a little later today and try to resolve the issue. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've separated it into two articles, venturicidin (a more common name for aabomycin) and albomycin. I've expanded venturicidin a bit and will do the same with albomycin sometime later. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you yourself when you're away?

Hi Edgar181, perhaps you could comment on Edgar181 is away (talk · contribs), as they have taken the liberty of using your sig here. Thanks & regards! Franamax (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not me. Just someone's childish trolling. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Need some help with deleting a few images

Hey Edgar181. I'm trying to delete a few images that I uploaded. I tagged them for deletion a few days ago but they still haven't been deleted or otherwise changed so I think I might have done it wrong.

Here are the images:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:El3ctr0nika.png
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El3ctr0nika.png
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emulators_(Ragnarok_Online).png
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emulators_(Ragnarok_Online).png

I'm the copyright holder of them both of course.

Thanks. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 07:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You marked them correctly. Speedy deletions on Commons just aren't very speedy. I have deleted them now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 13:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

AGC Website section

Hi,

I am from Marketing team of AGC networks. I tried to put my business information on wiki which seems to have been blocked. The reason given is that username is of organization name only. Advise if we need to use the brand tagline like 'enabling experience' to upload content or is there a process which needs to be followed which I am missing on.

Please mail me at <email removed> and help me understand wiki.

Thanks,

Shailendra Tanwar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.118.250 (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Without knowing the username or the pages involved I can't comment on any specific blocks. But in general usernames are not permitted to match the name of a company being promoted. Also, Wikipedia is not for marketing and promotional purposes anyway, so it sounds like you are better off trying to promote your company elsewhere. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Propionitrile

I botched a move this AM for propionitrile. If you could take a quick look and tell me if there is further work required. Sorry for the mess. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Right now the edit history is at Propionenitrile but there is a copy of the article at Propionitrile, and a redirect at propanenitrile. If you can tell me which one of those titles you would like to be the final location of the article, I'll take care of it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Propionitrile is my recommendation for the title. Thank you very much, --Smokefoot (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is all fixed now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of LIDE Learning Center, Inc. (Isabel, Leyte)

This appears to be an educational institution and not applicable under A7. I could also be wrong. Could you let me know? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Inc." indicates that it is a corporation as well. This is probably a bit of a gray area in the speedy deletion criteria. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to undelete it and send it to AFD instead, I won't object. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion?

A page Abigail grimm was deleted by you on apparent Vandalism terms. I have read and see no reason for this to have taken place. No warnings were given and this is advised on the guidelines page.

Why was this page deleted? Especially so quickly? There could be no time to investigate the article or subject that quickly and the page did not meet 1 or more standards of Speedy Deletion which it must according to Wikiguidlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielj27052705 (talk • contribs) 5:45 pm, Today (UTC−4)

The article was marked for deletion by another editor, you received on your talk page a warning from that editor that the page would be deleted, and then I deleted the article because it appears to be an attack on a named individual. An identical copy you created at User:Danielj27052705/sandbox was deleted by another administrator for the same reason. A third page you created, Prof. Nigel Blackwood, was deleted by a third administrator with the reason "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I do not see how any of these deletions violate Wikipedia policies. I recommend that you have a look at Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion at Wikipedia:Notability and the introductory page Wikipedia:Your first article before attempting to create any new articles. -- Ed (Edgar181) 03:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

May I request all the information I put on that page to be recovered and sent to me? That is the only copy I had and my Sandbox aswell. I am not sure how to access it myself and would be greatly disappointed if it is lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielj27052705 (talk • contribs) 5:45 pm, Today (UTC−4) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you go into your preferences ("my preferences" link at the top) and check the "Enable e-mail from other users" box, I can send it to you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is already turned on if not my email is <email removed>. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielj27052705 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me whether the subjects of these articles are real people or fictional characters? -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fictional Characters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielj27052705 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I emailed a copy to you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielj27052705 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yesmoke

Hi, please I would know why you deleted Yesmoke in 2009 as I would restore it. Your motivation was G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://wikibin.org/articles/yesmoke.html, but that page was a copy of the wikipedia article as wikibin is the recycle bin of wikipedia and the license is free (GFDL). Thank you --Trek00 (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The article that I deleted was tagged as a copyright violation, and indeed matched the content at wikibin. It seems that I didn't recognize at the time that the licensing terms of wikibin permitted copying. However, the content of the wikibin page (and therefore the deleted Wikipedia page) matches exactly the content of the article that was deleted as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yesmoke. The article should not therefore be simply restored to article space. So I have moved it to User:Trek00/Yesmoke where you can work on it to address the concerns expressed in the deletion discussion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Justice4TM

