User:Fuzzform/Archive2008

Tacrolimus

Can you provide a 2D molecular image (in svg format) of tacrolimus as offered on your user page? -- 212.41.120.19 (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I sure can, and I will, as soon as I'm back from vacation. I don't have the necessary software here at my current location. Fuzzform (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs). Please feel free to archive it whenever you like.

Image:Milnacipran.svg

Hi there Fuzzform, I've copied Image:Milnacipran.svg to Commons so it could be used on the German WP. Would you mind if I deleted it locally? Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would, and yes, it is possible :) Just create an account over at Commons and start uploading over there instead; it's as simple as that. (Fair use images are off limits, though, and can only be uploaded to WP.) If you need any further information, this link can provide some, or you can just ask me on my Talk page. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

DrugBank

No, I wasn't aware of that; DrugBank has undergone quite a major overhaul.

As for copyright, the site states:

DrugBank is offered to the public as a freely available resource. Use and re-distribution of the data, in whole or in part, for commercial purposes requires explicit permission of the authors and explicit acknowledgment of the source material (DrugBank) and the original publication (see below). We ask that users who download significant portions of the database cite the DrugBank paper in any resulting publications.[1]

I can't think of any WP articles that have been copy-and-pasted from DrugBank; have you come across any recently? As for growing credibility and clout—isn't that what we're here for? :) I, for one, am really glad we're doing our part to make sure the quality of content matches (or outstrips) WP's credibility! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The article was created after a WP:AFC request by an anonymous user. Do you think there are more such stubs (C/P'd from DrugBank, that is)? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Zopiclone

That's already the racemic compound. The image is a little bit misleading at thumbnail size; it has a "squiggly" bond (undefined stereochemistry), not a hatched wedge (S-). If you'd like to upload a new version anyway, you could use a filename like "Zopiclone racemic", "Zopiclone structure", or "Zopiclone skeketal". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Adinazolam.png

A tag has been placed on Image:Adinazolam.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Adinazolam.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Guide v Guides

I have entered a reply to you on Style Guide Talk. I wonder if you could direct me to where such a debate would be reviewed?
ThisMunkey (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Style Guidance

What about that one?
ThisMunkey (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah

Hi. I noticed you took part in the debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox and I was wondering if you might want to participate in a debate I have started at deletion review of this category and accompanying userboxes here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. I got your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Members. I've got too many things going on at the same time. My apologies for the confusion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

your Opinion

What is your opinion about the guidelines for scientific names, third section, Wikipedia:Redirect#Alternative_names? What category does mammal/mammalia fall under?
ThisMunkey (talk) 10:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I new you'd something interesting to say about it. I am not familiar with the IUPAC. But, where heavy water (in paricular) is concerned, it promotes a little learning to find "deuterium oxide", which I was also unfamiliar with until reading your message. This is what I am trying to promote. I dont underestimate the negative value of overcomplicating or "ridiculating". I have a vested interest as I am often interested in these type of things but have little formal education. My case for it also is that I would have found a great interest in that stuff long before the age of learning it in school and wording stuff correctly not only makes for more info but makes for easier digest. This type of thinking is mathematic and ancient. That promotes the knowledge to kids as well as unlearned adults like me. Not the math of constructing it, but the waterslide of reading it.
The thing to pay attention to, I believe, is in a case such as "mammal" vs. "other wording" is not the understanding but the provision of (providing) understanding/avoiding over complicating words. With "heavy water" versus "mammal", mammal is very early understood as such and mammalia would be complicated, whereas with "heavy water", it implies sientific terminology (ie: Heavy water?). Including "dueterium" provides something of extra interest. The same applies to baking soda/sodium bicarbonate which could be titled:- Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Soda). I think that plurals do a secondary role in the debate of naming convention.
I knew when looking at the article "Style Guide" that the title did not reflect a document of learning the subject (only the word, its hard to make that sound convincing). Whereas "Style Guidance" is the subject as opposed to "Style Guide" being the product of the subject. IE: "Style Guide" is merely a part of that article albeit the largest. Example: Humans or rodentia are probably the largest part of mammalia and most signifigant by far. Although a style guide does not bear a seperate name to style guidance and is the most signifigant part, it is merely the product of the tree. I would not dispute the validity of "Style Guide", but I would promote its development (the idea of a specific style guide is unsurprising, but the details of the conventions are new to me and interesting, I couldnt help seeing that "Style Guide" was a part of a bigger "Style Guides" history hence "Style Guidance". The subject may have a Latin name or other I have no knowledge of).
Although plurals may be avoided I think that "Style guidance" refers to a subject and "Style Guide" only suits a dictionary definition. "Style Guides" was a bit irrelevant.
ThisMunkey (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• My main view of input to the encyclopedia beyond providing a fact or a reference is putting the words around as is often more important than spelling corrections (ie: encyclopedia versus reference book). My argument to WP:DICT because the debate was very well articulated in some cases but the response was not entered into in any reasonable way (going back years). The articulation should delete the ignorance every time (human) as opposed to creating a rebellion to get a response. The wide consensus has always been that ignorance (not lack of knowledge) is a bad thing. In some circumstance ignorance has an excuse but as a broad leaf it could be plucked.
  ThisMunkey (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  

Actually it turns out that the policy is on maximising search engine hits (Wikipedia:Naming conventions), whereby Style Guide may be top of the list regardless. I would still say that the subject is notable (Im sure there will be a good article on that page about the development of style guides).
ThisMunkey (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Scholar

The way the term scholar was treated at that time was ridiculous and all contibutors to the disscusion were intelligent, hence "FOS" remark and apology here for offense. Note lack of apology on certain user:talk page.
ThisMunkey (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is gaelic football. It is a bit like soccer football where they carry the ball but they must bounce the ball off the foot while carrying it and a rugby tackle would get you sent off the pitch. See also hurling. As for what I was talking about here was a similar remark I made in December to someone else on a different topic (how scholars and scholasticism have no place on wikipedia, I said "You are full of") You are right, this isnt the place to be rude even if someone is a bit ignorant, just a pointless redirect was set up for some time whereas the proper link would have shown a very good article.
ThisMunkey (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Main page#Computer game article yesterday

If I am annoying you just tell me. What do you think of this?

