User talk:Edgar181/Archive40

• Please add new topics to the bottom of the page. You can use the "new section" button above to start a new topic.
• In general, I will respond here to comments, rather than on your talk page, so that the conversation isn't scattered.

---

Archives 2005-2018 2019  • Jan 2019 - Apr 2019  • May 2019 - Aug 2019  • Sep 2019 - Oct 2019

Midazolam

Hi Edgar. I have never edited wiki before. I notice on the Midazolam page that it doesn't mention subcutaneous use in the top section. We use it daily in palliative care. Could you make a change? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.165.108 (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the article. See the section Midazolam#End_of_life_care. Are there changes that you would suggest to that section? -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Høgni Mohr

I see that yesterday you blocked user Nudlavirkid for refusing to disclose a conflict of interest in relation to the article Høgni Mohr. After this happened, user Frayæ edited the article to make it acceptable to Wikipedia (although I think the subject's notability is questionable).

Now a new, single-purpose editor has appeared, user Rolsenl, and replaced much of the promotional text. I will leave you to decide what relationship, if any, this editor bears to Nudlavirkid. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It certainly looks like block evasion to me, so I requested that a checkuser have a look: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nudlavirkid. I think it's is worthwhile to unambiguously confirm the socking when PR firms are involved. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Administrator changes

Sir Sputnik

Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes

Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes

Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Keilana

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

request for svg image

OSU-03012

When you get a chance

Mfernflower (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I created a new .svg image and added it to the article. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

fr:Acétamidoglycine

Hi,

Could you find the CAS number for this compound, please ? see too File:Acetamidoglycine.png, this french article seems to have no interwiki link... --Titou (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I think fr:Acétamidoglycine is incorrect. The CAS# for the compound in the image File:Acetamidoglycine.png is 30833-88-6. SciFinder shows almost no use of this compound in the chemical literature. It is not mentioned in Good's 1966 paper that introduces Good's buffers (doi:10.1021/bi00866a011). The compound in that paper is different: I have created the image File:Acetamidoglycine.svg for the correct structure. The CAS for this compound is 7365-83-5 and I created a Wikidata item for it (Q58209720). Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

very strange, If that you say is right then the PubChem page CID 23171574 is false too ?? Acetamidoglycine refers to (2-acetylhydrazinyl)acetic acid and the .svg you make refers to [(2-amino-2-oxoethyl)amino]acetic acid (verified with ChemSketch)--Titou (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I read the Good's 1966 article doi:10.1021/bi00866a011 with Sci-Hub and table I gives IX : acetamidoglycine for H₂NCOCH₂N⁺H₂CH₂COO- then ... may be the word "acetamidoglycine" is too vague and corresponds to several compounds according to the insertion of which side of the acetamide on glycine : N side-acetamido-glycine (the french article) or C side-acetamido-glycine (Good's 1966 article)?? In any case, it seems to me that usually acetamido- refers to the N-side insertion that retains the methyl group and there is too then same couple of compounds with 3-acetamido-glycine= N-acétamido-glycine --Titou (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I would not rely on PubChem for accurate information. It is known to have many errors and it is not well curated. I agree that there are two chemical compounds which are known and can be named as "acetamidoglycine". The French article is clearly intended to be about the one used as a buffer, so the box should be changed to match the data for File:Acetamidoglycine.svg (CAS#7365-83-5). The other chemical compound (File:Acetamidoglycine.png/CAS#30833-88-6) is not notable, in my opinion, and does not need to be written about on Wikipedia. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

okay, okay but on wp:fr, it's accepted that all chemical compound, no matter how insignificant, may have an article and in fact, it's 4 compounds that can be called acetamidoglycine... So we already have a nice article on the N side-2-acetamido-glycine which we must delete the reference Good's 1966 and remains to write one on the C-2-acetamido-glycine, fr:WP: NHP in french = WP:BB! cheers! --Titou (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I create File:All acetamidoglycines.svg. In fact, there are 6 acetamidoglycines counting each compound of the enantiomeric pairs. Now, the problem is to find correct name for all. I already know that between the top and bottom two compounds it's 3-acetamido glycine or N-acetamidoglycine at the top (in contrary what I write above) and 2-acetamidoglycine at the bottom. I don't know a descriptor that indicates by which side a radical binds and I don't see any other way to discriminate each compound on a line keeping acetamidoglycine in the full name. Help ? I modified the fr article by deleting all references to Good's 1996 until I can rename it and transform the fr:Acétamidoglycine page into an homonymy page.--Titou (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on page Survivor Series (2018)

I am currently witnessing Vandalism on the Survivor Series 2018 page. every time there is absolutely no reliable source I emailed them on there respective user pages, I keeped telling them to stop and they won't listen, Can You Protect the Page Fully please. Thanks ! :) TUB3900 (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about that topic to easily figure out which edits are good and which aren't. I suggest making a request at WP:RFPP where other admins who might be better able to help will see it. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

