User talk:Edgar181/Archive30

Please comment on Talk:Conversion therapy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conversion therapy. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of article

I had a page written about a business man named rishabh puri you had deleted it. i had a few opinions about re-writing in the proper manner they advised. could you tell me the reason of deletion. i understand i had reliable source, and one source has a downlink of their webpage linking to a few articles including the person i am writing about. is that your reason of deletion or was it the way i wrote ? please advise so that i don't make any future mistakes when i write my articles. --NGupta123 (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know which article you are referring to. As far as I can see, none of your deleted contributions were deleted by me. Rishabh Puri was deleted by the administrator User:David Eppstein, restored by User:Samwalton9, moved to Draft:NGupta123/Rishabh Puri by you, and then deleted by User:Cryptic. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Cis- and Trrans-Stilbene

Hi Edgar. Somehow from the get-go, articles on the isomeric stilbenes were labeled E- and Z- instead of trans- and cis-. I am kinda sure that this naming in inappropriate because the substituents are the same. I am very sure that this naming is unusual for chemists. But I could be wrong. If you agree that these articles should be relabeled cis- and trans-stilbenes, could you use your administrative powers to make this happen? Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

E- and Z-stilbene are correctly named. In E/Z nomenclature, you look at each end of the double bond separately. In this case, each end of the double bond has two distinct substituents (H, Ph) so different priorities can be assigned to each of them. In terms of the article titles, using cis- and trans-stilbene might be better because they probably are more common names. Even better might be to just merge the two articles because there is overlapping content. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Year 2000 problem

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Year 2000 problem. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Mirodenafil

The structure for Mirodenafil shows two nitrogens in the 5-member ring, but there is really only one nitrogen. Jeff Janes (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the error and letting me know. I'll fix it shortly when I return from traveling and have access to my computer with chemistry drawing software. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back

Nice to see you back in action. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will probably still be less active here for awhile, but things are getting better. My wife had an extended hospital stay, but is recovering well now. I also started a new job recently and with all the normal busyness of kids and family, I simply haven't had time for much else. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit to WP:UAA

In this edit you removed all of the bot-reported entries at WP:UAA, leaving nothing behind. The UAA Instructions say "Reports that are marked as not requiring administrative attention should be left on the noticeboard for several hours so that the filing editor has a chance to be informed of the reason. After such time, the reports can be removed unless they involve lesser username concerns that require further monitoring". Now perhaps that shouldn't apply to the bot-reported section, but I thought it did, and that in particular the false-positive comments could be used to improve the detection algorithms. Is removing all entries in one swooop really a good idea? DES ^(talk) 00:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have always summarily removed bot listings that aren't blatant violations and no one has ever suggested that it might not be a good idea before. Maybe that just means that no one spoke up before, but as far as I can tell, the bot operator(s) rarely make changes to the detection algorithms even when constructive suggestions are made (at least that was the case in the past when I tried) so I think cleaning them up promptly isn't a problem. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Then maybe i've been doing more work than I need to, commenting one at a time. DES ^(talk) 00:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I doubt that anyone reads responses to the bot reported listings there.  :/ -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly Open Access listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Scholarly Open Access. Since you had some involvement with the Scholarly Open Access redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Nourseothricin

FYI... you need to take a look at the chembox you added. It's "barfed" all over the page. Bgwhite (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The chembox I added looked fine until a bot came along and "fixed" it. I have restored my working version. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

BMS-955176

I love the chemboxes that you added to several of the anti-retroviral drug descriptions, could you please do one for BMS-955176 also?

I'd love to help, but after a quick search, I can't find any information about the chemical compound itself (chemical structure, etc). I will take a closer look tomorrow and see what I can find. -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, because BMS-955176 is in early stages of development, information about its identity is still proprietary and hasn't been made public so I can't find any information to put in an infobox. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this, I understand the proprietary nature of this doesn't allow you to add a chembox, I was hoping that by you doing so it would "call off the dogs" as was the case with all of the chemboxes you added for my previous contributions. If there's anything else you can do to resolve the objections to my BMS-955176 creation, please do, I could really use your help. Although I don't have your expertise in chemistry, I know that this is an important drugs that can save lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyDewitt (talk • contribs) 16:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it as this point. There isn't any real objection to creation of the article, as far as I can tell, just one over-enthusiastic editor who tagged it with too many cleanup templates and then moved on. As the drug progresses through clinical trials, more information will turn up and can be added to the article. Until then, I personally feel it's ok as it is. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for putting my worries at ease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyDewitt (talk • contribs) 20:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Infinite monkey theorem

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Infinite monkey theorem. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Azoximer bromide

The article Azoximer bromide has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

possibly not notable russian substance

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. a5b (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Not Speedy deletion candidate???

please could you explain to me why you do no think User: Hadley is a candidate for a speedy deletion and why you have therefore remove him/her from deletion??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruit Nd Nut (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You placed a {{db-a3}} template on User talk:Hadley. That template is for articles that have no meaningful content. A user talk page with several discussions clearly does not fall under that criteria. Why would you want someone else's talk page deleted anyway? -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nifoxipam revision history

Hey, could you please restore the Nifoxipam revision history or even better move my latest revision before deletion to Draft:Nifoxipam? Also shared my thoughts on your last question on my talk page. -- Aethyta (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I moved your version to Draft:Nifoxipam. I saw your response on your talk page. I guess we just have different opinions on the topic - but don't worry, I won't stand in your way if you wish to continue on creating new articles. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Aethyta (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

im starting explore wikipedia.