What do you think of this - ?

An administrator replied to this that books are boring and he would prefer this book about child abuse. I want to have a go at getting him de-admin-ed. Where would I bring that up? (go see Talk:Main page#Computer game article yesterday comment by J Milburn) ThisMunkey (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rossrs and images

Just wanted to leave a note to let you know that User:Rossrs is away on holiday at the moment, so he's not available for 10 days or so to address anything. Another editor and myself have kept an eye on some articles that are of interest to him, but neither of us do much work with images. If you'd please keep an eye out on any images he's concerned with, I'm sure he'd very appreciative when he returns. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Fuzzform. I appreciate you letting me know. Rossrs (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg

Sorry about that. I was attempting to undo the vandalism, but someone else got to it first and I accidentally undid their revision instead. LocutusMIT (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Up and running

Hey Fuzzform, I've finally done something on Wikipedia! Seeing as I'm a beginner, I was wondering if you could critique my first page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Botas_Graciosas_Marchan_Sobre_Polonia%21 It would be an honor. Yr. Buddy, Burningkeycar (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hatzfeldt Syndrome

Hey there. I see you recently gave this article a once-over, and I thought it looked really, really fishy (neuro-epiphyseal disorder?) and did a cursory PubMed search, which found nothing. I'm pretty sure this is a hoax :) Any thoughts? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your input. I think we have enough for this :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Drug combos

All we have is a naming guideline: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide#Standard drug combinations; other than that, standard Wikipedia:Notability criteria apply. Paracetamol/metoclopramide survived an AfD two weeks ago, because a) apparently it's used quite prominently in the UK, and b) there are few analgesic/antiemetic combos on the market (unlike antihistamine/decongestant, of which there are dozens if not hundreds). The fact that this product isn't on any of the major consumer-oriented databases suggests it might not be notable enough for inclusion; I'd say your best bet is looking for references that suggest this is a notable product for some reason and, if you can't find them, take it to AfD :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if it does make the cut, it should be moved to Chlorphenamine/phenylpropanolamine. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopewell culture

A controversial move is one "anyone could honestly disagree with". Vague, I know, and probably deliberately so :) If you want editors to be made aware of the proposed move and give it a couple of weeks for discussion, then the procedure described at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves is exactly what you're looking for—and yes, there are templates. If you have sources that suggest the new title would be an improvement, you can, of course, just be bold and do it; the worst that can happen is being reverted. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dextromoramide.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dextromoramide.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 05:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Dimenhydrinate.png

A tag has been placed on Image:Dimenhydrinate.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Dimenhydrinate.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. JaGa^talk 17:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Doxefazepam.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Doxefazepam.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 18:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Structure issues

Glad to see people working on chemical structures!

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing workgroup is where the style guidelines and structure-drawing standards are established. I don't see anything about general use of condensed pieces "NO₂" vs explicit covalent bonds and formal charges. However, we are working on standardizing the organic chemicals infoboxes, so this discussion is quite timely.

One question about your Pyroglutamic acid image: in Image:Pyroglutamic acid.svg, you did not specify the absolute stereochemistry. Any reason to suspect it's not as it was in Image:Pidolic acid.png that was previously in the Pyroglutamic acid article? Actually looking deeper, is this compound "pyrogluatamic" or "pyroglutamic"? I see some images with each name. DMacks (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sulpiride.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sulpiride.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 05:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat Off-Topic: Regarding Battlestar Galactica units of measure...

I happened recently upon the Battlestar Galactica units article and, given it's scope and authority is tenuous at best, I was hoping either to discuss with you or perhaps be pointed in a more appropriate direction regarding a parallel discussion of how twelve such separate worlds would have possibly defined units of measure. My interest is not purely academic; I am presently working on a fanfic involving the BSG TOS universe. Please feel free to respond to this on my talk page. Thanks! Capedude2005 (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Gene vs protein

Hello, Fuzzform. You have new messages at Talk:GPI (gene).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Boghog2 (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sodium borohydride

Hi there

I noticed your recent edit, and I don't think it's the way to go. WP is not an MSDS (WP:NOT), and unless a hazard or danger is particularly notable, it shouldn't be included at all here outside of the chembox. Also, some style issues with the ALL CAPS. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Denhardt's solution

What is it? 128.197.150.180 (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is "Formvar"? (also mentioned in several articles without explanation). 128.197.150.180 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Parafon Forte

--Cssiitcic (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image sizes

Hi - thanks for adding the image. As per WP:MOS (images), please do NOT size-force any images unless there's a specific reason. Every Wikipedia user can set the default thumbnail size in his preferences, so by specifying an image at 200px, you actually make it SMALLER for people (like me) who have set the default larger. It also often ends up with an article having both size-forced and not size-forced images, which looks untidy. Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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) 14:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

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...

File:Cyclazocine.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cyclazocine.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 05:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)