User talk:ChemNerd

Welcome!

Hello, ChemNerd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see you caught my misspelling at Tolperisone, too.

Editing Nicotine

Hello there. When editing the nicotine article to highlight changes in the field of nicotine research I noted that my changes were removed. I agree with the outcome, yes they were poorly sourced. If however, I can back up the statements more readily then can they remain in the article? They will not represent a non-neutral point of view because there is no neutral point. Everybody believes that nicotine is the addictive component of tobacco smoke so to say otherwise is non-neutral but the article as a whole will be neutral, arguing both for and against the addictive properties of nicotine. I presume that you do not have conflicting scientific evidence to confirm that nicotine is the psychoactive component of tobacco smoke?

Removing Categories

Why are you removing all the categories from these chemical compound articles? Silverchemist (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not removing all the categories. I'm only removing the redundant ones. For example, if isopropanol is in Category:Alcohol solvents, which is a daughter category of Category:Alcohols and Category:Solvents, then Category:Alcohols and Category:Solvents are redundant and should be removed per WP:SUBCAT. ChemNerd (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not remove the daughter category? It seems more useful to have the ethers, or alcohols grouped together. Not all alcohols or ethers are used as solvents. Silverchemist (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand you. The categories for ethers and alcohols are daughter categories, too. So why not remove them? Not all organic compounds are ethers or alcohols. ChemNerd (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUBCAT#User benefit rule "Does the removal of duplication affect the reader, making it hard to browse through subjects or spot their target easily? If the answer is yes, you should not remove the duplication." If a reader is looking for a listing of ketones, it is not obvious that they should also look at the daughter category of ketone solvents. Classification by "ketones" is based on composition while classification by "solvent" is based on use. Silverchemist (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we just see it differently. To me I think it is obvious that someone looking for ketones will look under ketone solvents too, just as someone looking for a list of organic compounds will look under ketones too. In any case, it's not a big deal to me, so if you want to add the additional categories back, I'm not going to complain. ChemNerd (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChemNerd: Please reconsider your recent recategorization. It puts undue weight on one of many (probably even more important) aspects and uses of a chemical compounds. At least reinstate the original general category. Also, in my opinion it does not make much sense to subcategorize solvents by chemical functionalities (amines, ethers,...); other schemes would make equal or even more sense, such as bp, logP, H-bond properties,... Please also notice that the categorization system does not have to be strictly hierarchical top-down. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who created those categories - I just saw, for example, that some alcohol solvents were categorised in Category:Alcohol solvents and some were in Category:alcohols and Category:Solvents, so I consolidated them in the subcategory plus I also removed redundancies. It seemed perfectly logical to me, but I suppose I'm in the minority here. I won't make those kinds of recategorizations any more. If those subcategories shouldn't be used for the handful of chemical compounds that I moved to them, then I suggest that those categories shouldn't exist at all. ChemNerd (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manganese(II)manganate(VI)

Heya

Related discussion at User talk:Itub. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is within the rules to speedy delete it instead, please do. ChemNerd (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for hte note on pyO

I'm not that uncooperative, usually, so I redrew the thing per your appropriate suggestion. Now we gotta get this new troll padlocked, we need to find a grumpy admin with special powers.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I'm sorry if I came across as demanding. ChemNerd (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organocopper cmpds

Organocopper compounds are typically defined as those with Cu-C bonds, not just containing organic ligands (otherwise organometallic chemisty would be even vast-er. So I have reverted some of your recategorizations. Please feel free to contact me if you want to discuss the topic.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine with me. I left a message for you at your talk page at the same time you left this one. ChemNerd (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a potentially counter-intuitive classification scheme, so your initial categorization effort was understandable. You'll find that some folks are picky about the distinction between card-carrying organometallic things and other "classical" coordination cmpds. The Cu(II) benzoate, when heated to decarboxylate, does decompose via Cu-Ph organometallic things, I think. Keep up the good work. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. ChemNerd (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

Categorization of pharmacology articles

I started WP:PHARM:CAT in hopes of providing better guidance regarding the categorization of pharmacology articles. If available, I have posted an updated draft at WT:PHARM:CAT, and would appreciate your feedback. kilbad (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elsevier

