FYI

File:Fipexide.png - c:commons:Deletion requests/File:Fipexide.png - now replaced by File:Fipexide.svg Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Pre-Botzinger complex

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pre-Botzinger complex , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Favonian (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to see your return Meodipt.

Thank you for the added 'isopropyl' MPH analog. That's a focus of mine recently as well, that, and squaring away the benzoyloxytropanes & phenyltropanes lists. Any help there'd be greatly appreciated. (For instance user:Edgar181 told me the section on the List of phenyltropanes page entitled "3-Substituted-isoxazol-5-yl" has some R-group substitution images are that incorrectly matched to what should be their corresponding RTI compound number. Some clean-up in that way would have me much in your debt. I also need R-group images in my tables in the List of cocaine analogues page, ones like banned user Nuklear began but did somewhat sloppily (the -OBz is cut off at the bottom of some of them, and a nitrogen is floating above it's wireframe a ways, just putting some more space around the border of those images or making the lines of the molecular skeleton go all the way to their groups would be fantastic). If you cannot be bothered with any of this that is perfectly fine, I just only glean your areas of interest from what I've seen you contribute in the past and am just trying to nudge you in fruitful pursuit that may garner your own interest (as well as my own invested interest). Regards Nagelfar (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I just added isopropylphenidate because it was a major focus of the ACMD report that proceeded these methylphenidate derivatives being banned in the UK. Those review articles are quite a mess and have been for years, it would be a big project to sort them out properly! You seem to be making a good start on cleaning them up anyway. Meodipt (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Any input or anything you notice that you can't be bothered to attend to yourself but have time to mention in passing to me, please do so. Also, anything you notice as missing I will extrapolate from the phenyltropane (first) section of S. Singh's paper. Edgar181 gave me a few numbers; so let me know if you notice which other compounds there are in that paper which aren't covered by the RTI's currently at the list, that Singh enumerated in his paper. Give the number series (e.g. - n—n) by which they're named and I will incorporate everything about them all on my own. Thanks Nagelfar (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

What (else) to do?

I undid revision 670528065 per your comment. The deletion seems unconstructive, and that's common with this user. The addition seems to just "add properly referenced synthetic routes" to Viloxazine, no? Thoughts? I just noticed that s/he asked to be unblocked recently. I'm thinking of asking that Nuklear be unblocked, say, for a trial period if s/he agrees to just "add properly referenced synthetic routes" to articles for the trial period. Update: My undo was just undone. :-( --Elvey^(t•c) 16:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Elvey. Yes, I do agree that in my opinion, User:Jytdog 's actions in deleting such encyclopedic and properly referenced material are a misapplication of policy which verges on vandalism. Per WP:REVERTBAN, edits made by a banned editor should not be reverted by default, and when they are clearly "helpful" edits such as these ones, they should be allowed to stand. Jytdog seems to have something of a long standing personal crusade against Nuklear and seems devoted to methodically deleting every contribution this banned editor has made, even when this is clearly not consistent with the overarching policy of "creating...an encyclopedia of the highest possible quality" per WP:PRINCIPLE. On the other hand though, Jytdog is coming from a strong position, again per WP:REVERTBAN there is no need to follow policy when it comes to reverting edits made by banned editors, as "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason". While I may disagree with Jytdog's openly deletionist approach (and especially his overly broad application of WP:MEDRS), he is entitled to act in this way, and Nuklear really has no leg to stand on with such an extensive history of ban evading, there is no chance he will be unblocked just for promising to behave better in future. So I don't think that simply reverting the deletions of Nuklear's adding of these synthesis sections is a good approach, and I certainly do not have the time or inclination these days to get into a wiki-war with an editor who likes to WP:LAWYER and drag people through the formal dispute resolution process. Really what needs to happen is that someone has to go through every single one of these pages where Nuklear added a properly referenced synthesis section and it was then deleted, and (i) check the reference to make sure the synthetic route is correct, (ii) write an original blurb summarising the synthesis and its relevance that does not plagarise from the sources or re-use Nuklear's wording, and (iii) re-add the synthesis diagram image after checking it for errors. The images Nuklear uploaded to commons are not considered copyvio and have mostly not been deleted, but not all of them are correct, and the blurbs he wrote to explain the image are in most cases plagarised from the reference and need to be manually re-written. Meodipt (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's super helpful. Expresses how I feel better than I could. --Elvey^(t•c) 08:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Piperacetam

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

Subject appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. While there are quite a few passing references that confirm its existence, I have somewhat surprisingly been unable to find anything that would constitute the kind of in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources that we require. Just because something exists does not mean it gets an article. I might be inclined to overlook the thin sourcing if the article actually contained any useful information. But at present it is a two sentence stub and what sources I have found offer almost nothing worth adding.

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cannabicyclohexanol.png

Could you please have a look at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cannabicyclohexanol.png? Thank you. --Leyo 19:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Have replied there. Cheers Meodipt (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

==

I'm afraid that I think that your image (shown right) displays the wrong stereochemistry. In the orientation that you've drawn it the hydrogen's should both have wedge-bonds rather than dashed. I've changed most of the related chembox data at A-366,833; if you have time could you please correct the image? Cheers --Project Osprey (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Same problem with File:A-84543_structure.png over at A-84,543; you've drawn the R rather than S isomer. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. Yep A-84543 is wrong, will draw a new image when I get time on the computer. A-366833 looks like it matches the references though, I will look into this further. Cheers Meodipt (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Right you are. Ok I will fix both of these when I get a chance. Meodipt (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)