IP socking

171.33.200.84 is a sock of 77.102.245.28 – they've made very similar edits on multiple articles. Modernponderer (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have now blocked that IP. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

request to delete category I made by accident:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nitroarenes

Mfernflower (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I have deleted it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Chromium acetate

Hey Edgar181, thanks for the category implementation that you put into the article! As you probably know, I created Chromium(III) acetate earlier today, and didn't include any linkage to the article anywhere else on wikipedia, and also hadn't yet created categories. How were you able to find the article then? Did you stumble on it on accident, or was there a tool you used, or... UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I occassionaly look at the page User:AlexNewArtBot/ChemistrySearchResult which lists new articles related to chemistry topics. Someone has set up an automatated program that searches new article creations and sorts them by topic areas. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

You can also use the new pages feed, if you're just interested in looking through new articles regardless of topic; that's how I came across it. Blythwood (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Epoxides

Ed, now I have myself slightly confused about nomenclature. If you have any advice, offer it. Epoxybutene or epoxybutane? Butene oxide follows ethylene oxide example. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all those names are used, along with "butylene oxide". Other than "epoxybutene", which is amiguous with respect to compounds such as this, I think any of the others are fine. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit question

In this edit, you added some templates. I removed the prior edit as a copyright policy issue. I was tempted to simply restore your templates but now I'm wondering if they were motivated by the prior edit in which case they aren't necessary or other issues in which case they are needed. I'll leave the call up to you, but I have not restored the templates.

(I see this is moot as you have subsequently edited).--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I restored the {{peacock}} template because I think it still applies after your revert. I added the COI template because of the obvious username connection of the editor you reverted, so I don't think that necessarily applies anymore (though considering the tone of the article, it may still be the product of editors with a COI, but I haven't looked closely). -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Edgar181. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Vestronidase alfa-vjbk - Updates

Hi there - I am inquiring about a proposed content update to the Vestronidase alfa-vjbk page from editor Gary at Ultragenyx on August 2, 2018. Can you share a status update on the publication of this content? Will it be published to the Article page in the future?

104.188.97.112 (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I left a comment at Talk:Vestronidase alfa-vjbk. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi protect request

Hi there. Could Bradley Beal please be semi protected. Lots of random vandalism of late. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment on a block

I was surprised to see your "softerblock" on Biggsale. It looks to me like as unambiguous spam as any I have ever seen. Obviously, it was your block, and your judgement as to how to block, but it's not what I would have done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

My choice of block was based on the lack of warning or notice from users that what they were doing isn't appropriate (just one bot warning about Youtube generally not being an acceptable source). Looking back, you're probably right that something like {{uw-spamublock}} would have been better. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you about "the lack of warning or notice from users that what they were doing isn't appropriate". Ideally I would not block any editor in this situation, but would just give them a friendly warning. Unfortunately, though, when I first became an administrator I found that if I did that then almost always another administrator would come along and block them with what I thought was a very unhelpful block notice. Sometimes they were given an unnecessarily aggressive response, such as the horrendous intimidating wall of text that the "spamusername" template was then. (Do you remember what it used to look like?) At other times an administrator would try to be kinder, but I think giving a block which is too soft can be just as unhelpful and unfair to a new editor as giving one which is too hard. Something which used to be very common was as follows. A promotional editor would be blocked with the "usernameblock" templated message, which says in bold print "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing." The editor would then create a new account and continue editing in the same way as before. Then they would find they were blocked again for doing exactly what an administrator had told them they could do. What a wonderful way to bite a new editor! Some administrators made it even worse, by various means, such as accusing the editor of block-evasion. Very reluctantly I decided that the lesser evil was to block and give what I thought was a more helpful block message, rather than post a friendly warning, in the knowledge that far more likely than not the outcome would be a block which I regarded as unfair and unhelpful.

I used past tenses there, because although similar things still happen, they do so much less often. "Spamusername" blocks are now much less intimidating than they were, since three years ago Bishonen rewrote the template in a much better way. (Actually her rewrite was closely based on a message I created for my own use, because I hated the standard one.) Meanwhile inappropriate username blocks seem to me to be far less common, possibly because administrators are less reluctant to use the newer spamusername block template than the old one. A "softerblock", such as the one you used in this case, is much better in this situation than a "username" block, but it does, in my opinion, have two drawbacks when used for a promotional editor: (1) although it does mention promotion and conflict of interest, it does so only incidentally, and emphasises only the username issue, which in my experience can lead to editors thinking that changing user name and continuing editing in the same way will be OK; (2) it encourages editors to make a new account rather than requesting an unblock, which can make it difficult to monitor them: a new account making similar edits to pages in a new user space may not be noticed. For those reasons I prefer to use a spamusername block whenever the editing has been unambiguously promotional. In cases where I feel that even the current spamusername template is too harsh I post a customised block message: although it takes a little more time, there is no reason to think we always have to use one of the standard messages.