I want to learn more about wikipedia. Dodongcesar (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia could always use new contributors. You might find Help:Getting started helpful. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

List of superfoods

Ed -- as you have contributed to editing this list in the past, please give your thoughts on whether the article should be deleted, as proposed yesterday.[1] Guidelines:[2]. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Borane structures

I don't think your tetramethyldiborane and trimethyldiborane diagrams are correct. According to the articles, they have two hydride bridges (analogous to diborane) rather than a direct B–B bond. Those missing H explain why the formula does not match either. DMacks (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I was too hasty - I think I just clicked on the PubChem link in tetramethydiborane and based both images on that. I've reverted myself and removed the mismatching PubChem link. Thanks for catching the error and letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Edgar181 thanks for drawing the images. Pubchem has these all wrong. I was initially drawn in by the matching names. There look to be special rules for SMILES and INCHI just to cope with the hydrogen bridge. Hopefully I have these correct. Your early pictures were the hypothetical tetramethyldiborene and trimethyldiborene, so you can upload your early variants under these names. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes thank you for the new images!

Boron/hydrogen structures are neat! A "diborene" is typically a B=B double bond and one group on each B. The parent structural idea H₂B–BH₂ is instead Diborane(4). But per that article, that's not the correct ground state for that parent (the image we have there is tagged as disputed, I keep forgetting to fix it). Would have to check what is predicted for the alkyl-substituted ones. DMacks (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to help out with images. DMacks, I think you're right that the old ones are of dubious value - they will likely only lead to further confusion later on if I reupload them, even with correct nomenclature. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I fixed diborane(4); its ground state is quite unusual-looking! The article does mention that a structure with normal covalent bonding is a reasonable excited state, so I think it would be useful to have an image of it. But Mac ChemDraw refuses to make wedge/dot bonds easily visible for the correct conformation! Could you draw H₂B–BH₂ with both B sp² planar (like your original tetramethyldiborane), but at 90° dihedral to each other? DMacks (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Like this: File:Diborane(4) excited state.svg? -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Great! DMacks (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be right about the diborane(4) being the correct name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for kicks (okay, because I saw it mentioned in another article) I created an article for diborane(2). That one does have a direct boron–boron bond. But tht bonding is pi-only with no sigma. Neat! DMacks (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

With only two hydrogens, there are just too few to be used as bridges, I guess. I wasn't aware of bonds that are solely pi. Nice. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Acetic acid

Why is acetic acid more preferable to ethanoic acid? We got taught in our university that ethanoic acid is more preferable (and that is systematic nomenclature as it has two carbons, so eth, is an alkane, so an, and is a carboxylic acid, so ethanoic acid; which seems obvious and more intuitive to me.) Why would acetic be used instead of the more obvious name? Maybe ethanoic is more preferable in my country than acetic, but not so in yours...

Jamez Z23 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The entry you were editing is for the IUPAC name. That name is determined by IUPAC's nomenclature rules. IUPAC has decided that some non-systematic names are preferred over systematic names. "Acetic" is one of them. You, your university, and your country can each decide their own preferences, but that is irrelevant for IUPAC nomenclature. -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Operation Onymous

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Onymous. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

DSML Executive Search recreated

Hi, DSML Executive Search was recreated by the same user. Ayub407 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it again. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Angelo542

Hi I noted you blocked this user for disruptive editing and that he is now editing as User:ADuncan42. If you look at this diff:- 674973268 on his user page, this diff:- 673276811 on his previous login talk page and then these edits, as ADuncan42, on the Talk:England page:- 674973268 and 674536360 you can probably envisage that he will continue using his new login to cause further disruption. Would it not be better to pre-empt his activities and also block his new login? Richard Harvey (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I considered that. But since ADuncan42 hasn't edited in three days, it's not an immediate problem and it can be problematic trying to predict what other people will do in the future. I'm sympathetic to your concern and have watchlisted the affected articles. If the problem returns, I will immediately block. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :). Richard Harvey (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Edgar. I believe ADuncan42 (AKA:- Angelo542) has started using 195.11.166.194 as a Sock-puppet to edit the Clan Duncan article and talkpage today. The style of editing is totally identical to his previous edits. Richard Harvey (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it appears likely that it's the same person, but editing while logged out isn't necessarily a problem unless it's being used to abuse editing privileges in some way. That doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. The edits don't look particularly disruptive (but not really constructive either). I'll continue to keep an eye on pages. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

CAS number

Hi,
Is it always possible to ask you some CAS numbers? I look for the one of 3-benzoxepine, PubChem CID: 3659427 - Thanks in advanced if you could find it --Titou (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC) (ex-tpa2067)

I'm happy to help. I will find it tomorrow when I can use a computer that has access to Chemical Abstracts. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@The Titou: The CAS# for 3-benzoxepin is 264-13-1. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot --Titou (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User blog

Hi Edgar. Whilst checking for similar names to sockpuppets of an indef banned user I've spotted an old 'one-time-use' userpage, fom 2009, that appears to be a test blog of some sort, IE:- User:Amookvandan. It has no contributions or talkpage use. What criteria would you use to tag such a page for possible deletion ? Richard Harvey (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CSD#U5 is an appropriate speedy deletion criteria in that situation. I have deleted the page accordingly. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thank. Tag noted for future use, if required. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)