"misrepresentation" is not a neutral word, it is a euphemism utilized by Merck and Elsevier. Scientific Misconduct is an appropriate term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.76.159.6 (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an academic researcher, I have followed this story with interest, but I haven't seen any evidence that there was scientific misconduct. The scientific findings reported in Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine are not faked or fraudulent. They were peer-reviewed and published in other journals before being reprinted in Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine. It's the editorial issues that involved misconduct and misrepresentation. The fact that editorial control was in the hands of the business that funded the journal and that stood to benefit financially from the collection of articles reprinted in it is a huge conflict of interest that was hidden from the public. Call it misrepresentation or call it misconduct, I don't think it matters much, but the concerns are not really scientific, but rather editorial. ChemNerd (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carnosine external links

i saw you moved the smart-drugs.net link to the bottom of the page (you weren't the original editor who put it on there) but i just removed the subheading altogether because the link that was posted was a cleverly disguised order form for health supplements. Ytcracker (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The removal is fine with me. ChemNerd (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen Cyanate

I see you have redirected this page to point to Isocyanic acid, It looks like it belongs there. Thanks! I added a couple lines to that article specific to hydrogen cyanate to wrap up the merge. I appreciate your help. Daviga1 (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to help. ChemNerd (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChemNerd. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[[Litmus test

i would like you to pleasee give me a reason as to why you always delete my edits on the litmus test page about the nature of litmus solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saran.adios (talk • contribs) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was out of place and a bit confusing. I have now incorporated it into the article in a more reasonable place. ChemNerd (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think you have fully understood my edit.i wanted to state that although litmus is an indicator it itself should also possess a characteristic of being acidic i.e.a ph lower than 7 or basic i.e. a ph higher than 7.

after experimentation it has been found that red litmus solution(used to test for bases) itself has a ph higher than 7 that is it is basic whereas blue litmus solution(used to test for acids) has a ph lower than 7 that is it is acidic.

i therefore request you to review this point and restore my original edit.thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.96.138 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that what you are saying is correct, but maybe it's just a language problem. ChemNerd (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for removing some of the copyright information on some of the chemistry related articles, like you have done to the articles Pelretin and Azosemide. If possible, may you help me out on the Copyright Cleanup page? I am currently copyright-cleaning up articles related to organic chemistry at the moment, which can be found here. Minima c (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll help out. ChemNerd (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your invaluable contributions to evaluating and addressing copyright concerns in this CCI. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About a week late, I'm afraid. :) It closed on the 28th, but due to some very capable clerking at CCI, I didn't notice! Thank you for pitching in to help out with our sad backlog. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like others did most of the work, but I am happy to have helped out. Thanks for the barnstar. ChemNerd (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total apologies

Many apologies for not looking at what stub you had removed from the Unicum article. You were quite correct to take it off the page. Now that I've taken the time to look at it I wonder how it got on the page in the first place. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to apologize. The confusion could have been avoided if I had used an edit summary the first time. I should be better about that. Cheers, ChemNerd (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propylene glycol cocoate

Hi. I see you removed text from propylene glycol cocoate as "incorrect information not supported by the given reference". The text you removed was

Propylene glycol cocoate is a chemical compound produced by the esterification of polyoxyalkyl alcohols with lauric acid.

However the reference (the original URL of which seems to be dead, but another copy is at [1]) says

Propylene Glycol Cocoates and PEG Propylene Glycol Oleates are produced by the esterification of polyoxyalkyl alcohols with lauric acid and oleic acid, respectively.

I'm no chemist, but I'm curious how you explain your edit - just for my own information, since I added that text in the first place.

Thanks, -- Earle [^t/_c] 20:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The confusion here seems to be that propylene glycol cocoate is not the same thing as PEG propylene glycol cocoate. The article title is "propylene glycol cocoate", but the reference is referring to the other, PEG propylene glycol cocoate (actually several different types of PEG propylene glycol cocoate). Preparation of propylene glycol cocoate won't involve the "polyoxyalkyl alcohols" mentioned in the article, so that's why I removed the statement as inaccurate.

The term "fatty acids in coconut oil" is nearly the same as using the phrase "lauric acid and oleic acid", because lauric and oleic acids are the primary consituents (but the article referred only to lauric acid, which is only partially correct). Looking more closely, maybe the article should be restored to your version and then moved to the title "PEG propylene glycol cocoates" or to "Polyethylene glycol propylene glycol cocoates". ChemNerd (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's good to know where I went wrong. I'm going to follow your suggestion of restoring and moving. All the best, -- Earle [^t/_c] 18:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Looks good. Thank you. ChemNerd (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation...

