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
|
Administrators' newsletter – September 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).
Administrator changes
Nakon • Scott
Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee
Guideline and policy news
- ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
- Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
Technical news
- You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
- Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
- In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.
Arbitration
- Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
No record of G13 CSD?
Hi Edgar,
I had Draft:List of darknet markets on my watchlist. Honestly, I can't remember if it was me or Deku-shrub who created it, but I see it was CSDed, and a "what links here" shows no notification to anyone about that deletion (even after the fact), nor any log of who added the tag. Could you tell me what happened here? (and refund it). Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- No problem, I have undeleted it. Any page in draft space that has been unedited for more than six months meets criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#G13). This one has been unedited for ten months. I was doing some routine admin cleanup yesterday, but I don't recall how I came across it - it doesn't appear to have been tagged. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for undeleting. I do know about the 6month rule (not a fan, I'll accept that I seem to be in the minority with that opinion). Still, if not notice, at least a notification for at least one of the 4 editors who made non-minor contributions to it (3 of whom are still active) would be appreciated -- rather than just having it disappear (thankfully it's been a while since I've cleared my watchlist). :/ — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd second that; was planning on working on Draft:Template:Infobox shogi professional to find it had been deleted without any notification anywhere (and an active discussion on the talk page). Primefac (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've restored the draft. I'm sorry I didn't catch that the talk page discussion was recent. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Primefac for asking about this. I saw the deletion on my watchlist, but hadn't gotten around to asking about it yet. Also, thanks Edgar181 for restoring the draft. My bad for not editing it in awhile. I asked another for an opinion on it a few months back, but then kind of forgot about it when I didn't get a response. Primefac has been kind enough to offer some help, so it should be OK from here on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
In the absence of an edit summary or any consultation, I'm unclear why you have overturned my deletion of this obvious spam? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- It was essentially an edit conflict. I had deleted the page when it was a user page, then in response to discussion with the user that created it, decided to undelete it and move to draft space. In the few seconds between me undeleting the page and removing the now-reversed speedy deletion tag, you overturned my undeletion (without consulting me). I assumed it would be obvious what we were each doing. It didn't bother me that you re-deleted it and assumed it wouldn't bother you for me to continue what I was doing, but it's clear now that I should have dropped you a note to explain. I'm sorry that I didn't. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, clearly a mix-up in which I played my part. I thought the (perceived) action seemed odd, I should have WP:AGF. Having said that, it's a truly awful article, just a collection of cherry-picked reviews. I would have thought that G12 might apply since around three-quarters of the text is copyrighted quotes which are not being used to illustrate a point and would be excessive even if they were. I think we recommend not more than 10% of text should be illustrative quotes. Anyway, I'll leave it to your discretion, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's definitely highly promotional. That's why I speedied it per G11 at first. With some national book reviews, it seems it could plausibly be an acceptable topic if rewritten though. I moved it to draft for the user to rewrite it, but it looks like that may not happen. I hadn't originally considered G12, but I see your concern there. If there's no work on the article soon, I'll just delete it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, clearly a mix-up in which I played my part. I thought the (perceived) action seemed odd, I should have WP:AGF. Having said that, it's a truly awful article, just a collection of cherry-picked reviews. I would have thought that G12 might apply since around three-quarters of the text is copyrighted quotes which are not being used to illustrate a point and would be excessive even if they were. I think we recommend not more than 10% of text should be illustrative quotes. Anyway, I'll leave it to your discretion, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Vandal stopping
Just found an interesting tool you may want to use @ Anti Vandal tool.
--Sau226 (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. I'm aware of it, but prefer not to use it. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
119.42.159.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This IP is vandalising their talk page even after being blocked. Please remove access for this IP to edit their talk page until their block has expired. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Just giving you an FYI that I modified the block reason - this account is clearly a sock puppet. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's fine. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Semi
in view of the repeated disruption on this page from wandering isps, I've semi-protected temporarily for now. Obviously you can remove or extend the protection if you wish to do so. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. It was probably helpful at the time, but to be honest the edits to my page don't bother me. Any time this person spends editing here, is less time spent damaging actual Wikipedia content with his silly childish vandalism. I'll remove the protection for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Edgar181,
Another inextricable story of CAS numbers! the bisabolol has two forms, alpha and beta, both with two asymmetric carbons and therefore two pairs of enantiomers for each of the two forms = 8 stereoisomers plus the racemates and the mixtures of racemates. See what you can find, please. Especially what I've seen on PubChem CID 442343, 1201551, 10586 and 1549992, leave me really dubious about CAS#515-69-5 ... !? Help! --Titou (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'll have a look on Monday. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Below is everything I can find. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
α-Bisabolol
α,4-dimethyl-α-(4-methyl-3-penten-1-yl)-3-cyclohexene-1-methanol
72691-24-8 no specified stereochemistry
23089-26-1 (-)-(αS,1S)
78148-59-1 (-)-(αR,1S)
23178-88-3 (+)-(αR,1R)
76738-75-5 (+)-(αS,1R)
72059-10-0 (αR,1S) relative stereochemistry
515-69-5 (αR,1R) relative stereochemistry
β-Bisabolol
1-(1,5-dimethyl-4-hexen-1-yl)-4-methyl-3-cyclohexen-1-ol
22567-45-9 no specified stereochemistry
106035-75-0 (R,S) rotation not reported (R is the ring stereocenter, S is the side chain stereocenter)
15352-77-9 (S,S) rotation not reported
106035-76-1 (S,R) rotation not reported
700358-60-7 (R,R) rotation not reported
235421-59-7 (R,S) relative stereochemistry
100680-10-2 (R,R) relative stereochemistry
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Olmesartan Medoxomil's metabolism
Hi Edgar181, I saw you are a long-time contributor to the Olmesartan wikipedia page so I wanted to ask you about the statement in the bullet points section on the right hand side referencing Olmesartan's metabolism as "Hepatic (cannot be removed by hemodialysis)". The pharmacological papers put out by Sankyo (https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/archives/fdaDrugInfo.cfm?archiveid=2541) say "Approximately 35% to 50% of the absorbed dose is recovered in urine while the remainder is eliminated in feces via the bile." and the study http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/11451211 says "On average, approximately 40% of systemically available olmesartan was excreted by the kidneys, the remainder being excreted in faeces, following secretion in bile. Renal clearance (0.5-0.7 l/h) was independent of dose, accounting for approximately 9-12% of an oral dose." So it sounds like around 40% (Sankyo's papers say 35% to 50%) is eliminated by the kidneys and around 60% is eliminated through the liver in bile. My understanding of the cited study's statement that 9-12% of the oral dose is eliminated by the kidneys is that that 9-12% of the oral dose is the same as the 40% of the absorbed dose as much less is absorbed than is actually taken orally. Please let me know if I am missing anything here. I will edit the page if you think what I am saying is correct, but I wanted to check with someone else who is knowledgeable that I am interpreting what I have read correctly.