Thanks for the quick delete on that content. I was just in the process of posting in ANI. I further think the user should be blocked, as betweeen that being their only edit, and their name, I think they are acting in bad faith. But in any case, thanks for the vigilence. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the user was likely acting in bad faith, but for now I have given them a warning not to do it again. I will keep an eye on the editor and block if he does something like that again. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Although this is a bit of an edge case, I am making an SPI for this user, as I think its very unlikely that this user made this as their first edit. If you wish to weigh in one way or another, you may certainly do so. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnknownPuppetmaster Gaijin42 (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be right that this is not a new user, so the SPI is probably worth the try. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

iSimplex

Hi, I understood your reasons to delete the isimplex page, because it a user with the name of a company and created an article about themselves. If it was a singular person, that creates an article with the same content this will not be deleted? As you can see, the content wasn't for advertising, just to inform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A santos19 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The article Isimplex was deleted by User:Discospinster. If you have questions about that deletion, it would be best to contact him. I simply blocked the account User:ISimplex from editing because of the username issue and invited you to sign up with a different name (which I see you have already done). -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Micronations

I can see whay you deleted my article. However I do own another micronation that has much more refrences but it is not on microwiki. (don't know if that matters.)CrownprinceJohannes (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's simply not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Cam Pha District

The move which you declined was the result of the requested move discussion Talk:Cam Pha District#Requeste move, as I indicated in the SD template. Would you please reconsider. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh. I have no idea how I missed that. I have moved the page now. My apologies for the mix-up. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this, but the Talk page seems to have got detached? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. The article and its talk page now match. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Monolaurin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmetic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

Hi. As you are a regular of WP:UAA, you are invited to participate in this RfC, which may influence the noticeboard. Have a good one. NTox · talk 08:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Edgar!

HG was correct, long ago. Enough is enough.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for deleting all of those for me =) Best, Jona^{talk to me} 14:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Malegaon advertising

Hi!
I see that you have blocked only User:115.242.103.209 but not other IPs User:115.242.32.67, User:115.242.118.30, User:115.241.248.73, User:115.240.61.147, User:101.63.122.65, User:115.242.67.170, User:115.240.42.46, User:101.2.27.180 and User:101.2.0.227 that were also reported. Is there some technical reason for not doing so? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it is clearly one individual, it seems to me that this person is simply changing IP addresses. Once they have moved from one IP to the next, it is unlikely that they will be able to return to the previous one. Also, all these IPs are editing only one article and now that the article is semi-protected, blocking each IP address isn't necessary anymore. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I see! I did not notice you had also semi-protected it. I thought it is unfair to block IPs like this and hence we don't do that normally or something like that. Anyways.. thanks! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Good that you protected it. That guy had to use his login id to advertise again and hence i have now filed SPI against him Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yagharkar. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Yagharkar for 24 hours. If he continues after the block expires, I will block for longer. I suspect that the SPI will be declined - it's obviously the same individual, and the checkusers usually don't like to publicly connect usernames to IP addresses. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your block of IP 114.79.56.193‎; 23:09. That was quite an evening wasn't it? I was running around like a loon trying to revert him while my Indonesian Internet connection kept dropping out. I wonder what fired him up. Thanks again. Davidelit (Talk) 16:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for block adjustment

Hello, I'd like you to consider adjusting block settings and/or extending the block on FrancisRowe (talk · contribs) in light of this invective written during his block. Thank you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but since yesterday it looks like he has had a nice change of heart. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thai Nguyen

Hi Edgar, to update you: Talk:Cà Mau has had a RM to restore the articles moved counter RM (while logged in), after IP activity hiding previous RM (while logged out), and deletion of previous RM notices (while logged in). Can you please now restore the others moved by G6 "uncontroversial requests" counter Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 RM.? I've left a similar note on User talk:Graeme Bartlett, the other admin who actioned these G6. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the pages have all now been moved back by Graeme Bartlett, but if there are others that were missed just let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme has the ones specifically G6 counter RM, reversal of other G6s is pending. There appear to have been a wider sweeping set of requests for G6s, pulling in not just the towns but related province and district names that weren't even mentioned in the RM such as this, Quảng Ngãi Province following Quảng Ngãi town in RM. The ones you actioned were:

• 17:38, 14 October 2011 Yên Phong District
• 17:38, 14 October 2011 Thái Thụy District
• 17:37, 14 October 2011 Thủ Thừa District
• 17:37, 14 October 2011 Tiền Hải District
• 12:37, 7 October 2011 Điện Biên Province
• 12:37, 7 October 2011 Ninh Thuận Province
• 12:37, 7 October 2011 Khánh Hòa Province
• 12:37, 7 October 2011 Hà Tĩnh Province
• 19:04, 6 October 2011 Hòa Bình (city)
• 14:07, 6 October 2011 Thanh Hóa
• 14:07, 6 October 2011 Thái Nguyên
• 14:07, 6 October 2011 Tân An
• 17:24, 2 October 2011 Bến Tre Province
• 12:38, 28 September 2011 Sóc Trăng Province
• 12:38, 28 September 2011 Lâm Đồng Province
• 12:37, 28 September 2011 Quảng Nam Province
• 12:37, 28 September 2011 Quảng Ngãi Province
• 20:45, 29 August 2011 Vĩnh Long Province
• 20:45, 29 August 2011 Bình Phước Province
• 20:45, 29 August 2011 Bạc Liêu Province
• 20:44, 29 August 2011 Bắc Kạn Province