Hmm. That turned out to be a far longer and more extensive account of my thoughts on this matter than I thought I was going to write when I started. However, you may find it of some interest, and if you don't then just ignore it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: When I first started using {{softerblock}} (many years ago now), I had the same concern you express above that it would allow, or even encourage, recipients to immediately create a new account and just continue the same promotional editing. So for the first month or so I looked after 24 hours at each account that I soft blocked for any evidence that they had returned under a different username. I was not able find a single example of that happening. Obviously, I can't be sure that I would necessarily be able to find someone doing that, but the fact that I couldn't find any case suggests that it is at least rare. Anyone who is determined to spam Wikipedia is not going to be deterred by a hard block anyway - changing IP and signing up for a new account isn't difficult. So overall, I've come the conclusion that whether someone is soft blocked or hard blocked for promotional editing doesn't make much of a difference. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation. For what it's worth, my feeling is that the wording of the talk page block notice probably makes far more difference than whether autoblocking and account creation blocking are in place or not. Most promotional editors are not determined spammers, but good faith editors who genuinely didn't realise that promotion was unacceptable, and making that clear is the main thing. I have, however, seen many cases over the years where the blocked editor has returned with a new account to promote again, but I have not taken notice of how often the block was a hard one and how often a soft one, or how often the return has been within 24 hours, so I can't make a precise assessment of how much difference the type of block makes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Evolution of Netsepoye hawesi may require undeletion

You just deleted Evolution of Netsepoye hawesi following the AfD. I noticed that the student author (Phoebemcgowin) did very properly move her draft into mainspace without retaining a copy of the material (at least not online); and the same goes for the extensive peer reviews by other students that were on the talk page. She was already getting upset in the AfD about not going to have anything to show up for marking. - I think it would be a kindness to make available a copy of the article and talk pages for her to show her instructor. She won't know how to ask about that, so I thought I'd put it to you. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this potential issue. I have left a message for Phoebemcgowin offering to supply to the text of either the article or the talk page if she needs it. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I need you to email me a copy of what I had written. This is for my class assignment and now all of my information is GONE!!! Please send me what YOU deleted ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoebemcgowin (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I have replied to your email with the text of the two pages. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that Ed. For future reference, can I, as the instructor, access these "deleted" articles if I need to? Laurakreed (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can ask me or any other administrator for the deleted text. -- Ed (Edgar181)

Aceglutamide

Hi,

This compound with a chiral carbon atom have, I think, CAS number #2490-97-3 for the racemate and may be #35305-74-9 for the S-enantiomer, is it right ? Could you find the CAS number for the R-enantiomer ? thanks --Titou (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's what I found:

CAS# 5817-09-4 is aceglutamide with unspecified sterechemistry (racemate)

CAS# 2490-97-3 is the (S)-isomer

CAS# 161579-61-9 is the (R)-isomer

CAS# 35305-74-9 is for a structural isomer with the acetyl group on the amide of L-glutamine ((S)-glutamine)

-- Ed (Edgar181) 18:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I put this good CAS numbers on fr:Acéglutamide. On Aceglutamide, I can put the numbers but without the comments. Could you see how to put them? I don't know the en:wp syntax --Titou (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello,

user NewInterstate just did another vandal content removing in the article Benzo(a)pyrene without giving any explanation. He has been warned for vandalism previously, but he blanked his talk page. Could you please do something about it? — Assaiki (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the edit at Benzo(a)pyrene vandalism. It looks like it was an attempt to fix the formatting of the title. I have restored the previous version. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

There is clear vandalism from this account that I missed earlier and I have now indef blocked the account. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

3-Hydroxybutanal

Hi Ed,

Still a problem of CAS numbers of a racemate and it enantiomers, The C3 of 3-Hydroxybutanal is chiral then I imagine that 107-89-1 is the CAS number of racemate and may be the enantiomer have too CAS number. Could you see what you find on Chemical Abstract, please --Titou (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

CAS# 107-89-1 is 3-hydroxybutanal, 117706-97-5 is (R)-3-hydroxybutanal, 117706-98-6 is (S)-3-hydroxybutanal. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

oh thanks a lot - it's possible to make the same with 3-Hydroxybutanone #513-86-0 for which its C3 is chiral too? please --Titou (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

CAS# 513-86-0 is 3-hydroxybutanone, 53584-56-8 is (R)-3-hydroxybutanone, and 78183-56-9 is (S)-3-hydroxybutanone. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Important

              Dear Edgar, 
        Hi I would like to notify you of the page "Edgar." There is a section where you are called an obscene name and there is a link to your user page.