Misrepresentation of what if I may ask? Counteraction (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These studies were conducted on laboratory animals using very high doses. It is not unusual for chemical substances to have beneficial effects at lower doses and deleterious effects at higher doses. Something that alters the high-dose effects will not necessarily alter the low-dose effects. The studies that you are referring to are only examining very high dose effects (and only in animals) and they make no conclusions about low-dose effects. Therefore, it is misrepresentation to suggest that these studies apply to low-dose fluoride levels or to imply that these studies necessarily apply to humans. ChemNerd (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bivalirudin test

I am a director at The Medicines Company and during a test today you assisted me in making a dramatic point regarding the validity of Wikipedia. I do apologize for the breach of rules regarding my post to Bivalirudin. You made many friends here today. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.143.240 (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you were testing the accuracy of Wikipedia by vandalizing it? If so, I think there are more responsible ways of doing so. ChemNerd (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Define vandalism.

"Willful, wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others" - Was it willful, yes. Wanton, no. Malicious, no.

Take Wikipedia's: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles." Was I undermining the integrity? Perhaps, though I certainly have an interest in not having mis information online regarding bivalirudin so it is hard to see how.

"Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Was it misguided, no. Ill-considered, no it was considered very carefully. Was it an attempt to improve the overall quality of the Bivalirudin article by forcing the worlds experts sitting in one room (at that moment) to pay attention to their moral obligation to providing the world with the best unbiased information, yes.

"Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." - Not done in bad faith and would have been removed had you not.

The point to be made here is that medical information is not black and white in any setting, especially online. And vandalism is not black and white either when you consider the purpose and overall impact. Life is lived in shades of gray. And there are people in this world who care enough about the safety of others lives to take responsible chances. You and I disagree - So be it. Such is life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.143.240 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very mush for removing my addition to "Biochemistry" because as a true chem nerd would know, everything I put such as "cholesterol is a steriod," is as you said "just plain wrong." You might need to check your facts and learn a thing or two before removing accurate and helpful material from Wikipedia. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.93.82 (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "most" has important meaning. When you remove it from what I wrote, it changes the meaning. Please contribute constructively to Wikipedia or you will be banned from editing. ChemNerd (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organoosmium compounds

Hi there Carbonyl complexes are traditionally considered organometallic compounds. If they are of osmium, thus organoosmium compounds. I understand that the main article has not been written, but redlinks are okay in Wikipedia. Or do you have another reason for removing those two osmium-carbonyl complexes from this category? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was better to have it categorized in a category that existed rather than in one that doesn't. Category:Osmium compounds is an appropriate category, but maybe it would be better to create the more precise category. ChemNerd (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... which I have now done. Works for you? ChemNerd (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The small barnstar, for gnomish work

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is for finding a reference for the Air sensitive article and vastly improving its title in such a swift and efficient fashion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ChemNerd (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Vitexin (data page)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vitexin (data page) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WWGB (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marking it for deletion seconds after I created it is not very helpful. It probably would have been better to ask what I was doing. This type of page is a standard way of handling data for articles on chemicals. ChemNerd (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skagee (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)@Chemnerd - I don't understand... Everything I've contributed has been 100% original and informative. It's all posted on my websites, which I properly referenced. Should I not reference at all if I should choose to contribute anything to any related subjects?! --Skagee (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that you are adding references to a website that is clearly soliciting for legal cases. And at least some of the content you were adding was redundant to what is already in the article. It certainly comes across as if you are just trying to advertise your website. For medical articles, all content should be supported by references that fit criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). You should probably also have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. ChemNerd (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ondansetron

It certainly was. I actually updated the file to convert the text to outlines—I must have inadvertently changed something in the main path as well. Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention! Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick. Thanks. ChemNerd (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChemNerd. You have new messages at Rifleman 82's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	hi, you don't like me adding articles? :( Chemya (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are asking about. ChemNerd (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited Withania somnifera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plaque (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) 10:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lipokine

Thanks for the edits. It does read better. But the extraordinary thing about a lipokine is that it's a fatty acid. I don't think that really comes across in the definition... plus it doesn't really capture the novelty (this is practically brand new science -- not well known). Is there another way to phrase it?

A lipokine is a fatty acid that is a new class of hormone, a "lipid-controlling hormone."

Thank you! LesTP 01:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesTP (talk • contribs)

Talkback

Hello, ChemNerd. You have new messages at Democracy112's talk page.
Message added 15:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Democracy112 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ChemNerd. You have new messages at Democracy112's talk page.
Message added 16:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Democracy112 (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]