These are Vietnam geography G6 moves counter the Talk:Cần Thơ RM, and counter all 3x Talk:Cà Mau RM1 RM2 RM3. There are no other Vietnam geography RMs and as such were all bad faith G6 requests, even without RM notice deletion and IP activity involved. I therefore request they also be restored in line with the RMs on Vietnamese geographical names that have taken place. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, those articles are now back at the former titles. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Edgar, many thanks for this, so are Graeme's. That brings a significant number of geo articles back in line with all 3 of the 3 RMs on Vietnamese geo names, namely 06 July 2010, 07 August 2011, 24 August 2012 Talk:Cà Mau. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You're reversing a long list of moves from a year ago because IIO now thinks they are controversial? The note "not uncontroversial as claimed" makes it sound like this all somehow my fault. I should have known that IIO would come along a year later, investigate my edit history, and make a stink about this? Somebody mass moved the titles to diacritic forms in 2006-2007, and why can't I move them back? Using the Can Tho RM as a basis for these moves is just dishonest. The RMs are not common law precedents, especially not when the result is "no consensus". We don't even have a database of RMs that would allow you to use them that way. Besides, there were various other RMs that supported removing Vietnamese diacritics. I G-6'd these articles to conform with NCGN: "Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name." No other encyclopedia uses Vietnamese diacritics, nor does any other source that could reasonably be considered a geographic reference. Kauffner (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have chosen to revert moves that I have made but it is not specifically because of the result of the Can Tho discussion. When I did the original moves, I thought they would be uncontroversial. I now believe that my assessment was incorrect. The edit summary I gave was not intended to assign blame to you and I apologize that it may come across that way. If you wish to retitle the articles (which, in my opinion, seems perfectly reasonable), you are free to start discussions suggesting these moves. But it has become clear that it is not going to be acceptable to move these articles without discussion and consensus. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This issue has already been to ANI, so IIO is certainly doing quite a lot of forumshopping. Kauffner (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Edgar, I did not even comment on KarlB's notice at ANI link so I don't see how that is an example of forum shopping. Also please note that KarlB's WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive761#Kauffner_mass_moves_away_from_diacritics_against_consensus concerns only the 1000 undiscussed moves-and-locks made under Kauffner's own name, and was made 2 days before Kauffner's use of logged out edits to hide 2 previous contrary RMs on Vietnamese towns (contrary Ca Mau RM, contrary Can Tho RM) before requesting G6 dbmoves contrary to RM results (actioned by GraemeBartlett/Edgar181/MalikShabazz) was noticed, so this issue has never been before ANI, it has only been before the specific admins who actioned the G6 moves, and in the case of MalikShabazz he was alerted by someone else long before I was aware. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hassal Sharif

Hi Edgar I noticed you have deleted today Hassal Sharif , which was PRODed two days ago. How come the same page is now online at the same pagename?? Am I missing something? --Itemirus^{Message me!} 16:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I deleted Wikipedia:Hassal Sharif and its talk page which were inappropriate redirects to Hassal Sharif and its talk page. Based on the AFD, it looks like Hassal Sharif will be deleted soon, too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mtengraver

Thank you for dealing with my request at WP:UAA. I noticed, though, that while you have blocked Mtengraver (talk · contribs) indefinitely, your block notice at User talk:Mtengraver describes a temporary block. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I added the wrong template. I've fixed it now. Thanks for catching that and letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Since this editor only edits his/her own talk page, the block hasn't achieved anything! -- John of Reading (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Usually in situations like this, the block gets the point across. In this case, it apparently didn't yet, so I have removed their ability to edit their talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks, Edgar181, for all you do on Wikipedia, especially keeping my personal pages free of vandalism. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

omega 3 deletions

Hi Edgar,

sorry a bit new to this. are you not alloed to mentionn company names in a an article. iewamted to add a section on algae based omega 3 supplements as they are useful to vegetarians and vegans. you have twice deleted it so i'm obviously messing up somewhere! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinpassmore (talk • contribs) 14:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much the content that I was concerned about, but rather the tone. It came across as promotional in tone, and with the specific mention of one particular company, it just looks like an advertisement. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

!أشكركم على منع

أشكركم على عرقلة أنا لست كافرا — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.88.98 (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what that means, even when using Google to translate. If you want to communicate with me, you'll have to use English. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)